HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-14April 14, 1976 (Day Meeting)
133
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April 14, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, 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.
OFFICERS PRESEN.T: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Execut~iwe and Fred Payne, ~Deputy County
Attorney.
Meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M. by Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman.
No. 2. Approval of Minutes:
dents,' and !'made" to !'preven~ted~."
0. ctober 16, 1975, page 34~3, change "residences" to "resi-
Page 361, correct spelling of "Wheller" to "Wheeler."
January 15, 1976, page 466, change "Davis" vo "David."; page 467, second paragraph,
should be "t'ocal legislators"; page 468, change "issie" to "issue"; and "disucssion" to
" Page 4~69, c~hange word to "shortsighted, ,
"discussion, ; and "invisi0ned'r to. "~envi~sioned~" "'
and "prospective" to "perspective"; and "inpoundment~" to~ "impoundment"; in fourth paragraph,
delete comma after "preapplica~tion."; sixth paragraph, change wording of second sentence to
read "He said the mo~ion should also say "subject to the final addendum to be attached to
the preapplication."; third paragraph change to read: "to save harmless the County"; page
471, item 8, .delete period after ?'pi.an," in fifth li~e, delete the word "done." Motion to
approve the minutes with corrections, as noted above was made..by~ Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs.~ David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None~
No. 3a. Chris Greene Lake Road (Adjourned from March 18, 1976). Mr. Agnor said he had
been requested to present a history of ~he problem mentioned in a letter .from Mr. Preston
Stallings and Mr. Stephen McClellan presented at the March meeting and proceeded to give the
following facts. The fifty-foot right-of-way was purchased by. the County from Virginia
Resorts~, Incorporated, prior .owners of the land. Theme is a provision in the deed providing
that t~he right-of-way continue to the benefit ~of the county for access to Chris Greene Lake.
The county built a road. Records indicate that a gate was erected on the County's property
line with the approval of the~previous .owners, but the .ga.te does create a dead end. Mr.
McClellan purchased and subdivided the land on the eastern side. One requirement of the ~
subdivision approval was that the right-of-way granted to the county be dedicated to public
use in order to serve the subdivision. Another requirement was that the road be brought~
up to state standards by the developer so it could be accepted into the State System.
There was no. requirement for a turnaround at the end of Mr. McClellan's subdivision but he
was required to improve the road to a point one hundred fifty-feet north of his last lot.
Recently, Mr. Stallings subdivided his property on the opposite, side of the road. Mr.
Stallings was required by the Planning Commission to improve the ro~d beyond the one hundred
fifty,foot point and to install a turnaround in the vicinity of the gate. Mr. Stallings
argues that the ~gate has created, the need for the turnaround s~nce the gate is locked for a
portion-of the Near. However, the State Highway Departmant requires a turnaround at the end
of State Maintenance.
Mr. Agnor suggested a three-way compromise on this issue. One; Mr. McClellan improve
the road, as required for his subdivision,, from the intersection at the beginning of the
road to the one hundred fifty-foot point'that is beyond his last lot. This is the purpose
for which he posted a bond. Two; Mr. SSallings improve the road from that point to the end
of proposed s~ate maintenance and provide for the turnaround as~ required by the Highway
Department. Three; the county supply the land on which the turnaround is to be built. It
would be simpler and more economical to build the turnaround on the western side of the road
which is county property. Four; The County erect a sign on the highway indicating the hours
of operation of the park. The turnaround would be of benefit to the subdivision and certainl
to the last lot because if the turnaround is not provided, people will use that driveway for
that purpose.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. McClellan. has been critical of the county for not investing his
bond money and thus generating income. Mr. McClellan said he was required to post cash
but there is nothing in the file indicating he was required to post cash. This is apparently
a misunderstanding on his part. In sosting of such money, it still belongs to the citizen.
The county ca,not manage or invesv the money. It is simply cash money that is held until
the requirement for which it was posted has been fulfilled.
Mr. Fisher asked the length of .the road from where Mr. McClellan was to have improved
the road vo state standards to the proposed turnaround. Mr. Agnor said approximately 1,600
feet. In a letter from the Highway Department dated January 8, 1976, it states that a small
paved area would be required at the proposed end of state maintenance. This paved area
would ~be 30,feet wide and 50 feet deep. The pavement design should consist of eight inches
of aggregate bese with a prime and double seal. The fence whiah is located on the right-of-w.
near the beginning of the road would have to be removed. The existing edge of pavement
which has broken off in several places needs vo be Patched. The letter indicates that once
these items are completed the Highway Department is prepared to accept the road into the
Highway System. Mr. McClellan posted $5,200 in 1972, to be used for pavement and surfacing
to a width of 22 feet with an overlay of two inches of bituminous concrete surfacing. Since
1972, the county has done some paving at their expense on the roadway. Mr. Agnor said on a
plan of the roadway, the turnaround ares is shown on the~east side..of Mr. McClellan's propert
which is at the County' property ~ine. A precedent may have been set when Mr. McClellan was
required to extend the road one hundred fifty-feet beyond his last lot. He did not know if
this was the ~ntent of the Planning Commission when Mr. Stallings received approval. However
the turnaround shows on the plan as being at the gate and this is some 360 feet beyond the
end of Mr. Stalling's subdivision.
Mr. Fisher felt it strange to require Mr. Stallings to go beyond his last lot and build
a road that will not serve any lots in his subdivision.
April 14~ 197,6 (Day Meeting)
is going to be a short piece of road between the turnaround and the gate which will not be i~
the state system. This was the Highway Department's reasoning for putting the turnaround on
the east side initially and providing for state maintenance to the county property line
where the gate is located.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Warner if the Highway Department could not~ do ~s they have done
ink, the past and require a temporary turnaround be installed on Mr. Stallings last lot. He
said he feels it is a matter of principle although it would be to everyone's benefit to exter
state maintenance down to the gate. Mr. Warner said he has no objections to a temporary
turnaround, but, there will be a piece of road from the turnaround to the gate that the
county, will have to maintain.
Mr. Agnor said since it would be more economical to build the turnaround on the western
side of the road, on county land, he would suggest that the county provide the land and
Mr. Stallings and Mr. McClellan build the turnaround so it will serve any future development
which occurs.
Mr. Fisher said this would be the best solution but there is no way to require Mr.
McClellan to do anything. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Nuckols if Mr. McClellan had sai.d
when he planned to do the work on his section of the road. Mr. Nuckols said he had not
heard anything.
Mr. Fisher recommended that the Board accept Mr. Agnor's suggestion and give the
amount of land that is necessary for the turnaround in order to resolve the problem.
will take the road all the way to the county property.
This
Dr. Iachetta moved that the Board accept Mr. Agnor's recommendation to have the
turnaround built on county property and try to encourage the cooperation of Mr. McClellan
and Mr. Stallings to bring the road up to standards ta the turnaround. Mr. Henley seconded
the motion.
Mrs. David asked that the details of the proposal be communicated to both Mr. McClellan
and Mr. Stallings in writing. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. McClellan be reminded of his
responsibility to bring the road up to standards for the part that is alreadH approved and
under bond. If he does not take action to do such, the Board should take some action.
Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 3b. Totier Creek Access Road (Deferred from March 24, 197,6). Mr. Agnor said he
had a draft of an agreement between the Board of Supervisors and the Leonard Land and
Livestock Limited and Mr. Chester F. Baker 'for the resolution en the problem of the Totier
Creek Road which has been before the Board for many months. The agreement calls for the
county to build the Totier Creek Park Ro~d to meet highway department specifications and
the construction costs not to exceed $17,000.~.{?:~ ~owever, the low bid received was higher
than this figure. Mr. Agnor said he recommended that the low bid be accepted and then
negotiate to reduce the bid after review by the highway department. He suggested a compromi
of eight-inches for the base, if possible. He recommended this now because the 'thirty-day
limit for accepsance of the bid has been exceeded and an extension was granted by the low
bidder. In addition to the low bid of $18,998.90, a contingency of $2,000.00 sho'utd ~Cso be
provided.
Mr. Fisher stated that this was a situation where the Board of Supervisors had signed
a contract years ago to upgrade the road as a condition of getting the land and the right-of
This matter must be settled even though it is expensive.
Dr. Iachetta moved to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor. The foregoing motion
was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
The motion
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia that $21,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from Revenue Sharing Funds for construction of a road into Totier
Creek Park.
Motion was made by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the Chairman to sign the following agreeme
The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Hrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
THIS AGREEMENT made this 8th day of March, 1976, by and
between THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA,
hereinafter called "County'~, and LEONARD LAND AND LIVESTOCK, ~LTD.,
a Virginia Corporation, and CHESTER F. BAKER, hereinafter referred
to as the parties of the second part,
WI TNE S S E TH :
WHEREAS, pursuant to an unrecorded agreement made May 25,
1970 between the County and Forrest E. Paulett. and his wife
Lillian M. Paulett, certain real estate was exchanged between
~ay.
April. t4, 1976 (Day Meeting)
1970 of record in the C~lerk's Office of the Circuit~ Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 474, page 390 and
WHEREAS, said unrecorded agreement provided that the County,
with regard to its use an~d development of land acquired by it
under the exchange as well as other lands to be acqu~ired in
connection with its Totier Creek Watershed project, would perform
as follows:
(1) County will construct and maintai~ a public road
within the 60 foot strip described as Parcel 3 in this agreemenv;
(2) County will erect and maintain at its expense a heavy
woven wire field fence 27 inches high with one strand of barbed
wire at top and bottom on treated poles at leas~ 6 inches in
diameter spaced 12 feet apart along all common boundaries between
the County's land and the Paulett's land;
(3) Gates in said fence and crossings of said road will be
provided for ingress and egress to the Pauletts' property at two
locations to be designated by the Pauletts; and
(4) Any water lines or other utility lines place on the
ground in said 60 foot strip will be buried to a sufficient
depth to permit motor vehicle travel over them at any point for
access to the road constructed thereon.
AND, WHEREAS, Forrest E. Paulett and wife by their deed
of November 30, 1973 of record in said Clerk's Office in
Deed Book 541, page 563 did convey real estate which they had
acquired from the County by the aforementioned deed, to Leonard
Land and Livestock Ltd. and Chester F. Baker, and
WHEREAS, none of the aforementioned deeds incorporated
into them the covenants set out in the said agreement of exchange,
and it therefore has been questioned as to whether said covenants
survive as an obligation of the County and/or whether they run
with the land, and
WHEREAS, the parties of the second part herein take the
position that the covenants are a binding obligation on the
County running with the land they acquired from Paulett; and in
view of the controversy thus existing; the parties hereto have
determined that a settlement~ of the matter is in the best interest.
of all concerned, therefore, they do hereby enter into this agreement
in full discharge of any obligation the County might have under
the aforementioned agreement of May 25, 1970, between the Pauletts
and the County:
~OW, for and in consideration of the premises, the County
will:
(t) Proceed with the construction of the road to be known
as the Totier Creek Road over the 60 foot wide strip mentioned
in said agreement leading from Stat~ Route 726 to the Toti~r
Creek Watershed project, sa~ strip being shown on plat of
record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 474~, page 395,
bringing said road up to specifications required by the Virginia
Department of Highways. The sole conditions for this obligation
are that said construction cost the County no more than $17,000.00,
and that the State of Virginia will accept said road into its
system, once constructed, even though no residences have been
constructed as yet upon lands adjacent to said roadway. If
such conditions are not met, this agreement shall be voidable
at the option of either party.
The"parties of the second part will perform the following
obligations:
(1) In developing their lands as a subdivision known as
Vatmont Estate, said lands will be encumbered w.ith the
following restrictions:
(a) No lot having frontage on a cul-de-sac street
will have direct access to the Totier Creek entrance road.
(b) Ail lots fronting on the Totier Creek entrance
road and which do not have cul-de-sac frontage shall b~e designed
so as ~to have a common~ entrance with similar contiguous lots~
to said road by virtue of common drive-ways along cormmon side
lines of such lots.
(c) The minimum setback line for any lot which has
frontage on the Totier Creek road will be 80 feet from the
boundary line of said lot with said road;
(d) Ail utilities serving said subdivision will
be placed underground.
(e) No trees having a tru~ diameter of 3 inches
o~ more shall be cut within 50 feet of the Totier Cr~eek Road
on any lot fronting on the said road, there being three exceptions
to this requirement as follows:
136
April 14, 1976 (Day Meeting)
adequate location for a septic field is within the restricted
50 foot area, then those trees which must be removed to accommodate
the proper installation of the septic field may be removed.
(2) Trees may be removed at intersections for the
purpose of maintaining necessary visual sight distances for
entrances into the Totier Creek Road; and
(3)
line access.
Trees may be removed for a driveway or utility
(f) The total number of lots shown on the subdivision
plat prepared by Robert L. Lum, Land Surveyor, dated February
25, 1974 as submitted for preliminary approval by the Albemarle
County Planning Commiss~n~.shatl be the maximum number of lots
divided by the parties of the second part out of the land
covered by said plat, however, this shall not prohibit the
rearranging of lot lines subject to the Planning Commission
approval.
(g) The parties of the 'second part will grant to
the Virginia Department of Highways such drainage easements over
their property as may be necessary f~r the constru3tion of the
aforementioned road.
The parties hereto agree that they will execute such
further instrumen~ts as may be necessary to give full force and
effect to this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
hands and seals, the County having caused this instrument-to
be executed on its behalf by Gerald E. Fisher, its Chairman, its
official seal being duly affixed and attested, and Leonard Land
and Livestock, Ltd. causing this~instrument to be executed on
its behalf by duly authorized officers:
ATTEST:
(signed) Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
ATTEST:
(signed)
Janice D. Perkins
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
By: (signed) Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
LEONARD LAND AND LIVESTOCK, LTD.
By: (signed) -David R. Leonard, Presi~dent
(signed) Chester F. Baker, ~Saa!)
No. 3e. Wood~ok Roads, Section 10. Mr. Roudabush stated he wished to abstain from
discussion and vote on this matter because he has been involved in the engineering aspects
of this subdivision.
Dr. iachetta said he had requested this item be on the agenda. Some of the residents
in Woodbrook want to know when completion of this road is anticipated. There is also a
question · ~ ~e ete work covered both sections 9 and 10 and he
of whether the boner ~ uncompl d
?to check thi' s.
asked the County Attorney s Mr. Payne said he had checked the existing
records and he feels this cashiers ch~ck was given to the county to cover both sections 9
and 10.
Mr. William Strickland, representing Equitable Life Assurance Society who is now
the owner of Woodbrook, was present to provide information on the roads in Section 10. He
said Equitable has a letter dated February 9, 1976, from the Highway Department which lists
work needing completion in Section 10. A figure of $3,440.00 has been estimated by Sterling
Williamson to complete the work. This is well within the $5,000.00 bond the county is
presently holding for that purpose. Mr. Strickland said. Equitable is willing to provide
the personnel and management necessary to get the work done if they can use the funds
currently held by the county. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Payne if the county can release the
bond money so the work can be accomplished. Mr. Payne replied it would be best for the
county to keep the money then if the road is not completed the county could build the road
and keep any remaining money,. Mr. Strickland said the money was obtained in the first
place so if the developer went bankrupt, the money could be used to complete the road. Mr.
Payne disagreed. He did not feel the money was here to build the road but to insure that
the developer would build the road. Otherwise, the county would be in the road building
business and that is not the County's policy. He also felt that if the cost of work amount~
to less than $5,000.00 and the county f~rfeits this bond and uses that money, then it is
the county's money and Equitable has no claim to any remaining funds.
M~..~sher asked Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, if there are any restrictions
on building in Section 10. Mr. Tucker said there is in existence a building permit moratori
which covers both the roads and the sewer system. Mr. Strickland stated that Equitable is
willing to accept the responsibility of getting bids and supervising the work so that
it can be expedited and completed as soon as~possible if the deposit is used. He did not
think Equitable should proceed and assume responsibility for the work without some assurance
that it will be reimbursed. Mr. Payne said this~is a bankruptcy case and the money held
is in a sense an asset of the bankruptcy estate.
Mr. Agnor said· that even though the county does not want to become involved in road
building, they may have to become involved. The bond was posted to insure that the roads
were properly developed. They have not been so the county may have to collect the posted
money and build the roads. If Equitable is willing to act as an agent for the county in
construction of the road, then the county could contract with Equitable for that purpose.
As for the residue, it is a separate matter that could be settled at a later date. Mr.
Fisher said his goal was to get the road built. Earlier there was some discussion about
April 14, 1976 (Davy Meeting)
using a portion of the money to correct sewer problems in Section 9. He felt that would
mean getting two sections only half completed. The county would be better to get Section
9 completed while SectiOn 10 is still substantially unoccup±ed.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Serv±ce Authority to
speak to the sewer problems. Mr. Thompson said there are four items recommended by the
State Water Control Board before the System will be accepted, t) A high liquid level
audi~-visuat alarm~s~stem~be prov.ided;~ 2) the sewer line access'.and maintenance easement
be shown on the plans; 3) referring to the section of sewer from Manhole 0 + 00A to
Manhole 1 --00~, in Sewers where velocity exceeds 15fps, special provisions must be made
to protect against displacement by shock. Sewers on slopes of 20 to 35 percent shall be
anchored securely with concrete anchors or equal, spaced on no greater than 36 foot centers;
and 4) revised plans and specifications be submitted to the Lexington Regional Office of the
State Department of Health for review and forwarding to the State Water Control Board. Mr.
Fisher asked if any of this work had been completed. Mr. Thompson-~said the four items
just. mentioned have been completed but are not confirmed and are in the hands of the State
Health Department for approval. The sewer problem in Section 10 is in the process of
being completed. Mr. Thompson said that Equitable has awarded a contract to install the
gravity line that will go from the pump down to the interceptor line which should be operable
by June 1. Dr. Iachetta asked-~f the sewer lift assembly in Section 9 is now to standards.
It is subject to review by the State Health Department replied Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Strickland said for the record he recalls that at no point was there any decision
that the funds could be used for the sewer. A Mr. Johnson, also representing Equitable,
said the plans have been tentatively approved on the Section 10 sewer. He stated they are
raady to go ahead with the 150 feet of line that Will tie into the existing manhole. At
that time, the temporary pump will be done away with and the gravity system should be in
operation.
Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney's office to see how the road work in Section
10 should be handled and to notify the Clerk when this matter is ready to go back on the
agenda. He also asked the Clerk to notify Mr. Strickland when this will be heard again.
No. 3c. Requests to have roads taken into the State-Secondary System. Mr. Agnor read
into the record a request from Morris Foster of the Rush Development Company dated March
24, 1976:
"Maroh 24, 1976
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Counvy of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Rush Development Company hereby requests the Board of
Supervisors to consider a resolution accepting Stockton
Road into the State Secondary Road System.
Stockton Road serves 13 lots in Rush Estates
Subdivision as shown on enclosed plat. The total
length of Stockton Road is 0.23 mile.
Your e.arliest review of the above wou~d be
appreciated.
Respectfully,
(Signed)
BY: W. Morris Foster
for Rush Development Company"
Dr. !achetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into
the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection
and approval by the Resident Highway Dep~rtment, the following
road in Rush Estates:
Stockton Road - From State Route 708 to end of
cul-de-sac, 0.23 mile
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
H~ghWays and TranspOrtation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50
foot unobstructed right of way and drainag~ easements along
this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book ~88, page 407.
Mr~Roudabush seco~d~.~a foregoing motion 'a~d~the motion carried by the vote
which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor had a second request from Mr. Ronald R. Morris, representing the Mel-Ray
Corporation, dated April 8, 1976:
"April 8, 1976
.38
April 14, 1976 (Day Meeting)
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
County Building
Court Square
Charlottesville, Va.
22901
Dear Sirs:
Please adopt a resolution to have Brookwood Road near Crozet,
running from Route 1204 to Route 1221 (Jamestown Road), the distance
of 330 feet and recorded in Deed Book 513, Page 311, taken into
the State of Virginia's secondary highway system.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
BY: Ronald R. Morris, Pres.
Mel-Ray Corporation"
Mr. Henley moved that the following resolution be adopted.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and TranspOrtation
be_and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary SysTem of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approved by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Brookwood Subdivision:
Brookwood Road - From Route 1204 to Route 1221 (Jamestown
Road), 330 feet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50
foot unobstructed right.of way and drainage easements along
this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court o~ Albemarle County in
Deed Book 513, Page 311.
Dr. Iachetta~.seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 3d. Letters accepting roads into the State Secondary System.
the record two letters accepting roads into the State Secondary System:
"April 2, 1976
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gent leme ~n:
As requested in resolution by your board on July 17, 1975, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County
is hereby approved, effective April 2, 1976.
ADDITION
Beagle Gap Road - From: Route
691 To: 0.40 Mi. W. of Route
691.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
BY: J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
LENGTH
O.4O Mi.
Mr. Agnor read into
"April 5, 1976
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on February 19, 1976,
the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County
is hereby approved, effective April 5, 1976.
ADDITION
Sections 5 and 6 of new connections
Route 745 at right and left of Sta.
1010+25, Project 6029-~02-111, C-501.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
BY: J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
LENGTH
0.06 Mi.
No. 3h. Highways Matters not on the Agenda.
Dr. Iachetta asked when the roads in Four Seasons will be accepted into the State
April 14, ~976 (Day Meeting)
posted to cover maintenance from the time the roads are accepted until July 1. The _bond
has not been posted. The same situation appl~ies to Section 6 of Hessian Hills.
Dr. Iachetta said the citizens of Four Seasons are concerned that Sheriff Bai~ley and
his deputies will not enforce traffic laws in Four Seasons because the state does not own
the roads. Mr. Payne said that should not be a problem because the county adopted an
ordinance making all traffic laws applicable to these subdivision roads. As far as enforceme
of general criminal laws, it makes no difference whether the p~roperty is private or public.
Dr. Iachetta inquired about the turnaround on Bennington Road. Mr. Warner said it
is just a matter of getting a fifty-foot radius in the turnaround. Dr. Iachetta said
there was some question about the necessary easements being recorded. ~Mr. Warner said he
thought the easements originally recorded will suffice.
Mr. Fisher said Berkmar Drive as it intersects Rio Road has no stop,sign.
said ~'the road'has not been accepted, but he would check on the sign.
Mr. Warner
Mr. Henley asked about warning lights at the railroad crossing at Route 684 from
Mint Springs Road over to Route 691 at Orchard Acres Subdivision. Mr. Warner said he
would review this location. Mr. Henley also inquired about the condition of Route 614 at
Whipporwill Hollow. Mr. Warner said the Highway Department has installed a drainaga st
and will put plant mix on the road hoping to stabilize the situation.
Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, presented Mr. Fisher with a revised
set of plans for Route 637. Mr. Fisher said he would review these with the property owners.
No. 3f. Request for Right-of-Way Over Sanitary Landfill No. 2.
Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr..' Henley.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the Board is willing to grant to Mr. Ray L. Marshall, his heirs
and assigns, a right'of-way and easement across the Albemarle County
land oommonly known as the Keene Landfill, and shown on the Albemarle
County Tax Map 129, parcel 2A, for the purpose of access from Mr.
Marshall's property, shown on the Albemarle County Tax Map 129, parcel
56, to State Route 704. However, any conveyance is expressly subject
to Mr. Marshall first constructing, at his own expense, a fence on one side
of the roadway across the Keene Landfill. The fence shall be of a type
appro~ved by the County Engineer and shall be constructed in the manner and
at the location designated by the County Engineer. Pmovided the fence
is constructed by Mr. Ray B. Marshall and approved by the County Engineer,
the Board shall convey a deed of easement to Mr. Ray B. Marshall.
The foregoing..~m~±~was~con~ by'Mr. Rouda~u'sh and~carri~d 'by the~following record
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
Mo~~ ~g. Appoint Road Viewers for 1976.
Mr. Roudabush moved that Mr. William L. Rennolds be reappointed. Mr. Fisher recommended
that Mr. John O. Higginson be reappointed. Mr. Henley appointed Mr. William A. Gray and
Mr. Dottier appointed Mr. Alonzo R. Jones. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to appoint th~se
named~.~he road viewers for 1976. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 6a. Appointment--Albemarle County Service Authority.
Dr. Iachetta moved to reappoint Mr. L. A. Lacy to serve another term on the Albemarle
County Service Authority Board of Directors, this term to run until April 16, 1980. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 6b. Appointment--Emergency Medical Services Council.
Mr. Roudabus~ offered motion to appoint Ms. Linda Nesbit to replace Mr. Ron Dower,
with said term to expire on December 31, 1978. Motion was seconded by 0Dr. Iachetta and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 9. Request to Pay Uncompensated Leave Time for Old Albemarle County Jail Personnel
Mr. Agnor said he had received a letter from Sheriff Bailey dated April 1, 1976 requesti
that Deputy Fulton Marsh be pa~d for uncompensated leave time accumulated while working at
the Old Albemarle County Jail. The other employees of the old jail were compensated for
their time. Sheriff Bailey requested that Mr. Marsh be paid one month's salary for the
leave time. Mr. Agnor recommended this request be approved in light of previous actions
taken by the board for the other officers. The amount requested is $545.25.
'140
April 147 1976 (Da~ Meetinsl___
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve this request and to adopt the following resoluti¢
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $545.25 be and the same hereby is appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and
coded to 6A-109.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 7a. Special Appropriations (Sheriff):
Mr. Ray Jones explained that Sheriff Bailey had applied for a grant through vhe Divisio~
Justice and Crime Prevention in the amount of $4,127.00 for the purpose of purchasing
three radios. The money has ~een received and deposited in the General Fund. A special
appropriation is now reques~ted.
Mr. Dottier offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,127.00 be and the same hereby is appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and
coded to 6A-215d for purchase of radios.
Dr. iachetta seconded the motio_n and same carried as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None..
No. 7b.
Complex):
Special Appropriations (Supplemental Appropriation for the Joint Security
Mr. Ray Jones stated that Albert Shank of the Joint Security Complex has requested an
amendment to his budget in the amount of $56,260.00 of which the county's share is $471.00.
This is due to a larger number of prisoner days.~.than anticipated.
Mr. Henley offered the following resolution to amend the budget with the special
appropriation to be coded to 18C.5:
BE iT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $471.00 be and is hereby .transferred fr~m.~,~th~a~Gene.ral
Fu~d to the General Operating Fund and codsd to 18C.5 for the county's
share of expenditures incurred by the Joint Security Complex; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Joint Security Complex budget be
amended in the amount of $56,260.00.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David .and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
No. 7c. Special Appropriations (Professional Services):
The following resolution was offered for approval by Mrs. David:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,120.00 be and is hereby transferred from the
General Fund to the General Operating Fund and coded to lA-103 for
attorneys fees in the suit between United Land Corporation and
Hartwell Clarke and George R. St. John.
Motion was seconded by Dr. !achetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 8. Real Estate Tax Refunds:
Mrs. David offered motion to approve the following real estate tax refunds:
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia,
has appeared before this Board and certified that the following real
estate taxes were erroneously assessed; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence
and consents that such assessments were erroneous;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the Code
of Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virgin~i'a, do~es hereby direct refunds as follows:
1) Charles M. Fullgraf, ticket #10535700, refund of $57.81 for
tax year 1975. Refund due to assessment reviewed and changed by
the Board of Equalization.
of
~_~ '_ ~_ .~976 (Day Meeting) __ _
141
AYES:
NAYS:
3) Blue Ridge Swimming Pooi Club, Ltd., ticket #101321, refund
of $33.84. Refund due to ~djustment made on improvements prior to
the certifications of the 1975 Land Book which was not corrected
before going to the Service Bureau.
4) Winifred S. and Sally M. Haney, 1975 ticket #10642900.
Refund of $35.25. Refund due to erroneous assessment made in real
estate office when picking up value of acreage.
5) Alma Davis, ticket #10387200. Refund of $221.84. Refund due
to erroneous assessment in Real Estate office on value of buildings.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to
be filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 5. Monthly Report on Fire Hydrants:
Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Fire Marshal, presented the report by stating that there are 503
public and private fire hydrants presently in the County. In a memorandum from E. E.
Thompson, Jr., Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, it is indicated
that 19 hydrants need to be raised, 10 threads which are on order be replaced, and eight
hydrants~be relOcated.
Mr. Reynolds also stated that in response to Dr. Iachetta's inquiry ~bout Four Seasons,
he had a map showing various options for relocating the hydrants. The estimated cost of
option one is $1,500.00 for option 2, $1,100.00. This estimate was prepared by the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Mr. Thompson said he felt suggestion B to remove, plug, and relocate hydrant #10290
and suggestion A to relocate hydrant #10291 off an unnamed street at the meter serving
this hydrant would be the most economical. The reason for the difference in cost is due to
one being in hard surface and the other off the side of the road.
Mr. Reynolds said the next two most important hydrants are at Westgate A~ar~ments.
Those can be relocated from inside the complex to the entrances on Georgetown Road and
Hydraulic Road for $800.00 and $1,350.00. The difference for the cost here is the same as
listed above. (Hydrant #1024'6 and #10247)
Mr. Fisher inqu±red-if ~h~ere would be any unexpended funds left from the amount
appropriated for hydrant repairs. Mr. Thompson replied that a total of $9,139.50 has been
spent to date. There are items that have not been completed and there is an unknown factor
in the nineteen hydrants to be raissd. Some of the hydrants are not of~._ a popular type
and are made as one unit. In order 'to be able to raise the hydrant, it must be replaced.
Mr. Reynolds said he had been requested to check with the volunteer fire companies to se
if they would like to take on the responsibility of regularly inspecting hydrants. In a
meeting with the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association on March 24, 1976, it was agreed
that the Service Authority should continue to inspect and test the hydrants.
The next item for discussion was temporary water supplies for the Town of Scottsvilte
for fire protection. Mr. Reynolds stated that he had met with the president of the Scottsvil
Volunteer Fire Department and Mr. Frank Shumaker had requested that the ramp at the James
River be widened to permit the parallel operation of two pumpers. Also, Mr. Shumaker
asked that Mink Creek flowing through the town be dammed in strategic locations to allow
for draughting of water. Mr. Reynolds added that he and the County Engineering Department
will survey these requests next week.
Mr. Reynolds presented a tentative proposal to provide adequate water to a fire hydrant
system not ogerating on the potable water system. This would include coming off the proposed.
Mink Creek Reservoir with plaStic water mains (P.V.C.) through the main business arteries
through the town with hydrants located as indicated on the map. A pump would be located at
the Reservoir with an emergency stand pipe at the end of the system closest to the James
River. This would provide a secondary means of pumping water into the system should there
be a lack of water supply at the Reservoir. The estimated cost for this project is $124,300.
This is only one suggestion and has not been presented to the Town of Scottsville or their
Fire Department.
Mr. Dottier said he had talked with the Mayor of Scottsville and the Town Council has
talked with ~UD officials about reallocating some of the grant money to fire protection but
found that this ~as impossible. They will have to obtain that money through a new applicati
or through a different agency.
Mr. Fisher felt that making use of the proposed Mink Creek Reservoir for fire protection
purposes would be a good approach because of the gravity feed but was not ready to appropriat(
any funds toward this proposal.
Mr. Agnor said he could agree with the parallel ramp, damming the creek, suction pools,
and a simple spillway using the emergency funds already appropriated.
Mr. Reynolds then recommended that the Board enact an ordinance requiring that all
water systems for public use maintain acceptable fire protection standards as promulgated by
the county fire marshal. On this recommendation, Mr. Fisher advised him to work with the
county attorney's office on the wording of the ordinance and to present same at next months
meeting.
Dr.' Iachetta said there are no fire hydrants in Westmoreland Subdivision. He'asked
that the cost of installin~ an adesuate number for~ fire ~rotec~ion be included in next
142
April 14~ 1976 (Day Meeting)
Mr. Thompson requested that he be allowed to remove a leakimg fire p~ug (#10464)
on Main Street in Scottsville and have ~it plugged. There is adequate protection~less than
two blocks away on both sides of this old plug which cannot be repaired. Another hydrant
(#10473) located on the corner of Warren and Valley Streets should be replaced.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to reset priorities for fire hydrants as follows:
t - Relocate Hydrant #10290 in Four Seasons.
2 - Relocate Hydrant #10291 in Four Seasons.
3 - Relocate ~ydrant #10246 in Westgate.
4 - Relocate Hydrant #10247 in Westgate.
5 - Remove Hydrant #10464 in Scottsville.
6 - Replace Hydrant #10473 in Scottsville.
Mr. Dottier seconded the motion and same carried by the vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 9a. Michie Tavern. This item was placed on the agenda because the original permit
called for a three-year renewal and review by the Board. It is now past time for review of
same and the owner, Mr. M. Joseph Conte, has asked the Board of Supervisors to set the publi(
hearing date on the renewal before it would normally be heard. Mr. Fisher felt this could
have been anticipated by the applicant but suggested May 5 as the hearing date presuming
the Planning Commission had taken action on May 4.
Motion was offered by Mrs. David to advertise this matter for public hearing on May 5.
Roudabush 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 recessed for lunch at 12:29 P.M. and reconvened at 1:36 P.M.
No. 11. David Lewis=-Requests ~Cbncerhing-Land Use.
Mr, Lew~s~eaid~he, an~ .several property owners on Route 676 are concerned that the area
is being changed from the proposed agricultural=5 zoning. They request a statement from the
Board to maintain a two and one-half mile region along Route 676 between U.S. Route 250 West
and Meriwether Lewis School at a five-acre minimum lot size for private dwellings. They
realize the Board made efforts last year to formulate an overall zoning ordinance but ask
the Board to immediately adopt the general guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan along this
road to prevent subdivisions being built without any overall plan. Mr. Lewis said he feels
the previous Planning Commission was not concerned with right and wrong but only with what
is legal. He asked that the Board represent those in the area for the time after the builder
is gone. He asked that the intent of the master plan be adopted today, on a temporary basis
kno~.~_of two site
until some type of new zoning can be enacted. The residents of Route 676 ~
plans f.or subdivisions on this route that will be before the Planning Commission zn the near
future. A couple of years ago, a set of houses was built on Route 676 with access on a bad
curve and the residents feel this should not have been allowed. Mr. Lewis presented to the
Board a petition signed by sixteen families who live on Route 676.'
At this time, Mrs. Peggy Hancock, a property owner in the mentioned area read what she
had drafted as an amendment to the zoning ordinance.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
do, and it hereby does, amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
as follows:
A classification of zoning is hereby created entitled, "Five (5)
Acre Minimum - Conservation."
This district is designed to serve the dual purpose of accommodating
farming and kindred rural occupations and the preservation and conservation
of land deemed not suitable for .intensive development.
In relation to farming and kindred rural occupations the intent is
to establish large parcels of land designated ~or permanent use in
agricultural and agriculturally related functions on land which
has been determined to have soil~ highly productive for such uses.
Regarding conservation, it is the intent of this district to preserve
those areas of rugged terrain, those prone to flooding, those having
poor draining soils, and where development should be held to a minimum
for resource protection. It' is the further intent of. this district to
discourage the random scattering of land uses which require public
facilities, such as roads, schools and emergency services, to a greater
exvent than is generally available in areas rural in character and to
promote and preserve those aesthetic values, natural resources and
environmental amenities associated with such areas.
This district shall be at least fifty acres. Minimum lot size for
single-family residential homes shall be five (5) acres. At the request
of fifty-one percent (51%) of the landowners residing in the area,
the Board of Supervisors shall consider their petition for re-zoning
to this agricultural-conservation zoning."
Mrs. Hancock said all of the citizens of the county would benefit by the adopt~on
of such an ordinance because many areas Of the county now need this protection. She also
requested tha% the Board, aft~er the Planning Commission has acted, review the subdivision
plats known as "Westridge" and "Ivy Brook." She said these subdivi~sions are located within
April 14, 1976 (Day Meeting)
143
Mr. Fisher said the request to amend the Zoning Ordinance is difficult and would be
time-consuming. It could not be done immediately, however, he would have no objections to
beginning the process of amending the zoning ordinance to permit the five-acre zone being
established under certain conditions. On the second request to review subdivision plats,
the Board could not deny these requests unless they did not meet the technical aspects of
the subdivision ordinance. There is no discretion involved. The only exception is where
the Planning Commission grants some variance to the terms of the ordinance.
Mr. Lewis asked if a moratorium could be placed until the Board has time to review this
request.
Mr. Roudabush said he has been concerned about strip development along existing highways
but he feels that the cost of building has gotten so expensive that it leads to this type of
development which is allowed under the present ordinance now. He hopes that a new comprehens~
plan and a new zoning ordinance will provide some help.
Dr. Iachetta felt the master plan has been no good because the county was never zoned
in accordance with that plan. He then asked Mr. Payne if the Board decided to proceed with
the amendment, if they would not have to ask the Planning Commission to make recommendations
first. Mr. Payne said the Board could resolve to amend the zoning ordinance by including
this zone and amending the map in accordance. Then tha staff and the Planning Commission
could submit their recommendations. It would also have to be advertised for a public hearing
By statute, the Planning Commission has 90 days in which to act.
Mr. Fisher said the problem of housing costs to the citizens is one that makes large
lots exclusionary. He does not want to create large lots unless, at the same time, there is
work on the problem of housing for lower income families. He asked the Board members their
feelings oN creating this zone whether or not any land is ever brought under same. ~he way
this amendment is proposed, each parcel of land that would be included in~ this zone would
have to come in as a rezoning application.
Mr. Roudabush asked what effect this amendment would have on preparation of the new
comprehensive plan; if it would create too much of a guideline. Mr. Fisher said this type
of zone was envisioned in the comprehensive plan but has never been implemented.
Mr. Henley felt two acres is a good large lot, rather than five.
land you should use it as efficiently as possible.
He felt when subdividi]
Mrs. David said this is a dramatic example of the hazards incurred by delaying attention
to the implementation of the comprehensive plan with respect to ~the establishment o~ the
conservation zone. She stated she was not prepared to take action today.
Dr. Iachetta suggested setting a time to address the question of relationship of lot
size to the transportation capabilities of county roads. He felt that allowing the stripping
of county roads will lead to a multiplicity of driveways in places where there should not be
any driveways.
Mr. Dorrier said there is no incentive in county ordinances to encourage developers to
build clusters. Mr. Fisher said restricting development in one place without providing for
the high density development in another place is a very complex issue county-wide.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to send the resolution presented to the Planning
Commission for their specific consideration in connection with their review of the ComprehensJ
Plan, along with a note that this amendment was not drafted by the Board and it was being
referred only for consideration of the intent of the Wording. Mrs. David sec~ded the motion
and same was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 10. Claim Against the Dog Tax Fund. Claim was received from Mr. J. W. MOrri~ for
seven chickens killed on March 17, 1976. On motion by Mr. Henley, secondad by Dr. Iachetta,
this claim was approved for the amount of $10.50. The motion was carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 12. Work Session~-Albema~le County Code. Mr. Richard Momgan, Editor, Michie Compan~
was present and explained the changes in the newly codified county code.
No. 14. Discussion: Site Plan Development Committee (additional member). Mrs. Opal
David discussed the matter of having Mrs. Ellen Craddock serve as a roving member on the
Site Plan Development Committee. It was the feeling that this is a technical committee and
should have technical people as members.
No. 15, i, Dis~usSion: Planning District Commission staff report on request for federal
funds.for Hollymead Square.
Dr. Iachetta said the Planning District Commission has a request before them from Charte~
W. Hurt, sponsor, for a $2,147,700 Federal Housing Administration insured loan for the
construction of 100 renta~ units (Hol!ymeade Square) under the 221 D(4) program of the
National Housing Act. In the staff report, comments were noted from Mary Joy Scala for the
permitted density of the site at 23.5 units per acre. Also, noted were rent levels of
$185.00 for a one-bedroom flat, $265.00 for a two-bedroom townhouse, and $325.00 for a
three-bedroom townhouse. The Planning Department staff felt the rent levels were too high
for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Fisher felt the applicant should submit comments
on how this application will effect low and moderate income housing in Albemarle County.
Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Henley. Motion was
April 14, 1976 (Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 16. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of February, 1976,
was received in accordance with the Virginia State Code, Section 63.1-52.
No. 17. Statement of costs incurred in the maintenance and operat±on of the Joint
Security Complex for the month of March, 1976, along with statements of prisoner days,
paramedic salaries, jail physician and statement of the salary of the classification officer
were received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were
approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, FiSher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 18. Statements of Expenses of the Office of the Director of Finance, Commonwealth'
Attorney, and the Sheriff's Department for the month of March, 1976, were received. On
motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 19. Statement of Expenses for the ~Joint Security Complex for the month of March,
1976, was received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, the statement was
approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
No. 20.
information.
Repprt of the County Executive for the month of March, 1976, was received as
No. 21. Work Session 1976-~7 County Budget. The Board carried on another work session
on the 1976~77 County Budget. The Board decided to continue their work sessions on the
budget on Friday afternoon, April 16, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room with a further work
session on Tuesday night, April 20, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room.
No. 22. Other Matters not on the Agenda from the Board Members. Mr. Hislh-ar noted
that the Board members had two invitations for dinner. One from City Council to be held on
April 26 and the other from the Farm Bureau to be held on April 27.
Mr. Agnor read the following letter from the Highway Department into the record:
"April 12, 1976
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on November
20, 1975, the following addition to the Secondary System
of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective April
1, 1976.
ADDITION LENGTH
Berkmar Subdivision
Berkmar Drive - From: End of
State Maintenance of Route 1403
To: Route 631.
0.39 Mi.
Sincerely,
(Si~ned)
BY: J. E. Harwood, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
Mr. Agnor explained a proposal by the International City Management Association that
one of six Phillipi~ local governmental administrator~e assigned to Albsmarle County for
a ten month period at no cost to the County. They are to serve as project researchers and
are particularly interested in Finance, Personnel, and Regional government operations. The
program goes into effect on May 1. It will involve county staff time and several out of
town meetings with these trainees at the expense of the program. He proposed to accept the
offer conditionally with the county being allowed to see the profile of the individual who
will be assigned to Albemarle County.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta moved that tha County Executive be allowed to pursue and
commit the County if he feels the person is worthwhile. Mr. Dottier seconded the fore
motion, roll was called and recorded as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
April 14, 1976~ (Day Meeting)
145
Mr. Dorrier stated that he had been requested by a member of the Parks Committee to
check into the possibility of being reimbursed or having paid mileage to and from meetings.
Presently they do not get either. Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to place this on the agenda
next month for discussion along with all Boards and Commissions not presently paid under
the Equalization of Pay Ordinance.
At 5:34 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn this meeting until April
16, 1976 at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.