Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-17(7-17-75 Day) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 17, 1975 at 9:00 A.M. in the County Office Building Board Room, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. ABSENT: M~. Gordon L. Wheeler. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T. M. Batchetor, Jr., George R. St. John, James Bowling, and Frederick Payne. The meeting was called to order and began with the Lord's Prayer. Mr. Thacker chaired the meeting in Mr. Wheeler's absence. No~-3- The following minutes were approved by the Board with noted corrections: April 22, 1975, page 99, Mr. Fisher suggested that $142.9 be written as "$142.9 million". April 23, 1975 was accepted as presented. May 7, 1975, page 106, Mr. Fisher suggested the per capita debt should read "approximately $450", not .$450,000. May 14, 1975 was accepted as presented. May 15, 1975, page 113, Mr. Fisher suggested under "Daily Entry Fees", the letter "d)" be added to read "after 5:00 P.M. reduced by one-half." Motion was made by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, to approve the minutes as presented with noted corrections. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. No. 4 a). Road Viewers Report. the Board's acceptance. Report of the Annual Road Viewers Committee, was submitted for Charlottesville, Virginia May 22, 1975 Board of Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Gentlemen: On May 21, 1975, we the undersigned Road Viewers, visited three roads for which applications were received for acceptance into the Secondary Road System. We were accompanied by Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer. After visiting these roads, we wish to make the following recommendations: 1) Route #620 (Woodridge): Addition to the State system of existing private road from Route #620 to .4 miles North of #620. Recommendation to accept subject to final determination by the Highway Department and County as to whether this road was planned as a Subdivision street or not. Covesville: Addition to State system of existing private road from Route 837 to its intersecvion with the Southern Railroad to .25 miles North of said intersection. Recommendation~was to accept this, subject to final check with the Southern Railroad as to where their right-of-way is. 3) Beagle Gap Road: From Route 691 to .~ miles West. Recommendation is to accept this road into the system with Mr. Walter Young participating in a portion of the cost to shape the road and improve the drainage and surface. This recommendation is made since Mr. Young owns several parcels of rental property along this road. This approval would again rest on final determination by the Highway Department and the County, as to whether any portion had been platted as a subdivision development. Respectfully submitted, 1975 ROAD VIEWERS (signed) John O. Higginson (signed) Edgar Paige (signed) Franklin W. Yancey After some discussion as to the status of the Beagle Gap Road plat, Mr. Henley offered motion to accept the Road Viewers report, and adopt the following resolutions recommending the above three roads be accepted into the State Highway Department's Secondary road system. Motion was seconded by Mr.. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None Mr. Wheeler BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road in Woodridge Subdivision from Route 620 to .4 miles North of Route #620, to the Secondary System of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of existing private road from Route 837 in Coves- ville to its intersection with the Southern Railroad to .25 miles North of said intersection, to the Secondary System of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33.1- 229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. (7-17-75 Day) BE IT RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road known as Beagle Gap Road from Route 691 to .3 miles West, to the Secondary System of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33.1- 229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 40 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. No. 4 b). Acceptance of Orchard Acres Section III, deferred until July 23, 1975. No. 4 c). Letters accepting certain streets into the State Highway System. Mr. Batchelor noted receipt of letters from the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation, accepting the following r~ads into the State Secondary System. As requested in resolution by your Board on March 20, 1975, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July !, 1975. ADDITION OAKHILL SUBDIVISION LENGTH Oakhill Drive: Southwood Court: From Intersection Rte. 631 to end. From Oakhill Drive east to cu!- de-sac. 0.34 Mi. 0.17 Mi. As requested in resolution by your Board on April 17, 1975, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July t, 1975. ADDITION GEORGETOWN GREEN SUBDIVISION LENGTH Georgetown Green: From Route 743 to point where loop connects together. o.38 Mi. As requested in resolution by your Board on March 20, 1975, the ~01!owing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July 1, 1975. ADDITION QUEEN CHARLOTTE SUBDIVISION LENGTH Middlesex Drive: From Int. Route 1444 to Charlottes- ville Corp. Limits. King George Circle: From Middlesex Drive to cul-de-sac. 0.095 Mi. 0.04 Mi. As requested in resolution by your Board on March 20, 1975, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July 1, 1975. ADDITION WESTFIELD SUBDIVISION LENGTH Whitewood Road: From Route 743 to north end of Greenbrier Drive. O.563 Mi. As requested in resolution by your Board on June 20, 1974, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July 1, 1975. ADDITION WESTFIELD SUBDIVISION LENGTH Westfield Road: From Route 29 1,060.63 feet west to intersection of Commonwealth Drive. 0.201 Mi. Commonwealth Drive: From Greenbrier Drive 1,300 feet east to end of Section I of Westfield Subdivision 0.246 Mi. As requested in resolution by your Board on May 15, 1975, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective July 1, 1975. ADDITION CANTERBURY HILLS SUBDIVISION LENGTH Franklin Court: From Woodhurst Road southeast to end of Franklin Court. Smithfield Court: From Smithfield Road south- westerly to end of Smithfield Court. Smithfield Road: From Westminister Road north- w~steriv to end of Smithfield Road. 0.025 Mi. 0.052 Mi. 0.114 Mi. (7-17-75 Day) Westminister Road: From Smithfield Road south- westerly to end of Westminister Road. Woodhurst Court: From Woodhurst Road northwesterly to ~nd of Woodhurst Court. Woodhurst Road: From Westminister Road north to end of Woodhurst Road. 0.268 Mi. 0.032 Mi. 0.156 Mi. Mr. Robert Warner noted that when the request for acceptance of Canterbury Hills Subdivision roads waa.~riginally presented to the Board of Supervisors for resolution, two roads were inadver- tently left off, those two roads being Lancaster Court and Surrey Road. Mr. Warner asked that the Board adopt a resolution requesting these two roads be taken into the State Secondary System. Mr. Wood thereby offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried, by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Mighways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department the following roads: Lancaster Court: (0.03 miles) from Bennington Road to Cul-de-sac in Canterbury Hills Section Two. Surrey Road: (0.07 miles) from Bennington Road to Cul-de-sac in ~ Canterbury Hills Section Two. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easements along these re- quested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 392, Page 374. No. 4 d). Mr. John'Humphrey presented a letter from Mr. Charles C. Sensabaugh, General Manager of Charlottesville Hardware Company, Inc., requesting a road sign be erected at the intersection of Route 29 North and out State Route 631 (Rio Road). Mr. Humphrey asked Mr. Warner if the policy would be different since the requested sign would be at the intersection of two major roads. Mr. Warner stated the policy was the same, the Highway Department would erect the sign, but the person requesting the sign must pay for it. Mr. Wood said that although the request is from Charlottesville Hardware, there are many other companies on that road and he felt they should all share in the expense of purchasing the road sign. Mr. Woo.d~then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mesars. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs (2) to. identify Rio Road (Route 631) at its intersection with Route 29 on both the North and South bound sides; and WHEREAS, residents on Rio Road have agreed to purchase these signs, said signs to be purchased through the Office of the County Executive and to conform with standards set by the State Department of Highways; NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department'of Highways be and is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. No. 4 e). Highway matters not on the agenda from the Board. to repair holes on Route 618. Mr. Henley requested Mr. Warner Mr. Carwile inquired if the state maintains the entrance to Montvue Subdivision. Mr. Warner said they did not, as it was not in the "right-of-way". Mr. Carwile then asked if any progress was being made on Old Forge Road. Mr. Warner said to his knowledge nothing had yet been done, but that he would be glad to check. Mr. Wood said he had asked Mr. Charles Perry of the Highway Department to check into repairing the railroad bridge on Huntington Road, but had not heard the status. Mr. Warner said they had been in tou~h with the Railroad, but had not gotten a response. Mr. Wood then asked Mr. Warner to look into repairing holes in Rio Road, especially the area where the several subdivisions meet the main road. Mr. Warner said that even though the problem lies with privately owned roads, his Department has been filling them because the holes are right at the edge of the State maintained roads. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Warner to check and see that road lines are painted at the entrance of the new Ednam Forest Subdivision. Mr. Warner said he had been in touch with the owner, and was assured it would he done at that time, but added he would check into that matter again. Mr Fisher also requested Mr. Warner to look into repairing holes in the road outside the Highway Research Council Building at the University of Virginia. No. 6. Public Hearing, Ordinance vacating a portion of the plat of Wakefield Subdivision shown on a plat rec'orded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 385, page 157. This vacation for that portion of Wakefield Court lying on the northwesterly side of Wakefield Road between Lot 1, Block C of said subdivision and Lot 6, Block A thereof. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1975) Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Department did communicate with the City Planning staff and Commission to receive comments. The City Planning Commission recommended vacation, but w~h~ ~ 192 (7-17-75 Day) plat. Mr. Humphrey added that if the Board wished to vacate this plat, he recommended some provision be made for access along property lines to utilities. The recommended easement width was 20 feet. Mr. Thacker asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the subject. Mr. Lloyd Wood said Mr. Vaughan Stewart, and Mr. Paige Lynch had spoken to him and said they would not be able to attend the meeting, but that they were in favor of the plat vacation. Mr. Thacker closed the public hearing since no one wished to speak. Mr. Wood pointed out on a map the reason this vacation request was denied in 1973. He then pointed out how a permanent cul-de-sac was now at the end of this street, and how all the utility lines are located in that area. He added that Wakefield Subdivision can take no further development, and offered motion to adopt the ordinance advertised for vacation with no allowance for an easement. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Batchelor noted that water, sewer and gas lines have been installed in that area and that a right-of-way should be retained. Mr. Fisher said there is no recommendation from the County Planning Commission, and that the Planning Staff recommends against vacation. Mr. Wood noted that a petition had been presented to the City by property owners on the City side, requesting vacation of the Wakefield Court right-of-way. There was no further discussion, role was called, and motion to adopt the ordinance was denied by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley and Thacker Mr. Wheeler. No. 7. Public Hearing, Ordinance to vacate a portion of plat of Park View Property, Crozet, shown on recorded plats as Lots 23, 24, 25, 26 of Block B, including the public street lying between Lots 23 and 24. This property is shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 369, page 415, as correcved by plat of correction recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 461, page 636. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 27 and July 4, 1975). Mr. E. O. McCue, III, who was present representing Charles R. and Gladys R. Wesner, presented diagrams Tn~icating location of the lots. Mr. E. E. Thompson, an adjacent landowner stated he had no objections to the plat vacation. Mr. Thacker asked why a corrected plat had been put to record. Mr. McCue said there was a resurvey, which repositioned the lot boundaries, and their present request is to vacate the corrected plat (Lots 23, 24 and 25). No one else from the public wished to speak and Mr. Thacker closed the public hearing. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Second was made bY Mr. Carwi!e. was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Role P~rsuant to Section 15.1-482, Code of Virginia, as amended, the following ordinance is proposed and adopted after due notice has been given as required in Section 15.1-431, Code of Virgmnla', as amended: AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PORTION OF PLAT OF PARK VIEW PROPERTY CROZET, SHOWN ON RECORDED PLATS AS LOTS 23, 24, 25, and 26 OF BLOCK B, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC STREET LYING BETWEEN LOTS 23 AND 24: THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEER BOOK 369, PAGE 415, AS CORRECTED BY PLAT OF CORRECTION RECORDED IN THE SAID CLERK'S OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 461, PAGE 636. WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County in the Village of Crozet has been heretofore subdivided under the name of Park View Property, the original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 369, page 415; and WHEREAS, said plat was amended by the recording of. a certain plat of correction of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 461, page 636; and WHEREAS, Charles R. Wesner and Gladys R. Wesner are the owners of four (4) lots in said subdivision, namely Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Block B of said subdivision; and WHEREAS, the said Charles R. Wesner and Gtadys R. Wesner have petitioned the Board of Counvy Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said plats be vacated insofar as they affect the aforementioned lots; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board oP County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. That the subdivision of Park View Property shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 369, page 415, as corrected by plat of correction recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 461, page 636, be, and the same hereby is, vacated as to that portion Of said subdivision shown on the said plats as Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Block B, including the public street lying between Lots 23 and 24. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded on the aforementioned plats. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plats the word "VACATED", and also shall make reference on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid pla6 shall be effective on July 17, 1975. (7-17-75 Day) No. 8. Discussion of Fire Hydrants. Mr. Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal, was present but suggested the Board hear the report from Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority first. Mr. Thompson noted his report of July 11, 1975, (copy of which is in the permanent file of the Board of Supervisors) then said since the writing of this report, he has been able to secure the services of two school age boys under a Federally funded program, to maintain fire hydrants and make them serviceable. Mr. Fisher asked about hydrants located on raw water lines. Mr. Thompson said they cannot be used because of the intense water pressure, and was not sure which alternative would be better, removing them and try to salvage, or color code those that are unuseable. Mr. Carwile asked about fire hydrants located in private subdivisions, on private water systems. Mr. Thompson said these hydrants were being supplied with water by the private subdivision, and that the Albemarle Service Authority did not.have jurisdiction. Mr. Carwile then suggested the County Attorney draft an ordinance, requiring these private subdivisions to maintain their hydrants to County standards. Mr. Thacker asked about ithe hydrant problem in the Scottsville area. Mr. Thompson said the biggest problem is they are only selling about 53% of the water and cannot detect the area of leakage. He added they have purchased a "leak detector" to hopefully locate the problem. Mr~ Thompson then said another serious problem is the fact that the hydrants are so old they cannot be serviced without turning o£f the entire water system, and the entire hydrant must be replaced, as parts are not available. Mayor Ramon Thacker of Scottsville said he disagreed with one item in the report, that being most hydrant threads were not standard size. Mayor Thacker said the hydrants in Scottsville were all equipped with National Standard threads, and all trucks carried adaptors in case of pro- blems. He asked what could be done to require Paulett Subdivision to install hydrants as they develop. Mr. John Humphrey said the subdivision had been approved by the Board before hydrants were required, and this subdivision on a well system and hydrants are not feasible. Mr. Thompson said the Service Authority would gladly help the town of Scottsville in analyzing their hydrant system. He added they are going to purchase a "tap valve" to aid in repairing hydrants. This valve will make it possible to repair the hydrant without turning off the entire water system. No. tl. Service Authority Note. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to defer this matter until Wednesday, July 23, 1975, at 7:30 P.M., motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded wote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr.. Wheeler. No. 5. Matters not on the agenda from the public. No one from the public wished to speak. No. 9. Land Use. Miss Page Godsey, Administrative Assistant, reported that all field work on land use applications has been finished with the exception of about 10 parcels she predicted that the office will meet the 1975 deadline. Miss Godsey then requested a revision of Section 9-31(b) of the Land Use Tax Ordinance, citing the reason being the County Ordinance compared to the State Ordinance requires applicants to submit an application for each use on a parcel as well as a separate application on each parcel. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile to advertise for a public hearing, an amendment to the Land Use Tax Ordinance for August 13, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. Role was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Miss Godsey next presented She said this would simplify the BE IH RESOLVED by Article VIII, Chapter the following resolution for the Boalrd's consideration. application and re-application procedure. the Albemarle County Board of SuperVisors that Section 9-33 (b) 9 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended to read as follows: The application fee under the Ordinance for Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate (Land Use Tax Ordinance) shall be figured at $.15 per acre on total acreage with a minimum charge of $15.00 per individual owner and shall be paid to the Director of Finance of the County. However, where a landowner is required to file a new application under the Ordinance for Specia! Assessments for Agri- cultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate, because the use or acreage of such land previously approved has changed, the application fee for said re-application shall be $15.00. These fees may be changed from time-to-time by resolution of the Board ~of Supervisors. Mr. ~Henley offered motion to approve the resolution as presented by Miss Godsey. seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: Motion was AYES': NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. Miss Godsey next presented a request for a Land Use Classification Appeals Board to be made up of three members. The duties would be to review land use classifications when requested to do so by the applicant. Mr. Henley said he felt it sounded like something that was very much in need. Mr. Hhacker agreed with Mr. Henley, and said the County Attorney should prepare such a resolution for the Board's consideration. Mr. Fisher agreed, and felt it should be a citizen committee as suggested by Miss Godsey. Mr. Thacker said that since it was the consensus of the Board, they would place this item on the agenda for August 13, 1975, and advised Board members to be prepared to make appointments. No. 16. Appropriation Totier project. Mr. David Morris., Chairman of the Parks Committee, was present and requested the Board's permission to release the Totier Creek Project for bids. He said the project consists of construction of a comfort/maintenance structure, tot-lot play structure, (7-17-75 Day) delayed until some future time. Mr. Thacker said the project had been approved for revenue sharing funds, but no appropriation has yet been made. Mr. Batchelor recommended making an appropriation of $50,000, and if the bids are within this appropriated amount the contract can be immediately awarded. Mr. Henley asked if things like seeding would also be bid. Mr. Morris said yes, and Mr. Henley protested saying County employees could probably do it themselves for half the price. Mr. Fisher said he was not inclined to appropriate more than the requested $50,000 without first viewing the bids. Mr. Carwile then offered motion that the Parks Committee be authorized to put the Totier Creek project out to bid, and that it be bid in such a fashion that there be alternates in the bid so items ~an be deleted if necessary, and that appropriation for this project be deferred until the bids are received. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: -NOne. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. No. 12. Reports of the Department of Social Services for the months of May and June, 1975, were received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. No. 18. Restricted Roads Committee Report. Mr. William Roudabush, Chairman, presented the following report. Other members of the committee are Mr. Charles Perry of the Virginia State Highway Department and Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer. In order to provide a program of continuing maintenance for subdivision streets created under the Subdivision regulations of Albemarle County and assure uniform standards of design and construction as a guide for the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, developers and engineers, the following policy and design standards recom- mended adopted for subdivision streets to qualify for addition to the State Secondary Road System: 1. GENERAL POLICY: The general policy of the Board of Supervisors shall be: a) That in-so-far as possible, all streets which are required to be approved under the subdivision regula- tions shall be designed and constructed pursuant to standards which would make them eligible for addi- tion to the secondary system. b) That the d~sign standards be flexible enough to encourage meandering of residential streets with curves and grades to fit the terrain and with as little emphasis on grade and alignment requirements as necessary, so as to reduce residential development costs, preserve natural vegetation and discourage high traffic speeds. c) That the safety aspects of the design and construction of the facility is not reduced. SPECIFIC POLICY: The following design standards, both as to geometrics and base and pavement design and other requirements are established as minimums for subdivision streets: a) Current highway department policy does not provide for acceptance of streets in commercial subdivision developments in cases of dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets which do not interconnect with other State maintained roads or provide a genuine public service. In approving commercial subdivisions of this nature the Board may make special exceptions to allow such subdivisions to be approved with "Owners maintenance agreements" to provide for road maintenance, however, all design and construction standards specified herein shall be adhered to in all cases. Such streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with (b) or (c) following. See Appendix A for standard form of owners agreement. b) For subdivision streets with dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets having a known and fixed vehicular demand not exceeding 210 vehicles per day and when there is absolutely no possibility'of the streets being extended the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design specified in Appendix B shall apply. c) For all other subdivision streets the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design specified in Appendix C shall apply. d) For Townhouse streets the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design specified in Appendix D shall apply. e) Subdivision streets which do not connect directly to present State maintained roads will only be approved with owners maintenance agreement requirements specified in (a) above to provide for private maintenance of'all streets within the subdivision. Such streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance with (b) or (c) above. f) Pri~vate access easements may be approved only in such instances when other access to subdivided lots or tracts is impractical or impossible. The number of lots, tracts or parcels served by a single private access easement shall be limited to no more than two, providing a minimum width-of no less than 20 feet for each parcel served. g) Bonds required for all roads approved under (b) and (c) above. (No recommendation on Bonding made by the Committee) h) Streets constructed under this policy will be recommended for acceptance in the secondary system by adoption of a suitable resolution at such time as they are brought to proper standards and found that they are open to the general use of the public and provide a genuine public service. STANDARDS OF DESIGN: There are many variations of design which may be used to fit local conditions. All reasonable requests for variations will be referred to the Virginia Department of Highways for consideration. The following attached appendices constitute minimum standards for design of subdivision streets in Al'bemarle County. (For the purposes of determining the traffic usage (VPD) on subdivision streets each family unit should be multiplied by seven): APPENDIX A: Standard form for owner's maintenance agreements for streets not eligible for secondary road maintenance. APPENDIX B: Minimum design standards for subdivision streets, dead-end streets, cul-de-sac or loop streets with fixed vehicular demand not exceeding 210 VPD. (7-17-75 Day) APPENDIX C: Minimum design standards for subdivision streets other than dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets and those W~th vehicular demand exceeding 210 VPD. APPENDIX D: Minimum design standards for townhouse streets. APPENDIX E: Base and pavement design criteria. APPENDIX F: Geometric design standards. APPENDIX A MODEL RESTRICTIONS FOR PROPERTY SERVED BY RESTRICTED ROADS The roadway shown on the attached plat is a restricted road, the maintenance of which shall no% be the responsi- bility of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Al'bemarle, or any other public body. Maintenance of the said roadway shall be the responsibility of the owners of lots abutting thereon, each of-whom shall be responsible for his pro rata share of such maintenance. Assessments for such maintenance shall be made whenever a majority of the owners of lots abutting on the said roadway deem necessary, and such assessments shall constitute a lien on all lots from the time of such assessments until paid. APPENDIX B MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS, DEAD-ENDS, CUL-DE-SAC OR LOOP STREETS WITH FIXED VEHICULAR DEMAND NOT EXCEEDING 210 VPD (CLASS A) 1. Pavement width and right-of-way shall be: a) Without curb and gutter 20 foot minimum with 4 foot shoulder in cut, 5 foot shoulder- in fill and 40 foot minimum R/W. (See Appendix F) b) With curb and gutter - 24 foot minimum curb to curb with 40 foot minimum R/W and parking on one side only. (See Appendix F). 2. Base and pavement design shall conform to Appendix E. 3. Maximum degree of curvature shall be 37° or a minimum center line radius of 155 feet (See Appendix F). 4. Maximum percent of street grade shall be 15%. (See Appendix F) 5. Minimum stopping sight distance shall be 200 feet. (See Appendix F) 6. Off street parking required for 2 vehicles per residence, with or w~thout curb and gutter. 7. The use of right angle intersections with minimum 50 foot radius on pavement returns required. 8. An 80 foot pavement diameter shall be provided at the termini of dead-end or cul-de-sac streets. 9. Drainage facilities, structures, conduits etc. including drainage easements are to be designed in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by the Virginia Department of Highways. Paved ditches will not be required where ditch line velocity does not exceed 3.5 FPS. Where ditch line velocities are between 3.5 FPS and 5.0 FPS jute matting or other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where ditch line velocities exceed 5.0 FPS paved ditches will be required. APPENDIX C MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS OTHER THAN DEAD-END, CUL-DE-SAC OR LOOP STREETS AND THOSE WITH VEHICULAR DEMAND EXCEEDING 210 VPD (CLASS B) 1. Pavement width and right-of-way shall conform to Appendix F. 2. Base and pavement design shall conform to Appendix E. 3. Degree of curvature, percent grade and stopping sight distance shall conform to. Appendix E. 4. Drainage facilities, structures, conduits etc. including drainage easements are to be designed in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by the Virginia Department of Highways. Paved ditches will not be required where ditch li'ne velocity does not exceed 3.5 FPS. Where ditch line velocities are between 3.5 FPS and 5.0 FPS jute matting or other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where ditch line velocities exceed 5.0 FPS paved ditches will be required. APPENDIX D MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOUSE STREETS l. TownhouSe streets must be a deadend, cul-de-sac or loop. road within a townhouse complex. 2. The maximum vehicular demand shall not exceed 3,000 VPD. 3. Pavement width and right-of-way shall conform to Appendix F. 4. Base and pavement design shall conform to Appendix E. 5- Degree of curvature, percent grade and stoppi, ng distance shall conform to Appendix F. 6. Parking bays are permitted along such streets. 7. The use of right angle intersections with minimum 35 foot radius curb returns is encouraged. 8. An 80 foot pavement diameter shall be provided at the termini of dead-end or cul-de-sac streets. 9. Drainage facilities, structures, conduits etc. including drainage easements are to be designed in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by the Virginia Department of HighWays. Paved ditches will not be required where ditch line velocity does not exceed 3.5 FPS. Where ditch line veloci~ties are between 3.5 FPS and 5.0 FPS jlute matting or other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where ditch line velocities exceed 5.0 FPS paved ditches will be required. (7-17-75 Day) Co Eo APPENDIX E BASE AND PAVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA GENERAL: For design purposes, subdivision and townhouse streets have been divided into five traffic volume categories as follows: Category I Up to 250 vehicles per day Category II 251 to 400 vehicles per day Category III 40l to 750 vehicles per day Category IV 751 to 3,000 vehicles per day Category V 3,001 or more vehicles per day (l) Typical pavement designs for each traffic volume category are included. These are to be used as a guide. Combinations other than those given may be used. Pavement designs should fit local conditions. In cases where the traffic volume is near the upper limit for any traffic category, consideration should be given to using the design of the next higher category. Local materials that normally would be considered unsatisfactory for use in construction may be acceptable when stabilized with a stabilizing agent such as cement or lime. Specifications for all materials can be found in the current Virginia Department of Highways' Road and Bridge Specifications, or appropriate supplemental specifications. "The Virginia Method of Determining CBR Values" is to be used to determine the bearing value of the soils. Details as to this method may be obtained from any Virginia Department of Highways' District Office or the Central Office in Richmond. SURFACE COURSES Prime and double' seal surface treatment and bituminous concrete plant-mixed surfaces ~hould be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways' Specifications and Standards. Equivalent thickness of bituminous concrete in lieu of prime and double seal would be prime with cover material and 100 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. BASE COURSES Aggregate base course materials should comply with the Virginia Department of Highways' current Road and Bridge Specifications. These are of two types and various sizes as shown below: Type I -- Aggregate base material (crushed material only). Aggregate Size Numbers 21, 21-A or 22. Type II -- Aggregate base material (crushed or uncrushed material). Aggregate Size Numbers 21, 21-A or 22. When aggregate base material, Type I, is specified, the coarser grading aggregate Numbers 20, 21 or 21-A are preferable. When aggregate base material, Type It, is specified, aggregate size Numbers 21 or 21-A should be selected when a commercial material is provided. When it is intended to stabilize a local material with cement, approximately 8% by volume should be used. When lime is the stabilizing agent, approximately 4% by weight should be used; In all cases, however, representative samples Of the material should be submitted for test to determine the correct percentage of stabilizing agent. 2. Bituminous concrete base courses shall be either Type B-1 or B-3. CEMENT OR LIME STABILIZED SUBGRADE Several of the designs show lime or cement stabiilized subgrade. This is highly desirable when feasible. When not feasible, an equal or greater depth of base material should be provided. When cement stabilized subgrade is recommended, approximately I0% bY volume should be used. When lime is the stabilizing agent, approximately 5% by weight should be used. In all cases, I~owever, representative samples of the soil should be submitted for test. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT Where it is anticipated that the traffic will include a high percentage of heavy axle load vehicles, a six- inch depth of subbase material stabilized with approximately 4%. cement by weight wi~ll be required. Where the subgrade support soil has a CBR value of less than 10, a four-inch depth of subbase material will be required. As an alternate, the top six inches of subgrade shall be stabilized with cement or lime. Approximate percentages are shown under Section D. The concrete shall be Class A-3 paving concrete according to the current Virginia Department of Highways' Road and Bridge Specifications or appropriate supplemental specifications. The concrete pavement shall be plain portland cement concrete with maximum transverse joint spacings of 20 feet. (7-17-75 Day) F. DESIGNS Up to 250 vehicles per day CBR value of subgrade lO or greater (2) (3) Category I e Base - 6 inches aggregate base material 21 or 21~A. Surface - Prime 'and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. Base - 6 inches soil cement stabilized (natural soil or borrow.). Surface - Curing agent and double seal or equi'valent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. Base - 7 inch aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 4 inches cement or lime stabilized subgrade. Base - 3 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 5 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase. Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 1 inch bitumTnous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. Category II 251 to 400 vehicles per day CBR value of subgrade lO or greater e Base - 8 inches aggregate base material 21 or 21-A. Surface - Prime and double seal or equi-valent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 6 inches cement stabilized subgrade. Base 3 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. Base - l0 inches aggregate base material. Surface Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 6 inches local base material stabilized with cement. Surface - Curing agent and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 5 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase. Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 1 inch bituminous concrete, Types S-4 or S-5. Category III 401 to 750 vehicles per day CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater e 6 inches cement stabilized subgrade. Base - 3 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade. Base - 4 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent th}ckness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. Base - 10 inches local aggregate base. Top 6 inches stabilized with cement. Surface - Curing agent and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 4 inches local aggregate base. Base - 4 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 1 inch bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. Subbase - 6 inches select material, Type I or Ill. Base 5 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. Base - 10 inches aggregate base material. Surface - Prime 'and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete. 6 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase. Category IV 75l to 3,000 vehicles per day CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater. e 6 inches cement stabilized subgrade,. Base 4 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade. Base - 5 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. 6 inches select material, Type I or Ill. Base - 5 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. l0 inches local material. Top 6 inches stabilized with cement. Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. (7-17-75 Day) 6 inches local material. Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. Subbase - 8 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Base - 275 pounds bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. 7 inches plain portland cement concrete. 3 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Category V 3,001 or more vehicles per day. CBR value of subgrade lO or greater. 6 inches cement stabilized subgrade. Subbase - 5 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. 6 inches lime stabilized subgrade. Subbase - 6 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5'. 6 inches select material, Type I or Ill. Subbase - 6 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Base - 350 pounds (3 inChes) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S~4 or S-5. Subbase - 12 inches aggregate subbase or base material. Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. 7 inches plain portland cement concrete. 4 inches aggregate subbase or base material. 6 inches local material. Base - 6 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3. Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5. (l) When the anticipated vehicles per day exceed 5,500, a four-lane facility is normally required. Therefore, the total traffic volume would be 80% in each directioni This figure would then be used for the traffic category design. (2) Subgrade support soils, immediately under the pavement structure, with CBR values less than 10, will require an additional 6 inches of subbase, base, or select material. In lieu of this, the CBR value of the subgrade soil may be improved to a mTnimum value of 10, by other methods. (3) Sufficient CBR tests should be run to determine the true support value of the various soils in the subgrade. APPENDIX F GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS CLASS A - Subdivision streets with dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets with fixed vehicular demand not exceeding 210 VPD. CLASS B - Subdivision streets other than dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop street and with vehicular demand exceeding 210 VPD. CLASS C - Townhouse streets with dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop street with fixed vehicular demand not exceeding 3,000 VPD. CLASS VPD PAVEMENT MINIMUM BASE AND 'DESIGN MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM WIDTH WIDTH WI"D/H '-P~VEMENT SP~EED~'U~TDEGREE PER£'ENT S~TOP. B'I~ ~' F I R/W DESIGN ! (MPH) OF OF SIGHT SHOULDER . . (Appendix D) CURVATURE GRADE DISTANCE W/O W/O Max Min Fill Cut C&G C&G C&G C&G A 0-210 20' 24'(1) 40' 40' Cat. I 30 20 37°' 15% 200' 5' 4'.' B 0-250 20' 24'(2) 40' 40'! Cat. I 30 20 !26° 30' 12% 150' 5' 4I 251-400I 20' 30'(3) 50' 40' Cat. II 30 20 I 26° 30' 12% 150' 5' 4' 401-750 22' 36'(3) 60' 50' Cat. Ill 40 30 14° 10% 200' 6' 4' 751-3000 22I 44'(3) 60' 50' Cat. IV 50 40 8° 8% 275' 8' 6' 3001-5500 24' 48'(4) 60' 60' Cat. V 50 40 8° 8% 275' 8' 6' 68' (3) 72' 5500-UP 4~12' 52'(4) 80' 60' Cat. V 60 40 5° 30' 8% 275' 81 6' 76' (3) 80' C 0-250 - 30'(3) - 40' Cat. I 30 20 37° 12% 200' - - 25~-400 ..... 30'(3) - 40' Cat. II 30 20 26° 30' 12% 200' - - 401-750 - 36'(3)~ - 50' Cat. III 40 30 ' 14° 10% 200' - - 751-3000 - 44'(3) - 50' Cat IV 50 40 8° ' 8%' 275' - - (1) Parking on one side only. (2) Parking on one side only and offstreet parking required. (3) No parking restrictions. (4) No parking permitted. (7-17-75 Day) At the conclusion of Mr. Roudabush's presentation, Mr. Carwile suggested a decision on adoption of this report be deferred until the Board and Planning Staff have had the opportunity to read the report in full. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to defer action on the restricted roads report until Wednesday, July 23, 1975. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 19. Earlysville Heights Subdivision, request for waiver of minimum lot size. Action on this matter was deferred from July 9, 1975. Mr. Homer Chevacci of the Regional Health Department was present at the Board's request, and read portions of a letter dated July 17, 1975, to Mrs. Mary"Joy Scala of the County Planning staff stating the average lot size was too small for both individual well and individual septic tank system, and that the Regional Health Department would approve these lots on their own merit if a central water system was used instead of individual wells. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, stated this waiver would be required on Section 4. He then clarified that the request was for a waiver of the minimum lot size to proceed with~individual wells and septic tanks. Mr. William M. Foster, representing Mr. Williams, owner of Earlysville Heights Subdivision, stated they had no objections if the Board would assure them that the central well system would be approved when the special permit came before the Board. Mr. Thacker said no such assurance could be given, and also said the Board would probably require that design of the systembe approved by the County Engineers office. Mr. Fisher then stated the Board has have never disapproved a central well system which meets the Board's policy of 1 gallon per minute per dwelling unit and correct pipe sizing. Mr. St. John said since this involved 15 lots, it would be best if handled under the State Corporation Commission, because it would be too cumbersome for a Home Owners Association. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to approve the waiver of the minimum lot size with the condition that the owner apply for a special permit for a central water system for the 15 lots in this section. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. No. 10. Local Government Attorneys of Virginia. Mr. George St. John summarized the purpose of the orgainzation as being representation in Richmond, reporter services, continuing education, clearinghouse for information, research service and standing committees. He added the membership was $300 per year for the municipal body, and that it would be worth the cost. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile to join the organization, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 13. Statement of expenses of the Director of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of June, 1975, were presented. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded hy Mr. Fisher, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 14. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of June, 1975, was presented. Upon motion by Mr. Fisher, ~seconded by Mr~ Carwile, this statement was approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 15. Joint Security Complex Report~. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Joint Security Complex for the month of June, 1975 was presented. Also presented was statement of the Jail Physician and statement of nurses' salaries. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, all statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 17. Report: Audit of Eighth Regional Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1971, 1972 and 1973, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Accounts was marked received. No. 20. Special appropriation to cover over-expenditures for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1975. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, presented report on over-expenditures for the Fiscal Year 1974-75. He stated the total appropriation required is $2,213,098.19, an~ then broke it down by department and type of expense as follows: CODE DEPARTMENT i-B-319 1-B-206 1-G-218 5-A-121 5-A-218 6-A-106B 6-A-325A 6-A-215A 7-115 7-402 10J.2-406 10L-215B 18D-902 Stationery, Printing - Co. Exec. Dues and Subscriptions Telephone, Telegraph & Postage - Purchasing Jurors & Witnesses - Circuit Court Telephone, Telegraph & Postage Compensation-Airport Security Guards Uniforms-Airport Security Guards Repair & Replacement,Autos - Sheriff Compensation-Firemen - Fire Dept. Fire Hose & Connestions Materials & Tools - Keene Landfill Repair & Replacement-Bldgs & Grnds-Parks Loan-Joint Security Complex FROM GENERAL FUND TO GENERAL OPERATING FUND 17F1-1t9 !7F!-207 t7F1-311 17M-828 17M-826 Compensation-Custodial Personnel Schools Electric Current Fuel School Bonds--1974 Interest--Literary Loan--1974 FROM GENERAL FUND 'TO SCHOOL OPERATING FUND 17D1-300 17G-295 17G-210 17Qb2-305 Repairs, Tires, Tubes & Parts Schools Fringe Benefits Insurance Premiums Title III, Innovative Programs FROM THE~SCHOOL OPERATING FUND 190-311 190-310 190-316 Gas-Joint Security Complex Food Medical Supplies, etc. FROM JOINT SECURITY COMPLEX FUND 19.12 19.19 19.25 19.26 19.28 Scottsville Junior High Annex-School Construc. Addition--Albemarle High School Southside Junior High School Westside Senior High Albemarle North Elementary School PROM SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION FUND AMOUNT $ 811.34 146.39 2O.8O 6,000.14 136.59 21,516.52 121.35 13,240.60 413.05 3,430.76 1,853.51 556..15 50,000.00 $ 98,247.20 $ 2,639.19 75,969.24 8,599.63 30,415.00 6,261.17 $ 123,884.23 $ 19,351.95 9,227.58 7,611.62 3,641.39 $ 39,832.54 $ 11,659.10 1,755.28 6,365.61 $ 19,779.99 $ 90,478.91 150,500.86 596,800.83 219,109.84 713,200.43 ~1,~70,.090.87 19J Airport Improvements $ 74,671.00 19L Joint Security Complex 85,904.67 FROM GENERAL FUND TO GENERAL OPERATING-CAPITAL Outlay $ 160,575.67 180.12 McIntire Trust Fund-Walton Middle School ~ 687.69 FROM McINTIRE TRUST FUND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER OVER-EXPENDITURES ~2,213,098.19 Motion to approve the requested appropriation~was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 21. Reappropriations for Fiscal Year 1975-76. Mr. Ray Jones explained the term reappro- priation as a request to make monies allocated to prior years for projects not completed available in the forthcoming year. The list of items for reappropriation are as follows: CODE DEPARTMENT AMOUNT 1Al05 Bond Issuance Expense-Bd. Supr. ~ 7,149.28 1F123.1 Personnel: Emergency Job Program 26,114.29 IF250 Personnel Training Program 1,624.39 2A403 Furniture & Fixtures-Real Estate Dept. 425.75 2A405 Office Equipment 744.10 2A.1-109 Clerks & Field Appraiser-Land Use 3,100.00 2A.1-25t Computer Service Contract 1,800.00 2A.!-403 Furniture & Fixtures 239.76 6A199 !.A.C.P. Department Study-Sheriff 10,080.00 6A409 Police Equipment 471.00 10B400 Motor Vehicle Purchase-Building Inspec. 10,800.00 10B403 Furniture & Fixtures 1,557.10 10B405 Office Equipment 1,384.95 10B420 Radio Equipment--Inspectors 1785.20 10E226 Printing & Ordinance revision-Planning 4,141.50 *10L601 Improvements to sites-Parks 500.00 18B.3 Emergency Services 13,713.00 18B.61 Jefferson Area Board on Aging 1~714.61 *18C.13 Low Income Housing 19,932.21 *19-600A Land Acquisition Fire Dept. 50,000.00 *19.10L1 Capital Outlay--Totier Creek 569.56 '19.2 Juvenile Court Facilities 70,253.00 (7-17-75 Day) 2O. Taken from Revenue Sharing Funds during the previous year. Ail others were originally taken from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund. Motion to approve the reappropriations as presented was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. No. 22. Special appropriations. A. Mr. Ray Jones presented two items which would require special appropriations by the Board. First was the amount of $3,022 for PEP Program. Mr. Jones stated the funds are 90% reimbursable and will continue the PEP employees through August 31, 1975. The second amount was $3,_600 for Compen- sation of Interns. Mr. Jones said the funds are 100% reimbursable and will finance a HUD intern for the Planning Department from July 1, 1975 through June 30, 1976. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution. was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: Role BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,022 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and Coded 1F-123. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and Coded 10E-108.!. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. B. A request, was received from Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools, for $16,000 for a Work-study program. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adoPt the following resolution, seconded by Mr. CarWile, and carried by the following recorded vote: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $16,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operating Fund and Coded to t762-299. AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. C. Request was received from SheriffBailey for an appropriation of $62,741 to cover cost of four additional deputies in the Sheriff's Office. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution. Role was called, and motion-carried by the following recorded vote: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of. Albemarle County, Virginia, that $62,741 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund for salaries and other'necessary expenses occassioned by the employment of four new deputies in the Sheriff's Department. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr.' Wheeler. No. 23. ' Appointments: a) Library Board--Mr. Thacker stated the appointment must come from his district, and requested it be deferred until July 23, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. b) Advisory Council on Aging--Mr. Carwile recommended the appointmant of Mr. John Burns of Route 1, Box 174C, Scottsville for a term of two years,, and Mrs. Imogene Bunn of Old Lynchburg Road, Charlottesville for a term of one year. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. c) Technical Committee-Transportation Restudy Committee; Mr. Wood stated the person he had in mind for the appointment could not accept, and requested deferral until July 23, 1975. d) Welfare Board--Mr. Wood-again stated he hoped to have a nominee at the July 23rd meeting. · Mr. Thacker noted receipt of a notice from the State Corporation Commission, showing the appli- cation of Shenandoah Tours, Inc. for a Broker's License. At 12:40 P.M., Mr. Thacker requested the Board to adjourn briefly into an executive session for the discussion of legal matters under litigation. Motion was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler The Board reconvened at t:10 P.M. _02 (7-17-75 Day) (7-22-75 Day) No. 4. Mr. Fisher read the following resolution into the record, and made motion for the adoption of the resolution: WHEREAS, the South Rivanna River Reservoir is a resource of great value to the people of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is concerned about the con- tinued viability of the said Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with substantial evidence that high density residential development adjacent to the said Reservoir is likely to result in the dim- inution of the utility thereof and of its chances for continued viability; and WHEREAS, there is a substantial amount of high density residential zoning in the immediate drainage basin of the said Reservoir, which zoning was established prior to the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan in 1971 and is in direct conflict therewith; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority has proposed that a comprehensive study of the South Rivanna River Reservoir be undertaken to determine the effects of urban development adjacent thereto on the quality of water contained therein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that no building permit shall be issued for any development in the immediate drainage basin of the South Rivanna River Reservoir until such time as the Rivanna Sewer and Water Authority Dhall have determined the effect of such development on the said Reservoir. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "immediate drainage basin of the said Reservoir" shall be deemed to include all that portion of the County bordered on the West ~and North by the South Rivanna River Reservoir; on the South by State Route 631 on the __W~st.~_by State Route 743 and on the East by State Route 659. An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance shall take effect immediately. Mr. Carwile stated that since he represents a person owning property at the reservoir who would be effected by this resolution, he would abstain from any action and participation. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Wood said he felt it would be to the best interest of the citizens in the county to delay any action on this resolution until the full Board was present. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Wood that the entire Board should be present for the vote. Mr. Thacker also agreed that action should be delayed. Mr. Fisher said he would be willing to delay the vote if the Board instructed the Planning Commission not to take action on approving development in the above stated area, between now and the time the Board takes action. At this point, Mr. Henley asked Mr. Thacker to call a short recess for the purpose of dis- cussing the Pending resolution"with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Thacker granted his request. During their absence, two representatives of the press, Mr. Ben Critzer of the Daily Progress and Mr. Allen Cooper of the Richmond News Leader, protested this action claiming it violated the Freedom Of Information Act. Mr. George St. John ruled that since a situation of this type was not specifically outlawed in the State or County Codes, he had no basis to say the recess was illegal. Mr. Fisher said it was the consensus of opinion to defer any action on this resolution until the entire Board was present. Mr. Henley offered a substitute motion to defer action on the above resolution Until the July 23, 1975, meeting. Substitute motion was seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile. At 1:45 P.M., Mr. Thacker requested a motion to adjourn the meeting to July 22, 1975, at 11:00 A.M. in the Board Room for the purpose of receiving bids on the school bond sale. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: .AYES: NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. Chairman An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virg%nia, was held on July 22, 1975, at 11:00 A.M., in the County Office Building Executive Conference Room, Charlottesville, Virginia. Meeting was adjourned from July 17, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwi!e, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr., and Gordon L. Wheeler. ABSENT: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., and James Bowling. Mr. Thomas Batchelor stated the purpose of this meeting was to accept an interest rate on a school bond for the construction of West Side High School in the amount of $5,750,000. Resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of these school bonds was adopted on July 2, 1975. Mr. Batchelor added that Mr.~ Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was at the State Treasurers Office in Richmond, and would be calling in with bids from prospective purchasers of bonds. He said they were hoping for an interest percentage rate of 6.1% or better.