Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-12-15ADecember 15, 1976 (Afternoon Meeting) 00I An adjourned meeting of the A~bemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on December 15, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from December 8, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrierl, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive;!Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney~ and Mr. Robert Tucker, County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 2:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Acquisition of Property. At the request of the Chairman, motion was Offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session with the School Board to discuss acquisition of property. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher~ Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 3:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Service Roads. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter, as set out below, from Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer for the Department of Highways and Transportation, stating their position on service roads. "December 13, 1976 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Sheffield Road, West Leigh Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -Dear Mr. Fisher: It has been several months since I had the pleasure to meet with you and the other Supervisors relative to the Route 29 North service road issue. In that time both your people and I have received additional information and opinions relative to the governing bodies' responsibility in land planning and development, and what powers they possess to insure implementation of a plan. As I have previously stated to you, it is my opinion that the traveling public and also the citizens of Albemarle County will benefit if the "service road" concept is adhered to along the major highway corridors of the County. I feel that the additional information received, especially the replies from Mr. Rust, Fairfax County Attorney, and Ms. Prillaman, Assistant Attorney General, supports my belief that you, as the governing body of the County, do have the responsibility and the power for comprehensive planning and the implementation of the adopted plan. It is realized that your attorney, Mr. St. John, does not share my views relative to your legal position. It would appear that his opinion is based entirely on the "James City" case. While I have the highest regard for Mr. St. John and respect him immensely for standing by his strong convictions relative to thi's entire subject, I would like to convey several thoughts that I have formulated about the difference in the "James City" case and the situation we face in Albemarle County. They are as follows: e The James City County Board of Supervisors created a new zoning category (B-2 - Business Tourist Entry District) and rezoned fifty-one small parcels of land adjacent to 1.4 miles of Route between Williamsburg and Busch Gardens. This rezoning took place without the concurrence of nor at the request of the property owners. The area along Route 60 was the only location in which the new zoning category was applied. This alone was discriminatory as it was later proven that two other entrances to the Tourist Entry Zone which had been established carried higher volumes of traffic, and equal requirements were not placed on these routes. The ordinance, as written, had several requirements that were obviously unconstitutional, i.e., the requirement for construction and dedication of a service drive to public use, and at the same time, requiring the property owner to perform the every-day maintenance of the facility. We all realize that the developers could not be held responsible for the maintenance of public property. The ordinance was poorly written. In my review of the "James City" case I cannot find where the courts ruled on the legality of the dedications of rights of way or construction of roadway facilities. I believe Ms. Pri!laman confirmed this in her letter to Mr. St. John. 00. December 15~ 1976 (After~_~_~~_= At the time, James City County did not have an adopted Cbm~henS~ve Pt~.--:A~m~e~om~$~ ~e~ have an adopted plan requiring service roads along major transportation corridors. In summation, I feel that the Code of Virginia dictates that the governing body of the county prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan which will include an adequate transportation plan. Further, that once such a plan is officially adopted, no development plan should be approved until it conforms with the adopted comprehensive plan. I cannot believe the members of the General Assembly intended to burden the local governments with these responsibilities without also intending to provide the necessary legal tools to carry out the implementation and necessary police powers for enforcement. As you can readily see, this subject is very important to me personally, and I have strong convictions, as does Mr. St. John. The interest you and your Board are taking in transportation matters and how they affect Albemarle County is commendable. I appreciate your taking the time to read and evaluate my thoughts, and I hope they may have been helpful to you and your colleagues in coming to a decision. Very truly yours, (Signed) D. B. Hope, District Engineer" Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer, was present. must include a transportation plan. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Roudabush was uncertain if the service road concept can ever be accomplished since implementation of the concept would be fragmentary. Small operations would be required to spend large sums of money on something which may never be accomplished. He said problems exist with operations that are already developed. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said this would be dependent on condemnation of needed land. Mr; Fisher felt sufficient setback should be required on site plans. Mr. Tucker said some plans have been approved with adequate setback, but no dedication was required for service roads. Mr. Fisher requested the staff to present for the Board's review any approved site plans where adequate setback is not required. Mr. Tucker noted that the P~a~ning Commission had agreed on the third lane concept since the concept is easier to 'obtain a~d~s~m~hing could be provided immediately. Dr. Iachetta said something needs to be done to prevent Route 29 North from becoming a city street. He fa~re~serv~e ~ads~only'~it is the only way to preserve the corridor· Mrs. David supported the service road concept but felt that the impact on existing developments should be examined first. Mr. Dorrier questioned whether developers could be required to spend funds for service roads. He felt the key question is whether the traffic on Route 29 North is generated by developments along this route or the geh~al public. He was opposed to requiring the expand~ture of funds without knowing actual costs and the consequences involved. Mr. Fisher felt the concept would never be accomplished without requiring dedication of the land piecemeal. Public funds are now being spent for the maintenance~ etc., of ROute ~9 North. The question does arise as to who will pay for service roads; whether it will be from the general property tax or by property owners along the road. Mr. Henley was opposed to the service road concept because he felt there was no way it could ever be completed. He was in favor of a third lane concept. Mr. Hope said if the corridor is not protected by a service road, then the only alternative would be to widen Route 29 to provide more space. This would cause a city street. Dr. Iachetta did not feel the third lane concept would provide any more safety. He did not object to researching the matter further, but was opposed to adopting anything at this point without knowing more about its impact. He was also interested in looking at other alternatives. Mr St John said the question is whethe~ · . '~e d&veloper will be required to put in a service road that will only be partially used by.~him and yet will more directly benefit other developers and the public.:~.aHe.strongl~, emphasized that a decision needs to be made in the near future. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offere~.smotion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle · County, Virginia, hereby states its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Section 17-5-8) and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance, Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Section 18-37(1) to include provisions for service roads; and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearings on these amendments and make recommendations on same to this Board as soon as possible. Mrs. David seconded the motion. ~Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Dec'ember 15, 1976 (Afternoon Meeting) 003 The Board recessed at 4:54 P.M. and reconvened at 5:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: 1977 Legislation. Mr. Fisher noted a meeting to be held with the local legislators, the Board, members of City Council and four members of the Board of .Supervisors in the Planning District, to discuss matters of legislature. Mr. Fisher noted a letter received from Mr. Pat Janssen, representing the Albemarle County Taxpayers Association, requesting that the~.Board ask'~h~ legislature to study the impact of state mandated programs on localities. Mr. Fisher said the Virginia Association of Counties has taken the position that no programs should be mandated unless funds are provided and the fiscal impact of the program should be studied before any enactment. Mr. Fisher also noted a letter from Mr~.~-Robert Merrill re~u~sting'~'i~'~gislatH~a to redefine the definition of fair market value. Mr. Agnor then commented on two letters received from the Director of Finance, Mr. Ray Jones, and from Mr. William Bradshaw, Supervisor of Assessements. Both have pointed out that fair market value is defined by law. Mr. Agnor felt court cases have been tried and the definition is derived from those cases. Mr. Fisher also noted that Mr. Merrill felt income producing properties are assessed on income basis which results in a private home paying higher taxes than the owners of rentals and income producing properties. Mr. Fisher asked if appraising commercial property that is leased and used for income is consistent with that of assessing agricultural land based on its income. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Merrill was present and said that neither the State Constitution or the laws passed by General Assembly give Real Estate assessors any authority to assess property on its income. He felt homeowners suffer from inflation. Mr. Fisher did not feel the Board had any grounds to reques~e~lslature to study this matter and asked the Board for their feelings. With no response, no action was taken. Mr. Fiah~r also noted receipt of a copy of House Bill 855, concerning annexation. He suggested talking to Mr. George Long of the Virginia Association of Counties and also inviting Delegate Thomas J. Michie, Jr., a sponsor of this bill, to discuss the matter with the Board; and also requesting Senator J. Harry Michael and Delegate James Murray to attend. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to this effect. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Alfred Dofflemyer - Mental Health Board. Mr. Alfred Dofflemyer, representative from the County to the Mental Health Board, was present, to make an informational report. He said the salary schedules for this agency have been reviewed and a uniform schedule has been adopted which will help the morale of the staff. Operating costs have been reviewed in the hope of Treducing same. He then summarized the services and programs of the health center. He noted a closer relationship is needed with the school system. Mr'. Fisher said the Board appreciated the report, but the County is facing a shortfall in revenues of about 8%. .The question the Board will be facing during budget work sessions will be one of reducing appropriations or making no appropriation at all to outside agencies. Mr. Fisher said he understands attempts have been made. to charge the Jail Board for services rendered by the Mental Health Agency. Mr. Robert Lassler, Director of the Blue Ridge Mental Health Center, said an agreement has been worked out with Mr. Pruett, Jail Administrat Mr. Henley said a sales arrangement was discussed with~the Jail Board, but nothing~as occurred. Mr. Dorrier expressed his appreciation for the excellent job done by Mr. Dofflemyer. He noted the staff of the Mental Health Center will be working harder with Western State Hospital mue^a maw recently passed requiring that all doctors be licensed, thus, the hospital will have six doctors to handle 1,300 patients. Upon recommendation of Mr. Dofflemyer, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to appoint Mr. Nimrod T. Clarke to the Region X Community Mental He. alth and Retardation Services Board for a three year term beginning January 1, 197~ and ending December 3~, 1979; sa~d term to replace Ms. Isabal Palmer, whose term expires on December 31, 1976. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried b~ the.:.fellowing recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to appoint Mr. C. Harmon Williams, Jr., to the Board o£ Directors of the Region X Community Mental Health & Retardation Services Board for a three y~ar term beginning January !, 1977 and ending December 31,, 1979; sa~d term to replace Mr. WilliamtStevens, whose term expires on DecemBer 31, 1976'. Motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher requested letters of appreciation be sent to Mrs. Isabel Palmer and Mr. William T. Stevens for their years of services on the Region X Mental Health Board. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried 00.4 December 15, 1976 (Afternoon Meeting) AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed. Sheriff George Bailey was present. He stated that Mr~am Berry,~xpla~t manager of Sperry Marine Systems, had requested his office to help study the problems encountered by their employees in getting onto Route 29 after working hou~rs. He examined the problem and found that most employees had to wait no longe~-than twenty minutes. Mr. Berry has agreed to pay the salary of two off-duty officers from 4:00 P.M. to whatever time the parking lot is empty; this to be on a one month trial period. Sheriff Bailey said he is agreeable to the request for officers if the Board also agrees. Dr. Iachetta said the Highway Safety Commission supports the recommendation of the Sheriff if County funds are not involved. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve the recommendation of the Sheriff with a report to the Board on January 12, 1977. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointments: Blanning Commission. (Not Discussed) Agenda Item No. 7. Adjournment. At 6:15 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. ii / December 15, 1976 (Night Meeting] A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 15, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, at Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: SP-88-76. Victor R. Ray. To locate a shooting match on 3.86 acres zoned A-1. Property on south side of Route 738 north of Ivy Pulp Wood. Since the applicant was not present, Mr. Fisher suggested to wait until 8:30 P.M. to conduct the public hearing. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend certain precinct lines in the Scottsville and White Hall Magisterial Districts as permitted under Virginia Code Section 24.1-37 and to also amend and reenact Sections 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6 and 6-7 of the Albemarle County Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 1 and 8, 1976.) Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said a request was received from the Division of Legislative Services for all cities and counties to realign precinct and election district lines not following an easily recognizable feature. These changes are being made for the 1980 census. Albemarle County has three precinct lines which do not follow boundaries~ between Scottsville and Porter's Precinct, Covesville and Porter's precinct line, Free Union and Crozet lines. He then summarized the realignment as the staff had proposed. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Ellen Nash was present on behalf of the Electoral Board. She said the Board wanted the Covesville/Porter's precinct line to remain as existing because it is more convenient for the voters to go to Covesville instead of to Scottsville. With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said this question is complex since the state law permitting lines to be changed expired on June 30, 1976 but.~legislature will take action at their next session to make any actions taken between July 1, 1976 and December 31, 1976 legal retroactively. He recommended a resolution on the matter since action is being taken on a law not existing. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance and resolution as set out below. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: