Loading...
1974-03-13N3-13-74 (night) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 13, 1974, at 7:30 P,M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes~.' ville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. At 7:30 P.M., the Chairman called for the Annual Road Hearing as advertised in the Daily Progress on February 27 and March 6, 1974. Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, and Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Highway Engineer, were present to hear comments from the public. The following requests were received: .... (1) Gene Brown - Route 702 - from Route 29 to 2.0 miles west to Camp Holiday Trails - widen and stabilize. (2) Wayne Comer - Route 727 - length 2.90 miles from Route 627 to Route 795 - widen and stabilize. (3) Priscilla Ryboldt - Route 662 - length 2.30 miles from Route 665 to Route 600 - widen, stabilize and surface treat. (4) Catherine Witcher - Route 1204 - drainage problem since improvement to this road. At the close of the public hearing, the Board continued their discussion of a request for a restricted roads system in Ednam Forest. Mr. Humphrey said this matter had been deferred from February 13, 1974, to allow the County Attorney time to review this subdivision to ascertain if the applicant has a vested right in the development of the existing phase. The staff has only a two-day traffic count on the area lead~h~_ into the residential area. The counters are stil.1 out. The count on the road where it crosses~the lake into the residential area, averaged on 24 hours, is 538 vehicles per day. Mr. Humphrey said one of the counters had malfunctioned. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Warner if Mr. Rogan had discussed with him the possibility of installing another entrance onto Route 250 to take care of the additonal roads requested for this new section of Ednam Forest. Mr. Warner said he had not discussed the possibility of any other locations. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Stroud if he had not stated at the last meeting that this had been discussed with highway department officials. Mr. Rogan said he had made that statement, however, this was several years ago. At that time, the highway department did not want another entrance at the bottom of the curve on Route 250 because they felt this was too dangerous. Mr. Warner asked if he were speaking about the entrance back toward town. Mr. Rogan -said it was the one across from Gulf Oil Company. Mr~ Fisher said the last time the Board had discussed this matter, the number of vehicle trips per day the new part of the subdivision would produce was estimated at about 400. He asked what sort of road surface, road width, etc., a road carrying this traffic load would require. Mr. Warner said he would guess this to be somewhere 3-13-74 (Nigh%) near eight inches of stone base and surface treated or equivalent plant mix surface and a minimum of 22 feet of pavement. Mr. Fisher asked if in addition to that they would need to have drainage structures and slopes. Mr. Warner said yes, and paved ditch where dictated by the grade. Mr. Henley asked Mrs. Warner if he had reviewed this matter to see if another entrance is feasible. Mr. Warner said where Wellington comes out onto Route 250, this was considered, at-one time, because of the site distance toward the west. Mr. Stroud Said approximately 15 years ago, three difference entrances were discussed. One was at ITT, one was the existing entrance, and the other is the one now referred to. It was his understanding that the highway department did not want to have an extra entrance at the.bottom of the curve, so this has never been considered. Mr. Warner said the site distance on this curve is about as good as anN to be found on Route 250. There is actually more site distance to the east than at the present entrance. Mr. Fisher said the basic question that the Board is facing is not another entrance, but whether or not the Board will approve another 59 lots on restricted roads using the entrance that now exists. He asked Mr. 'St. John for a report on his investigation of this matter. Mr. St. John said he had reviewed the history of this project from materials furnished by Mr. Stroud. These materials were gathered from the newspaper morgue, the County's files and Mr. Rogan's files. Section 1 was originally approved in 1959. The subdivision-plan first came to the Planning Commission in 1960. Section 1 was the only section actually approved at that time, however, a preliminary plan of the entire projected development was presented. The Ultimate plan, with restricted roads, was before the Planning Commission when Section 1 was approved. Mr. St. John said the approval given at that time has quite a bit of effect on the position of the developers at the present time. He did not like to treat this matter as a matter of vested interest because of the question of highway safety. He said a Vested interest can fall before a question of public safety, if this is really going to create a hazard to the public. Mr. St. John did feel that the developer has a commitment from the County to proceed with the plan basically as presented in the first instance. This does not mean that reasonable changes cannot be made as the need for them is seen as the developer prOceeds from section to section. The Board can impose additional conditions as long as they are not unreasonable. Anything that would amount to confiscation would be unreasonable unless it is based strictly on the fact that the Board forsees a h&zard. There is another problem. Even if the Board requires a second entrance, the highway department will not accept the roads in this new Section 5, even if they are built to state specifications, because they do not connect to a road in the state system. There is no way that they can have an outlet on Route 250 3-13-74 (Night) without widening and changing the curvature of ~existing roads in Ednam Forest. this Mr. St. John-said/restricted road system may result in chuck holes and pose an inconvenience to the people in the future, but it was his opinion that Unless approval of these restricted roads would constitute an absolute danger to lives, th~at the developer has what amounts to a vested right, although, he did not like. to use this term. Mr. St. John felt the developer has a right to develop Section 5 since it would be unreasonable to keep him from doing s0. He did not see any way the developer can build roads to be taken into the state system unless a completely unreasonable burden is placed on him and the la~downers who abut the present roads. He felt that any other course of action taken by the Board could probably b.e overturned in a proceeding before the C~rcuit Court. Mr. Carwile ~asked the Planning Commission's recommendations. M~. Humphrey again stated those conditions previously set oust in the minutes of February 13, 1974. He said that the Planning Commission in approving this request did not consider the present policy for cross sections feeling that this policy should not apply to this case. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission was recommending that the Board approve additional roads which are substandard and can never be taken into the state system and thus compound the existing situation. Mr. Humphrey said they had so recommended. They felt that a precedent had been set over the years. Mr. Fisher asked if there are more lots which were approved 14 years ago tkat are still binding on the Board. Mr. St. John said he, had asked that same.question of Mr Stroud and Mr. Rogan and was told that this approval would use~the total amount of land available to the developer. ~_ Mr. Thacker asked Mr. St. John if the Board approved these restricted roads, if tha Boa.rd had a right to~ rsquire that these roads be built to state highway standards even if they cannot be taken into the system. Mr. St. John said the Board could so require such standards for the new roads. Mr. Thacker said there is a possibility that at some point in the future, an adjacent subdivision will be constructed that would have state-maintained roads and at that point these roads in Ednam Forest might possibly be accepted into the system. Mr. Humphrey said there is a provision in the new subdivision ordinance which requires that they comply with state highwaY standards or the county standards which have been adopted. Mr. Thacker said the present roads comply with no standards. Mr. Humphrey said apparently this requirement was waived years ago~ Mr. Carwile said the county has no standards for a road of this traffic count or this number of lots. Mr. Thacker said it has no standards for restricted road,s serving over 10 parcels. Mr. St.--John said the Board can require that any given road be built to a reasonable specification. Mr~ Wheeler said he had been listening to Mr. St. John's advice, but he felt that overloading roads gives this Board justification to deny this request. The Board 3-13-74 (Night) had not received a traffic count for the commercial part of the road and it is very narrow. Mr. St~. John said if the Board feels that life-is at stake, they have a right to deny the request based on that fact. However, there is such. a thing as disrepair of roads and that. constitutes a nuisance. He did not think this can be denied on the grounds that it will cause someone annoyance. Mr..Fisher said he is very concerned about this problem. The Board had asked for a traffic count on both the entrance and the residential section. They did not have both of these. He asked that the Board be furnished more information and wait until Thursday, March 21, 1974, to vote on this question. Mr. Wood said if the Board was going to delay this again he would like to hear from the residents of Ednam~Forest who were present. He. said they live there and know whether there is a danger to life. He said that he travels by the entrance to Ednam Forest almost every ~day and goes back into Ednam For~est on some occasions. Mr. H.~L. Brown said he would like to support, wha~ Mr. Rogan had said about the highway department not wanting a second entrance. He had ridden over .the roads with Mr. Coates and .he had confirmed Mr. Rogan's statement that it was not desirable to have a second entrance at the bottom of the hill on the curve. Mr. Brown said he had no expertise on the loading or overloading of the roads. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Warner if there are any roads in the CountH which are only 18 feet .wide a~d ~have a vehicle-trip-per-day count of 900. Mr. Warner said yes. Mr. Rogan felt the County had had ,ample ~time to studH this situation. He said ~ he had laid ~pen all his records and said that he would do anything that the County wants him %ode~. He.said it is costing a tremendous amount~of money each month that this subdivision cannot be Started. It has been a whole year getting th~s approved ~while ~the County imposed a moratorium on restricted roads. He said a traffic count is taken from time to time and hs would have gotten those records together if somebody had asked ~him, but nobody did. M~. Thacker asked Mr. Humphrey why he .had not received approval to ~have .the counters placed until last ~hursday. Mr. Humphrey said the day after the Board deferred this matter he contacted Mr. Stroud in order to obtain permission. Mr. Rogan was out of town and Mr. St~oud felt permission should be obtained frqm Mr. Rog~an,. Mr. Thacker said it would seem that this delay was not entirely the County's fault. Mr. ~Fisher felt the question of the traffic at the entrance to Ednam Forest and the Boar's Head Inn, the Sport's Club, Ednam Village and all the business there has a great deal to do with whethe~ or not the~Board is willing to add 400 or more vehicle trips per day on that road without it's affecting '~-~ public safety and welfare. He was concerned that if the.Board~allowed .this the problem will exist to perpetuity and the Board will have created difficulties for many people. Mr. St. ,John said he still did not understand if the objection is that there is no guarantee of perpetual maintenance or if there is a fear that the roads as 3-13-74 (Night) they are designed are not safe for that vol~e of traffic. He said these are different questions. Mr. Wheeler said the traffic has got to go through that one entrance and the question is how much traffic that one narrow entrance road can handle. Mr. St~ John said the design standards are a legitimate concern. Mr. Fisher said if the problem is not solved now, it will never be solved. Mr. Batchelor suggested that the staff could use some help from Mr. Rogan in obtaining .the traffic count. He said for this to be very meaningful the counter should be read every one-half hour. Mr, Fisher did not feel it was reasonable to have someone read the counter each one-half hour. Mr. Batchelor said ~his would indicate when the traffic is there and how much is there at any given time. Mr. Fisher said the Board is talking about vehicle trips per day and it is a twenty- four hour day. Mr. Batchelor said if it all happens in one hour that is one thing. If it is spread out in different periods, that would seem~to be another matter. Mr. Humphrey said the staff could check the counters once in the morning and once in the afternoon and note at what time the count is taken. Mr. Wheeler said this would'be sufficient. Mr. Henley said not a single resident had come before the Board to oppose this and he felt the Board might as well go ahead and follow the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Rogan said no traffic count will be very meaningful unless it is broken down by the hour.and by months. He said no traffic count between now and next Thursday will mean a great deal since this is not the time of year when there is a heavy traffic count. This comes during Garden Week or when there is a party. Mr. Rogan said if it turns out to be a 600 or 700 per day count, and if the Board is going to be honest about this, let them get an honest count or one that means someth±ng, He felt the Board was holding up approval for some other reason. Mr. Fisher said if it turns out that the vehicle count is 2000 per day on that section of road, it will be plain evidence that the road is not designed for that amount of traffic. Mr. Henley said he hated to vote for something like this because it went against what he really felt was right. He was upset when Mr. Rogan had stated at the previous meeting that the roads were built to a standard where they can never be taken into. the state system. Mr. Rogan said they had done this on purpose because they wanted private roads. They were told, at the time, that this was alright. They did'whatever they were told to do at the time and now the County has changed their policy. Mr. Fisher offered motion to delay action on this request until Thursday, March 21, so ~he Board can obtain the ~best traffic counts in order to determine 3-13-74 fNight) whether or not the Board feels there is a traffic hazard with the existing roads. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. The next item under discussion was a request for an additional subdivision along an~existing restricted road.at Ridgefield, located near Bedford Hills off of Route 732 and ~shown on plat of William S. Roudabush, Jr., dated January, 1974. The additional subdivision will increasa four parcels to six. It was ascertained that no one was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Humphrey said they had been notified.by letter on February 20 of this meeting. Motion to defer any action on this request was offered by Mr~ Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: .... AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Also received was a request from J, Robert Mahoney for a restricted road to serve five parcels, located off Route 53 near Nix, and shown on plat of William S. Roudabu~sh, Jr., File No. 4018, dated September 19, 1973. Mr. Humphrey said this is a request for a 50-foot wide restricted road extending from Route 53 some 1431 feet to the property in question. The division of lots represents about five parcels which range in size from six to twelve acres. The Pla~nning Commission, at their February-18, 1974 meeting, approved the request for restricted roads, with the stipulation that there is to be no further subdivision on without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Fisher asked if that implied there would be a homeowners association, etc. Mr. Humphrsy said yes. Mr. Batchelor said that Mr. St. John has suggested to Mr. Humphrey and himself, and they had discussed this in detail on yesterday, that the previous conditions on private roads be changed from incorporation to deed restrictions. Mr. St. John had said the same thing can be accomplished in a much easier and more lasting way in this manner. He asked Mr. St. John to comment and said they would ask that the Board go back and apply those same standards to the roads that have recently been approved. Mr. Wheeler said he did not feel that it is proper to have requests submitted for roads and then for the county to change the standards after these have been approved. He said if the Board is going to change the way restricted roads are being handled, they should make that change on anything that preceeds this time. Mr. Batchelor said the standards would not be changed, but the process. Mr. Humphrey said there is a problem since incorporation of the homeowners association is not worthwhile for a small number of lots. Mr. St. John said they were not suggesting that the standards be changed. Mr. Wheeler asked if they were suggesting 3-'13-74 (night) deed restrictions instead of a homeowners assQ'ciation. Mr. St. John said that was correct. Mr. Wheeler said he felt that-deed restrictions are completely inadequate. He will not support restricted roads unless there is a homeowners association. He said if this is not worthwhile, there should be no restricted roads. He said this could be discussed at length, but it would not get his support. Mr. St. John said everytime a request for a restricted road is received at the Planning office it is forwarded to him for his review of the documents that must accompany such requests. A lot of attorneys do not realize that there must not only be a homeowners association, but it ha~s to be sent to Richmond to the State Corporation Commission to be incorporated. Several times recently he has told these attorneys that there must be a set of by-laws of the corporation and a corporate charter. He has spent much time in drafting these items and it has been brought home to him that the Board is not really going to accomplish what they desire by these instruments. Several times, before the attorney knew that a corpcration must be formed, he had drawn up a set of deed restrictions, which by the face of them in the deed book, would require a homeowners association, but would not require that it be incorporated. When asked why this must be~incorporated, he could not explain the advantage. He said since the Board was only going to allow restricted roads for 10 or less dwelling units there would be subdivisions of four or five lots in the outlying areas of the County and most would be outside of the urban area. There would be a bunch of people living on this roads, no one of whom is going to take the responsibility to send off each year a corporate report, which is required, and pay the cost of the franchise tax. Therefore, the corporation would be defunct and in two years those same people would be coming to the Board for help. Mr. Carwile said the corporation could be reinstated. Mr. St. John said yes, but the Board could accomplish the same thing by. simply putting ina deed restriction that everybody has to pay his share of the road maintenance. A majority of those living on the road could decide what repairs should be made and access the necessary funds for such repair. This would be a lien on all the lots. If this were in a deed restriction, he could see no advantage to the formality of incorporation. Mr. St. John said he did not know if he were right about this, ~but he thought it was a matter which should be brought to the Board's ~attention. Mr. Carwile said at the time the Restricted Roads Committee was considering this they felt that the incorporated homeowners assocation would give the possibility of a more centralized management in the decision making~process, rather than a majority of the homeowners in the subdivision getting together to make the decision with respect to road maintenance and road. repairs. He did not see the requirement for incorporation being that difficult. ?¸8 3-13-74 (Night) Mr. Wheeler said when a prospective purchaser buys a piece of land and he is told at the closing that he must join a homeowners association, and must pay dues each year, then he is made aware that he must participate in the upkeep of the roads. If he is just told that there is a deed restriction, this is forgotten. He said he spoke from experience. Mr. Fisher said he lives in a situation where there are deed restrictions. There have been problems in trying to improve the roads or bring them to standards because there must be essentially 100% participation, not just a majority. He said there is no way that this will ever happen. Mr. St. John said that was a defect in the deed restriction. Mr. Fisher said that may be correct, however, for the past four years these homeowners have been trying to get incorporated so they can resolve these problems. Mr. St. John said if there is a group of five families, who is going to be the treasurer for the dues, and who is going to undertake responsibility as the treasurer. Mr. Wheeler said he did not think, this matter could be settled tonight. He said if the defunct road committee would like to draw up some deed restrictions that that Board could cOnsider, it would be alright, however, he was going to hold his options open. He said that the Board owed it to Mr. Mahoney to take up his request under the conditions that the Board has at the present, time. Mr. St. John said that would require a corporation. Mr. Wheeler said he could accept or not accept that condition if he wanted approval. There was an attorney present to represent Mr. Mahoney. He said Mr. Mahoney h~as a deed restriction prepared and will form a corporation if that is what the Board requires. Mr. Thacker offered motion to approve as recommended by the Planning Commission, subject to restricted roads policy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, 'Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that a special appropriation of $118,450.27 be, and the same hereby is, made from the General Capital Outlay Fund and transferred to the General Fund for repayment of tax refunds due clients in the Perkins case, said refunds ordered by the Judge of the Circuit Court. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Gerald Miller, Director of Community 'Development for the City of Charlottes- ville, and Miss Brenda Burton, were present to further explain a request for the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle to apply to be prime sponsors 3-13-74 (Night) of manpower programs for this area. Mr. Miller said the comprehensive employment and training act was signed into law on December 28, 1973, and implementation on the part of the Department of Labor is already underway. He said the Department hopes to provide all of fiscal year 1975 funding in accordance with the provisions of the Act in much the same way as revenue sharing. This was done to provide greater authority to locally elected officials in determining how they would like to spend manpower monies. Essentially this will provide a block grant of funds to · jurisdictions designated as prime sponsors. Cities of over 100,000 automatically become prime sponsors. The City/County w©uld.apply for two reasons; (1) that this is the center of a labor market region, and while it has low unemployment, there is significant underemployment, and (2) this is the center of a labor market that is essentially rural. If the Board approves this request tonight, a letter would be sent to the Philadelphia office stating that Charlottesville and Albemarle are the two largest jurisdictions in the region and they have an interest in becoming prime sponsors. This would only ask the Department of Labor to allow Charlottesville- Albemarle to take the next step. The amount of money that would be available is hard to ascertain. Planning Districts 9 and 10 have a single committee, composed dominately of agency people, and they will split $625,000. The '75 allocation for this area might be half of that amount. There would be no matching requirement for the City and County. If they should be designated as prime sponsors, they could recoup administrative costs out of the grant. Mr. Miller said by allowing the County Executive to sign this letter, the Board was not binding itself to anything. Even after a memorandum of agreement is signed, if the County does not feel they are getting their share of manpower monies, they could pull out at any time. Mr. Thacker said he felt this was a fine opportunity to fund this on a local level and he would support investigating the matter further. Mr. Wood offered motion to authorize the County Executive to sign the letter asking that the City/County be designated as prime sponsors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. At 9:25 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adjourn this meeting until 3:00 P.M. on March 20, 1974, in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Chairman