Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority (ACEA) Meeting   7/9/2026

James, we good?

All right, we are in session for July 9th, ACA meeting.

Any matter of question on the agenda?

Assuming everybody has a chance to look over the minutes.

Motion to approve.

Do you have 11 minutes?

Discussion?

All in favor?

All right.

Minutes approved.

Thank you.

We have one donation proposal tonight.

The applicant, Chris McLean, is here with us and presumably happy to take any questions.

But I'll give a brief presentation beforehand.

The property in question is just outside of Charlottesville and Barracks Road.

You can see it's just to the north of Bellfield is here off the bypass.

Just beyond this on the right is the Mennonite Market just before Barracks Road becomes Garth Road.

Interestingly, it is

in both the development area and the rural area.

You're welcome.

I have been there.

And because it's in the development area, it's zoned R1.

instead of zoned RA, which is what we're used to seeing.

R1 means one dwelling unit per acre.

We think because of the significant critical slopes, they couldn't do the full 32 dwellings.

But we think it's reasonable that someone could buy it and put in 15 to 20 dwellings there, ignoring the potential for a rezoning act by the board in the future.

So it's, yes, detached.

So this proposal we've said would eliminate approximately 15 to 20 dwellings.

I need to make a correction here to this bottom item.

When I first worked on this proposal, I was under the impression there was only one dwelling, and the applicant was asking for the right to build a second dwelling, which would mean it doesn't meet the minimum standard, and staff would recommend denial later on.

I discovered that there is a second dwelling above the garage.

There's a garage apartment that has a full kitchen, bath, bedroom that counts as a full dwelling.

So there are two dwellings on the property and they would like to reserve the right to have two dwellings.

I believe they want to replace the garage apartment with something else, but I'll let Chris talk more about that.

So that no is now a yes.

My apologies for getting that wrong.

To talk a bit more about the development area, rural area issue.

You'll see the colorful areas here, the yellows, blues and greens.

That's the development area boundary.

You see yellow says in the comp plan this should be neighborhood density residential.

So that's in the comp plan listed for development.

The blue section is a kind of leftover from the 29 Bypass project.

This was the route when that was proposed.

So it's listed as institutional.

It would likely be a mix of park and green systems and neighborhood density residential now.

And the green area is Parks and Green Systems.

So although it's in the development area, that's listed as to be protected as natural resources that should be preserved.

Most of that is wooded critical slopes.

So because there are conflicting goals in the comp plan for this parcel, it wasn't a simple case of saying a conservation easement is consistent with comprehensive plan.

We needed to take it to the Planning Commission

which has the power to say one way or another yes, no.

Is it compliant with the comprehensive plan?

So in December, they reviewed this and because of the significant green area in the development area section, they ruled that an easement would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.

So you don't have to worry about that.

So getting on to more regular business, the values on the property include

About 20 acres in a mountain protection area highlighted here in orange.

Essentially the property is that whole mountain protection area.

It's Stillhouse Mountain.

It has frontage on an entrance corridor.

It's also visible from at least one scenic byway that I've confirmed.

Chris has said that it's visible from a lot more.

I'm not sure it matches how many scenic byways it's visible from.

I've confirmed that it is visible from Garth Road.

The blue line that cuts across here, this is the development area boundary.

It's also the watershed boundary.

So everything to the north of it, north and west, is in watershed.

And the areas in gray are critical slopes.

So there's significant steep slopes on the property.

Turning those into a proposal,

We have this.

There would be no subdivisions allowed.

As I mentioned, two dwellings permitted, the existing main large house and the small garage apartment or their replacements.

Their replacements would need to be in the building envelope, the yellow area here in the center.

The proposal also includes a 400-foot setback where no structures over 50 square feet would be permitted.

And to protect the critical slopes, the proposal includes restrictions to say no clearing for agriculture.

And although commercial forestry is permitted, there would be no clear-cutting permitted.

And I just wanted to highlight the building envelope because this was a change that I sent around yesterday.

We were trying to get a building envelope that represented the locations the landowner wished to build, possibly, but avoided as much critical slope as possible.

You'll see it does include some areas of critical slope here in the back.

Chris says they're not actually that steep, or at least some of them are not that steep.

It's very possible that this critical slope map is incorrect.

In any case, they wouldn't be allowed to build anything on those slopes.

per county zoning unless they first proved that they're not slopes of 25% or greater.

Are the DPLOs existing structures?

Yes, this is the main dwelling, the garage, and a few accessory buildings.

Yes, this is Ward Tower.

So there is a utility easement extending to the southeast and then up to Barracks Road.

And there's an access easement along this driveway here.

I think that is everything.

Yep, the proposal meets the acceptance criteria.

So staff recommends approval.

And I'm happy to take any questions.

The still is, right?

That's, yeah, and it was done by my parents, so I actually don't know the details.

But I assume that the 15, sorry, the 21 acres of cars, at least that qualifies.

So the garage apartment has some structure issues.

And it's also a 1930s garage, so it's not very tall.

You can't get cart in it currently.

I thought you had a Maserati.

No.

No.

Yeah, and honestly, there's no plan to do anything, but we wanted to give our, my wife's in-laws, the option of building there.

I don't think they would ever do that, but there's no plan.

There's also no money to do anything with it, but it seemed reasonable to have something besides the

the garage apartment that literally you can see through down through the concrete floor into the lower double underneath the garage.

I think this is great.

Obviously, I've been thinking about this for 10 years so far, at least with your mother.

But I'm just wondering, I think it's generally, as you pointed out, bad form to have

unbuildable areas that are allegedly targeted for protection within the building envelope.

So is there a reason not to move the building envelope on the northeast bit that's just above the swing of the driveway there?

Do you mean

Well, you'd have to go straight because you've got a building right there, but just kind of follow the lines.

You take the very east-west bit of the driveway and shoot it straight across to avoid.

I think the odd little marginal bit, okay, if it's hard to get it out, but that bit is on the edge.

And so we proposed that version, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Yes.

Just my knowledge of the property is that kind of where the cursor is straight back to the left corner, front corner of the Water Tower property is not steep.

So I would just

I'm fine to say if there's critical slope there we wouldn't build on it but to exclude it because the map says it's critical slope is challenging.

The

The place that would make sense to put a new garage in or new garage slash, when James and I talked about it, the little building in the back.

It's a former equipment shed that is now a couple of stalls as well.

To the west and

Okay.

With an amendment of that sort, I would

Is that a motion?

That's a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Is there further discussion?

There's a debate about what's been slow in place.

Right.

But it has a vaguely improper feel to it from an easement point of view.

And you'll forgive me for being that sort of person.

You don't want the Internal Revenue Service to look at something and say, these are the areas that the donor organization said it wants to protect.

and yet those are exactly the areas you've outlined for building.

This is the sort of thing that the IRS sets its hook into.

And nobody likes the feel of that hook, whether it be the landowner or the donor organization whose credibility can get challenged in the worst of times.

If it's in fact critical slopes, I was just hoping we could cut across there.

If there's an error in the map and it's important to fix it, then maybe we could fix it.

But one way or another, if we could resolve that conflict, at least other than in a sort of de minimis perspective.

Like you've got that little business south.

It's in the middle of the donut, you know?

It's raining.

It's nice.

The lawyer in me wants to speak.

I think it would be better if you'll sort out, if there's a sort of compromise having to do with that northerly bit,

Is that fine if we moved it to there?

from there to the north and west.

Yeah, because it looks like there's clearing and then woods to the left, like to the right of the cursor, it looks like it's woods.

It's all woods.

Yeah, I think there's obviously you're going to want to leave the building that's in there in.

It was a good building spot once.

It probably would be a good building spot again.

If you can get it out, great.

If not, you know, if it's really, really steep, there's no reason to have it in a building envelope.

It is shown as critical slope only.

But she's trying to say, well, let's not have it become an issue in the IRS.

I mean, I think right there, I'm not going to be sitting here looking for reasons to be that way.

You've got right where the cursor is right now.

I think it's very unusual to see donut holes

Building Envelopes.

That's not what I was recommending.

I was recommending just deal with the little northerly bit there.

Yeah, but I think it just it has more you really then have to go out and make absolutely sure that every single bit is

is really 20% or whatever it is.

Is it 20%?

25%.

25%.

Maybe there are some mistakes in the map.

Anyway, I was trying to sort of not be too draconian about it, so I was just worried about that northerly bit.

If everybody's happy to cut out that interior place where your little red cursor is, that's fine.

It's close to the building, I just don't know.

I feel like by saying what is, by taking out the critical slopes, you suggested that you might end up with more or less also, you know, that we need to leave latitude there in saying that these aren't, we acknowledge that these might not actually be the critical slopes.

of figuring out if you did want to do something back there.

And it says it's critical slope here now.

Sarita goes out there and says it's not.

Do it.

But then we've taken it out of the building and stepped backwards.

Well, it's the authority, I mean.

I certainly would spend more time on this.

I think if you can make it work a little better, but nobody knows you.

That's not transmitted to the IRS.

They're going to still look at that and say, there's a building area, overlays.

It still says that, even if you take that top corner of them.

I mean, you can say, well, you've done something.

Well, that doesn't go in correctly.

I think it would be less

Clear.

I think if you leave it the way it is, it's a little bit confrontational, as it were.

I'd be surprised if you would get a challenge with an interior section being in a building envelope.

But who knows?

The IRS is an odd creature.

But even if you just say you want to be a donor organization that does what it should,

I think having a minimal amount of either critical slopes or wetland or whatever the resource of the moment might be within your building area is good.

I mean, we often are trimming building areas.

If we've got a big river here and a building area here, we trim them so that we don't have overlap.

So it just strikes me as a good practice.

Yeah.

I'm looking for a second.

We have a second.

Okay.

Let me get this vote on.

I mean, my proposal, my amendment, sorry, not my amendment, because you didn't ask it be amended.

Thanks.

And Sharon, you seconded it?

Have we discussed?

All in favor?

Opposed?

Thank you guys.

I mean, I can show you that this is, I'm not sure, James, that I've seen this good a version of this as I guess Scott worked on this.

And then James can- My hope would be staff and the landowner would sort this out.

We don't see us again.

Does that work for you all?

So, yeah, I don't feel completely confident knowing what you would

It's all I am.

Yeah, if you feel comfortable, James.

You all can look about if you see an area that is clearly not critical slope that's in there, simply document it near baseline report saying this area was classified as critical slopes, but upon field investigation, we see it isn't.

And for that reason, it's still in here.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, I know.

I'm glad you finished.

We've got three or four more easements as well.

Can you do an easement in Green County?

Sure, what the heck?

I mean, technically you can, and there's

No, but it's on the Swiftron River, which comes into Rivanna.

I'm not aware of any instance in which this authority has taken an easement outside of Albemarle County.

We haven't done it, although it's been talked about.

There was some project in

Okay.

No, I thought we had actual authority to do it, although I'm not familiar with it.

Thank you.

Oh, please, shut.

Shut.

I move that the alcohol oxidation easement 40 convene closed meeting pursuant to section 2.2-3711A, 3rd Virginia, under subsection 8, consult with legal counsel regarding specific legal matters.

Could you carry on, Jay?

Sorry.

There needs to be a second followed by a roll call.

Yes.

Roll call.

Director Buttrick?

Aye.

Director Emmitt?

Aye.

I move that the Albemarle Conservation Easement Authority certified by a recorded vote that's the best of each member's knowledge from public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act identified in the motion authorizing the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or considered closed.

Do I have a second?

Director Emmitt?

Aye.

Director Merrick?

Aye.

Director Moses?

Aye.

Okay.

Anything you did?

Any poll?

Can I ask my usual annual question as to how we're doing with monitoring and what's become of the money that comes from the Department of Taxation for that purpose?

Yes, we have received money this year from VLCF and so I expect there'll be an agenda item next meeting to do the regular allocation.

Yeah, we need to know, like, you know, how many easements are we monitoring?

How many years go by before we monitor each one?

I mean, not each one, but, you know, roughly speaking, are we on a three-year plan or what?

Have we hired anybody this summer to help you?

So I can tell you that Montana Locher, used to be Montana Hill, is still our field monitor.

Well, that's good.

I mean, something's happening.

Yes.