Attachment “B”

 

General Description of Round 4 ACE Properties

 

 

1.      Colombini Property (157.898 acres) - the Colombini property has long frontage on the Rivanna River approximately 4 miles northeast of Charlotteville.  Most of the land is represented by fertile bottomland and steep, northfacing bluffs along the Rivanna River.  An additional upland parcel is contiguous to the Redbud subdivision.  The property is important because of its tremendous conservation and recreational value, particularly the bottomland parcels which contain an old carriage trail and bluffs along the river with unique plant communities and possible habitat for the James spiny mussel, an endangered species.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >8,000 feet of common boundary with other parcels under easement; 2) it has 116 acres of “prime” farmland soils; 3) it has 7,200 feet along the Rivanna River; 4) it has plants and plant communities listed on the natural heritage inventory and; 5) the tract lies in the Southwest Mountains Historic District.  Score: 37.24 points (preliminary total).

 

2.      Brian Scruby Property (101.499 acres) - the Scruby property consists of three separate parcels of land in the western part of Albemarle County – two in Greenwood (near Mirador) and another along Dick Woods road.  I-64 divided one of the Greenwood parcels into nearly equal halves. Connected to each of these parcels is land owned by Brian’s brother Tim. Though the parcels together have good conservation value, particularly if both brother’s land is put under easement, their physical configuration makes it problematic for future sale or conveyance.  To adhere to our protocol of 1 development lot/100 acres means all three (though physically separate) parcels must convey as one.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >3,000 feet of common boundary with another parcel under easement; 2) it has nearly 2,550 feet of road frontage on I-64, a major entrance corridor; 3) the tract lies within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir and; 4) it has 93 acres of “prime” farm and forestland..  Score: 27.72 points (preliminary total).

 

3.      Henry Page Property (558.900 acres) - the Page property is located on the eastern flank of Taylor’s Mountain, approximately 10 miles southwest of Charlottesville.  It consists of rolling farmland, forested mountainland and over 11,000 feet of wooded stream buffer, established by the CREP program.  If this buffer were permanently protected under an ACE easement, Mr. Page would score an additional 11 points from the ranking evaluation.  Though he currently plans to gift the property to the Virginia Department of Forestry through a revocable trust (for forestry research), an easement would guarantee the protection of the property from future development.  Since the tract has no road frontage and a 30 foot right-of-way, County zoning regulations would limit development to five development lots.  Though this could substantially reduce the value/cost of an easement, Mr. Page is not put off by this issue.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) it is a very large tract of land; 2) it contains 250 acres of “prime” farmland; and 3) the property has 39 acres of ridgetop for “mountaintop protection”.  Score: 25.13 points

 

4.      Daniel Bieker Property (105.440 acres) - the Bieker property lies on the eastface of Cook Mountain near the town of North Garden.  Except for the lowest footslopes, most of the property is wooded mountainland.  Since much of the terrain is fairly steep, it is not overly conducive to development.  Furthermore, one must cross a railroad track to access the property.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would protect 4,300 feet of stream with a 100 foot wide buffer; 2) the property has 66 acres of ridgetop for “mountaintop protection”; 3) the owner depends on income produced from the land; and 4) an easement would eliminate 7 usable development rights.  Score: 19.57 points

 

5.       James Shifflett Property (61.600 acres) - the Shifflett property lies on the northside of Lick Mountain along SR 810 near Boonesville.  Though it is only 61.600 acres, the wooded and fairly mountainous property scores from a variety of criteria, the most important of which may be the threat of loss due to economic hardship.  The forced sale of this property would spell the end to 3 generations of ownership by the Shifflett family.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >1,700 feet of common boundary with other parcels under easement; 2 the property has 16 acres of ridgetop for “mountaintop protection”; 3) it lies within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir; and 4) the parcel is threatened by economic hardship.  Score: 19.40 points

 

6.       Samuel Hill Property (145.210 acres) - the Hill property lies just west of Scottsville in an area where large working farms are surrounded by dense clusters of development.  Since the farm is severely threatened by future development, it has great conservation value. Nearly all of the property consists of highly productive farmland in the Totier Creek watershed.  Mr. Hill farms this property and another he owns in nearby Buckingham County.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property lies within the watershed of the Totier Creek Reservoir; 2) it has 55 acres of “prime” farmland; 3) it has over 1,800 feet of frontage on a Route 20, a state scenic highway and major entrance corridor; 4) the owner depends on the property to provide income; and 5) an easement would eliminate 9 usable development rights.  Score: 17.50 points

 

7.      Tim & Alice Scuby Property (106.255 acres) – like his brother Brian’s property, this property consists of three physically separate parcels - one in Greenwood (near Mirador) and two along Dick Woods road. Connected to each of these parcels is land owned by Brian Scruby.  Though the parcels together have good conservation value, their physical configuration makes them problematic for future sale or conveyance.  To adhere to our protocol of 1 development lot/100 acres means all three (though physically separate) parcels must convey as one.  The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would eliminate 11 development rights; 2) it has nearly 1,757 feet of road frontage on I-64, a major entrance corridor; 3) the tracts lie within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir and; 4) they have 101 acres of “prime” farm and forestland.  Score: 16.40 points (preliminary total).

 

 

Return to executive summary