Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-16April 16, 1976 (Adjourned) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on APril 16, 1976, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 14, 1976. (arriying at 1;50 P.M.) Present: Mrs. Opal D. David/an~Messrs. Lindsay G Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. AnthOny Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. The meetin~ was called to order at 1:45 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board has received the following request: "115 Wendover Lane Board of Supervisors Albemarle County County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 229ol Charlottesville, Virginia April 8, 1976 Madam and Gentlemen: In accordance with current zoning regulation 7-1-26, I am hereby requesting permission to open a public entertainment business to be located in Shoppers World, Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. The business will be trading under the name "Fun and Game Gallery", and will be owned and operated by myself and my wife Rita McGowan. We are residents of Charlottesville. The business will consist in providing amusement to the community in the form of television game machines, electronic games, pin-ball machines, air-hockey machines, football machines, etc. No gambling, eating or drinking will be allowed on the premises. It is our intention, if approved, to maintain an atmosphere conducive to family entertainment. An attendant will be on duty at all times to provide change, refunds when necessary, and maintain the atmosphere we have described. Proposed hours of the establishment would be approximately eleven A.M. to eleven P.M. daily. I should be happy to appear before you, at your convenience, to answer any questions you may have regarding the application. Very truly yours, (Signed) John McGowan" Mr. Fisher noted that this type of business is allowed by right under section 7-1-26 of the Zoning Ordinance but a public hearing is required by the Board so that reasonable conditions may be placed on the operation of such a business. The Board has the prerogative to ask the Planning Commission to also hold public hearing on the matter and make recommen- dations on same and to also request that the applicant pay the standard filing fee. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, requesting the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on this application, make recommendations on same and that the Clerk notify the applicant to file an application with the Zoning Administrator and pay the standard $20.00 filing fee. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mrs. David and Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following memorandum: Memo To: From: Date: Subject: Estelle Neher, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance April 15, 1976 Volunteer Fire Uompanies' Contributions The first year for an appropriation on capital outlay costs to volunteer fire companies was in the fiscal year 1969-70. That year, $6000 was allocated to four companies, two of which were being formed at the time - Eartysville and East Rivanna. North Garden was formed the next year. The Board of Supervisors were requested that year (1969) to make contributions for building funds or funds for purchase of equipment (fire trucks). Each of the new companies were in desperate need of cash so the Board of Supervisors allocated $6000 to each existing and proposed company plus $1200 for operating expenses. Several companies made loans with local banks for the building. Also, loans were made with suppliers on trucks. These allocations plus contributions in fund raising projects have made these companies a reality. 148 April 16, 1976 (Adjourned) In the beginning, the~ontributions were subjected to approval of the County Executive. As well as I remember, this approval was the verbal instruction of the Board of Supervisors so as to exercise some control over the allocations. You must remember that funds were being appropriated to companies prior to their actual existence. However, I cannot find anything in writing on whether or not the appropriation is subject to approval by the County Executive." Mr. Fisher said this memorandum had been presented as a history of contributions to the volunteer fire companies and was written at the request of the Board. There has been some confusion in the past as to the time of year the actual check is written for these contributions. Dr. Iachetta said in order to clarify the situation, he would offer the following resolution for adoption: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state that amounts appropriated in the County budget for approved volunteer fire companies shall be made available to such volunteer fire companies for any legitimate fire equipment or operational expense that they see fit, on July 1 of each fiscal year; AND FURTHER RESOLVED that each volunteer fire company shall forward to the County a copy of their budget at the time this payment is made. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Charles Barbour, Mayor, City of Charlottesvill~ requesting the Board Members to dine with members of City Council at 6:00 P.M. on April 26th in the second floor dining room at the Mousetrap Restaurant. Mr. Fisher also presented a letter received from Ms. Dorothy Wagener, Public Relations Representative, Piedmont Virginia Community College, enclosing newspaper articles of activites at the College. Communication was received from Mr. Robert E. Abbott, Jr., Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission: "April 8, 1976 In regard to the Bikeway Plan for Albemarle CounTy (which the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted on March 3, 1976, as part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and referred to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for consideration and recommendation as part of a regional bikeway plan in order to qualify for commuter bicycle route financing participation by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation), the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has deferred consideration of Albemarle's Bikeway Plan until the City of Charlottesville has acted on the proposal for City bicycle routes. A public hearing will be held by the Charlottesville Planning Commission at its April 14 meeting." Communication was received from Ms. Nancy K. O'Brien, Chairman, T. J. Planning District Commission: "April 14, 1976 At the April meeting, the Planning District Commission voted to circulate the proposed regional land use plan to all Boards of Supervisors and City Council for their review. We are requesting your review of this proposal by July 1, 1976 and informing the PDC in writing of your re6om~endations. Please include in your review: 1) those parts with which you agree; 2) those areas with which you disagree: a) specify areas; b) recommend changes. While your jurisdiction will be of primary interest to you, your comments need not be limited by your jurisdictional boundary. The point of the plan is to look at the regional impact of local and state plans. The PDC staff and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the plan with you if you would find such a discussion helpful in making your recommendations. Please contact Mr. Abbott if you would like us to appear." Communication was also received on the same subject from Mr. R. E. Abbott, Jr., Executive Director, T. J. Planning District Commission: "April %4, 1976 As part of its effort to develop a general guide for its activities, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission respectfully requests comment on the enclosed TJPD Land Use Plan proposal which will be considered by the TJPDC at its July meeting. The request-Ss being made at this time, prior to any consideration of approval by the TJPDC or by. local governing bodes, in order to obtain recommendations directly from the local governing bodies as to specific changes which the local governments believe will make the proposal a useful guide for the TJPDC. As you know, the April 16, 1976 (Adjourned) 149' TJPDC is an advisory body whose responsibilities include the evaluation of applications for federal and state aid within the TJPD and the coordination of development of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District with plans of other planning districts, governmental subdivision, the State, and federal agencies. As you may remember, the preparation of the land use proposal began with two series of workshops in each locality during the spring and summer of 1974. Workshops on the final draft were held with local planning commissions in the winter of 1975, followed by public hearings in March 1976. I have attached recommendations from your local planning commission made either at the 1975 workshop or at the public hearing, if any. Attached to the proposal itself are amendments which have been proposed by the TJPDC executive committee or TJPDC staff up to this point. The introduction to the proposal emphasizes that the restrictions of a regional comprehensive plan under the Virginia Area Development Act would not apply under the recommended approval process. I would appreciate your comments by the last week in June, in time for the TJPDC executive committee meeting." Mr. Fisher said the Albemarle County Planning Commission has forwarded to the Planning District Commission general comments which deal more with the effect of the plan rather than the content of the p~an. He said the PDC would like for them to comment on the content of the plan. Hearecommended that a letter be sent to the Planning Commission asking them to make comments to the Board in May so that the Board may review the plan in June. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to refer the two letters copied in above to the Albemarle County Planning Commission with a request that they answer the substantive questions in Ms. O'Brien's letter by the end of May. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Another communication dated April 14, 1976, was received from Ms. Marcia C. Penn, Coordinator, State Office on Volunteerism, stating that Madison House is the only student volunteer organization in the state to receive financial support from local city and county governments and recommending that this funding be continued. At 2:06 P.M. the Board continued the meeting by holding a further work session on the proposed 1976-77 County Budget. Categories discussed were: 18A.3 - Chamber of Commerce 18A.4 - Economic Development Commission 18A.5 - Bicentennial Commission 18A.6 - Soil Survey 18A.10 - Xeroxing 18A.14 - Chamber of Commerce and Convention Bureau 18B.1 - Health Department 18B.2 - Mental Health & Retardation Services Board 18B.3 - Regional Library 18B.4 - Piedmont Community College 18B.7 - District Home 18B.8 - Offender Aid and Restoration 18B.9 - Madison House 18B.10 - Lunacy Commission 18B.11 - Community Action Agency !8B.12 - Low Income Housing 18B.13 - Jefferson Area Board on Aging 18C.1 - Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 18C.2 - Highway Safety Commission 18C.3 - Emergency Services Of~.ice 18C.5 - Contributions to operation of Regional Jail 18C.6 - Juvenile Detention Home 18C.7 - Ma~istrate's Office 18C.8 - Scottsville Rescue Squad 17A - School Administration 17B1 - Instruction, Regular Day School 17B2 - Other Instructional Costs 17C - Attendance & Health Services 17C2 - Attendance & Health Services (Activities) 17D1 - Pupil Transportation 17D2 - Replacement - Transportation Vehicles 17E - SchOol Food Services 17Fl - Operation - School Plant 17F2 - Maintenance - School Plant 17G - Fixed Charges 17I - Adult Education 17J - Other Educational Programs 17K - Capital Outlay 17M - Debt Service At 5:15 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn this meeting until April 19, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Federal Court at the Post Office Building on East Market Street. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, !achetta and Roudabush. 150 April 1,6, 1976 (Adjourned) April 20, 1976 (Adjourned) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, was held on April 19, 1976, at 9:00 A.M. in the Federal Court, Post Office Building, East Market Street, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 16, 1976. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David (Arriving at 9:11 A.M.) and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, 'Jr. (arriving at 9:11 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman who requested a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion to this effect was made by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. David and Mr. Dorrier. The Board reconvened at 9:05 A.M~ and recessed for the beginning of the "Fleming- Evergreen" trial. At the end of the day's proceedings, the Chairman noted that the Board would recess and reconvene again on April 20, 1976, at 8:30 A.M. in the Federal court. On April 20, 1976, at 8:30 A.M. the Board reconvened in the Federal Court with the following: Present: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. Absent: Messrs. Dorrier and Henley. Officer present: County Attorney, George R. St. John. Motion was immediately made by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Henley. At 8:~5 A.M. the Board reconvened and then recessed for the trial. At 2:20 P.M. the Chairman noted that this meeting would be continued in the County Executive's Conference Room at 7:30 P.M. this night. The Board reconvened in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, at 7:37 P.M. with all members present. Upon request of the County Attorney, motion was immediately offered by Dr. tachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn into executive session to discuss litigation. The motion carried: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Rdudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 8:02 P.M. sessions on the 1976-77 County budget. attendance) Items discussed were: Mr. Fisher called for a continuation of the work (Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney in 80 - Social Services Department 12 - Protection of Livestock & Fowl 7C - Volunteer Fire Departments 7A - Forest Fire Extinction Service 7B - Fire Department 10L - Parks and Recreation 6A - Policing and Investigation 10A - Engineering Department IF - Special retirement benefits for law enforcement officers iF - Merit increases for County employees At the end of the work session, Mr. Allen Freemen of the Albemarle Education Association read the following statement to the Board: "Last Friday, this Board of Supervisors slashed approximately $370,000 from the proposed education budget. Each of you campaigned upon improvi.ng communications between this board, the public, the school board and its employees. Yet, the reductions in the school budget do not reflect that principle. The cuts were apparently made without public input. The cuts were made without consultation with the school administration or your appointees to the school board. Was the chairman or any member of the school board consulted prior to the changes? Has any member been consulted since the changes? School board members, employees, and the public received knowledge of this action through the public media. Lack of communication has been monumental. The Daily Progress has printed that the school budget was to have been presented at the public hearing as originally submitted. Apparently, this will not be so. We understand that there is sentiment by certain board members to cut the school budget. Yet, we were also led to believe that if and when cuts came this board of supervisors would do so only after public input at the public hearing. It seems that this board of supervisors should have confiden6e in its own appointees. Have you, by your categorical cuts, expressed that confidence? Although your intentions were to save the taxpayer§ money, ~our actions will result in school employees paying, in effect, for the construction of the new