Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-05 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 5, 1974, at 9:30 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from August 28, 1974. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Mr. Wood arriving at 9:40 A.M.) Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present: County Executive, T. Mo Batchelor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Mr. Batchelor said at a meeting held last week with George St. John, County Attorney; Fletcher Simms, Director of Real Estate Assessments; Harold Wingate, physical Wingate Appraisers; and himself, it was decided that the/reappraisal of the County must be completed by'December 1, 1974. This will leave the month of December for review of the reappraisal. There are about 6,000 parcels of land t~o be appraised, as of this date. This work can be accomplished with the present number of persons working on the reappraisal. The staff now requests authorization from the Board to let a contract to Wingate Appraisers for appraisal of business and commercial properties. This will cost approximately $20,000, but is included in that amount already budgeted for this project. Mr. Wheeler asked when the reappraisal notices will be mailed. Mr. Batchelor said they can be mailed anytime after the end of 1974. The staff needs to know if the Board wants these notices mailed immediately after the end of 1974 or after preparation of the 1975-76 budget. It was the concensus of the Board members present that the notices should be mailed as soon as possible after the first of January, 1975. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to extend the contract with Wingate Appraisers in order to complete the assessment of busi~ness, commercial and industrial properties by December 1, 1974. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, was present. He said the Virginia State Department of Highways has requested the Board to appoint two committees to help update the 1965 Transportation Plan. Two members are needed for a Policy Committee. This committee will establish policy for the base-year study and for the continuing comprehensive, coop~erative transportation planning process. They will review the results of the transportation plan, determine when a reevaluation of the transportation plan is necessary and also review the results of any reevaluation, recommend appropriate action by the department and local governing bodies, review requests for urban boundary changes and review system and project proposals introduced by Federal and State agencies 1'g8. 9-5~74 or local governing bodies. These two members will represent the County and should be vested with the authority to speak for and.on behalf of the County. The technical committee is to cooperate in the development of the procedures to be used in collecting the socio-economic data and the traffic ~data, work with the Highway-Department staff, the City staff and the County staff, make recommendations to the policy committee, review, comment, recommend, and assist the Highway Department, the City, and the County on any proposal, ~lt~rnate lines, and work performed on the location and design of facilities in the transportation plan. The Technical Committee needs two voting members to represent the County. These members should be trained and knowledgable in transportation planning and who, by their position, have an interest and responsibility in the local transpor~tion planning process. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to appoint Lloyd Wood and Stuart Carwile to the Policy Committee of the Virginia Department of Highways-Charlottesville Transpoz~tion Study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS~ None-. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to appoint, John Humphrey, County Planner and J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, to the Technical Committee of the Virginia Department of Highways-Charlottesville Transportation Study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Humphrey said the Board of Supervisors imposed a building permit moratorium on CorPill Farms Subdivision on June 20, 1974. It has now come to the attention of the staff that all lots within this subdivision have been sold and there is a builder who has been denied building permits because the roads are not in the State system. There remains only one item to be completed; that is a drainage structure. When the moratorium was imposed, a letter was sent to the subdivider stating that~if the work was not completed by August 15, his bond would be cashed and the money placed in escrow, and the County will proceed with the repairs. The bond has now been cashed,~hut--the building permit moratorium does not now directly effect the person responsible for t~e original development. Mr. Carwile suggested that the moratorium be lifted and that the Board proceed otherwise. He asked if the bond is sufficient to do the ~ork required. Mr. Humphrey said the bond of $7,500 should be sufficient to do the work. The developer did try to comply with~the Board's order, but got a little sloppy and ~here~are some rinor corrections still to be made. Mr. Batchelor asked if the money will cover a maintenance bond until July 1, 1975. Mr. Humphrey said he was not sure; normally 9-5-74 T39 the maintenance bond is between the Highway Department and the developer. Mr. Wheeler said even if the roads are brought up to State standards, ~i£ a maintenance bond is not posted, and if it takes ~.six months of court action to get that bond posted, the roads will deteriorate and the County needs to know more about the bond before they proceed with the repairs. Motion was then offered by Mr. Wodd to defer any further action on this matter until the staff has had time to prepare the proper resolutions to exercise the bond and to proceed with work to bring the roads to State standard. The motion was 'seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley Mr. Wheeler said in reference to the moratorium, he is hesitant to lift it because this will only encourage the developer of the lots to sell the lots. He prefez~d to wait until September 19 before taking action on the building permit moratorium. A Mr. Moore was present. He said he recently bought the only two lots which are still vacant. Ail other lots were sold and built on before the moratorium was imposed. When he purchased these lots his lawyer did not know there was a building permit moratorium. Commitments have been made and plans for building have proceeded. He is the fourth person to purchase these lots. He obtained septic tank permits before signing for purchase of the lots, however, when he went to get his building permits he was told that a moratorium was in effect.. Mr. Carwile said he feels that if the Board does not left the moratorium on Corvill Farms Subdivision they will be injuring an innocent party. There is no way the existing owner could have been put on notice that a moratorium was in effect. ,the original developer of the lots, The Board thought Mr. Hank Tiffany/was still the owner of the lots. Mr. Carwile then offered motion to lift the moratorium on the two lots owned by Mr. Moore. Th~ motion was_seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwil&, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Wheeler asked the County Attorney, who had just arrived, when the notices on reappraisal of County property must be mailed. Mr. St. John said this has been checked with Mr. Harry Frazier, the State tax people, and others. The Code of Virginia only requires that the notices be sent fifteen days before any hearing on the reassessment. The notices do ~not have to be senn before the end of the ~year. Motion was then offered by Mr. Thacker to advertise for a public hearing on September 25, 1974, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse an amendment to the Albemarle County Code entitled, Chapter 12, "Motor Vehicles and Traffic", by amending and reenacting Section 12-1 entitled "Adoption of State Law" and enacting a new Section 12-1.1, entitled "Application of Chapter to Roadways not part of 9-5-74 State Highway Syst~em". following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Robert Sampson, Parks 'Director, was present on behalf of the Chmirman of the Parks Committee to request that the Board of Supervisors reply tO a request funds from the Berkeley Community Association that general revenue sharing/be allocated to provide Cecreational facilities in the Ber~ley-Westfield area. Mr. Whe&ler said the Parks Committee, in a letter dated July 1, endor.ses the need for neighborhood recreational facilities in this high density communi, ty. They feel that if these facilities were properly developed they could serve a large portion of the citizens. This park was requested to be put on lmnd owed by the Albemarle County School Board on Whitewood Road. The Board has received an appraisal of that property and it is valued between $550,000 and $600,000. Mr. Fisher said he feels there is a need for some type of park in that area because of the density of development, however, he cannot see retaining twenty-three acres of land at this value. He said the Parks Committee might consider in their future plans one or two acres as a compromise since there will be a need for a walking park in the area. The staff is now working on a revised Master Plan for the County. When that is finished, the Board will be able to provide a bett~r answer, but for the time being the Parks Committee should do more planning. Mr. Wood said a two-acre park in that area would be useless unless a~suitable program could be adapted to the area. The Board needs more information on what type of park would be suitable for an area of such density. Ha~..did not think the Board should retain only a small portion of the property and have something that is not workable. Mr. Sampson said the Berkeley Community Association has also r~equested a ball field and tennis courts. Mr. Carwile said these are available at Albemarle High School. These are used extensively by the residents of the area. Mr. Fisher said when he talked about a small area, he was thinking about small children who cannot go across the street without supervision and would not enjoy ball fields and tennis courts. Mr. Thacker_ said the Board has been working on recreational areas that service the entire County. He is not ready to commit to the neighborhood park concept. H~ feels this is a precedent that would mushroom. Mr. Wheeler said the County owns land in the School complex across the road from the property in question that is not as valuable as this land. Recreational use would be better than certain other uses that would create additional traffic. The value of this land prohibits its use now or at any time in the future as a park. 925-74 14:[ It was suggested that the Chairman respond to the Berkeley Community Association stating that the Parks Committee is working on a long-range plan for the County; the County does not own the property in question; and it would be premature to make any commitment for that property. Mr. James Bowling, County Attorney's Office, brought to the Board's attention several changes which have been made in the enabling legislation for issuance of lottery permits: 1) The Board must act on an application within 30 days or it is automatically granted. 2) There is a presumption in the legislation that the games are for charitable purposes. 3) There has been a change made concerning signs advertising games~ 4) No regulations can be attached to lottery permits issued during 1974 by the local governing body. 5) The permits are to be issued on an annual, calendar year basis. 6) The applicant must file an annual report of receipts and disbursements with the Commissioner of Accounts. The Code does net specify who will pay the fee for this filing. Mr. Wheeler suggested that the Board ask their local legislators to have the Code of Virginia include a statement as to who will pay the filing fee required. As recommended by the County Attorney's Office, motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood, to change the Board's Rules of Procedure as followS: Section 2~'(d). Special Meetings. The second sentence shall read as follows: The Clerk shall immediately notify each member of the Board, as well as the County Attorney, in writing. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: ~None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 10:26 A.M., the Chairman requested an! executive session to discuss personnel and legal.matters and land acquisition. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened at 4:10 P.M. The following resolution was offered for adoption: In light of the recent proceedings precipitated by the Petition of Charles R. Haugh for removal of T. M. Batchelor, Jr. from office, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has reflected upon and given careful consideration to the entire matter of the fitness and qualification of Mr. Batchelor to continue as the Chief Executive of Albemarle County. Board members carefully observed the entire trial, and the evidence adduced was carefully noted. The subsequent opinion of the trial judge has also been carefully studied and considered. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: 925-74 While there were~oversights and errors in administering the license tax ordinance, and any such errors are of concern to the Board, we feel these matters should be viewed in their proper perspective. The amount lost to the County by uncollected Contractor's License Taxes, based upon evidence presented by the Commonwealth's Attorney during the recent proceedings, amounted to approximately $1600, which represents one one-hundredth of one percent (0.01%) of the County budget for the years in question. Upon consideration of all of these matters, this Board reiterates that in our opinion there is no justification for removal of Mr. Batchelor by this Board. If the acts and omissions brought out in these proceedings constitute malfeasance, then any official in any county in Virginia has been guilty of malfeasance at one time or another. The total effect of all the evidence at this trial, including Mr. Batchelor's entire record of performance, has in fact brought home to this Board that he has been an effective County Executive of Albemarle County. His performance has not been perfect; he is subject to human error as any other person; but his overall performance in our opinion reflects credit 6n him and on the County's employees as well. It is noteworthy that during the past year, Mr. Batchelor and his entire staff have had to work under ~.-pressure, tension and harassment of an investigation by persons not impartial, but in our opinion clearly prejudiced against Mr. Batchelor and the County Executive form of governmenn. That they have continued to perform their work in an effective manner under these circumstances is to their very high credit. We feel further that the actions of Charles R. Haugh, who instituted the grand jury proceedings and who filed and prosecuted the petition for Mr. Batchelor's removal should be commented upon. In the spring of 1972 he was furnished by the County Finance Depart- ment the very facts, figures and information concerning contractor license taxes, specifically with regard to Daley Craig, which he used against Mr. Batchelor zn the recent proceedings. He was furnished these facts and information As the Commonwealth's Attorney after being specifically requested by that department to assist it in the collection of these taxes and after agreeing to act in that department's behalf, in .... . .ihandling the matter ~-~ these ~ same ~ei~nquent taxes. This Board feels strongly that Mr. Haugh had a positive duty at that time, if he were aware that the proper procedures were not being followed, to so advise the Finance Department, and the County Executive and the Board of Supervisors as well, and to point out to them the proper procedures. He was acting as their attorney and our attorney. But he took absolutely no action in behalf of the Finance Department and gave not one word of advice, or criticism, to either the staff of the department, Mr. Batchelor, or the Board of Supervisors. Instead he kept the facts and figures furnished him at that time, and later fed them to the grand jury in order that when they later appeared in the report of the grand jury, it would appear the¢~grand jury had independently ferreted out th6se facts; and he then used them against the very persons who had furnished them to him in the first place in reliance on him as their attorney to assist in collecting the taxes. This i~ all documented as a matter of public record in the Finance Office at the County Office Building. We feel that Albemarle County has an excellent administration, and an excellent record of effeciencg. Any unbiased and impartial study will show this and in fact the examinations which have been conducted, by the State Auditor, the County's au'ditor, and others such as are required periodically, do show this. In summary, we have no intention of removing Mr. Batchelor from office because of the recent proceedings instituted by a Commonwealth's Attorney who has devoted his time and his office to the purpose of embarrassing the County government instead of advising and assisting it. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. 9-5-74 Mr. Carwile asked that an amendment to S~Ction 3.5 of the newly adopted Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance of Albemarle County be referred to the Planning Commission; that change is to strike out the word "certified" before the word "cash", in both sub-section 3-5-1 and 3-5-2. Items on the agenda listed as ~ontract for clea~-np and operation of the Ivy Landfill were not discussed. At 4:20 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to adjourn this meeting until 11:30 A.M. on September 11, 1974, in the Board Room of of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.. None. Mr. Henley. Chairman