Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-05-22A277 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 22, 1974, at 3:00 P~M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, said meeting being adjourned from May 16, !974. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William L. Thacker, Jr. and Gordon L. Wheeler. Absent: Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Officer present: County Executive. (Mr. Wheeler arriving at 3:35 p.m.) The Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order. He explained that this meeting had been called in order to have a public work session on the Highway Master Plan as it pertains to Albemarle County. Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways, and Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Resident Engineer, were present. Mr. Warner said the Highway Master Plan has not been revised since 1968. Because of the numerous changes during that period it is necessary to update the plan for the next ten-year period. The residency is charged with the responsibility of reviewing and establishing a working plan that will accomplish, within the budgeted amounts, some improvements to the highway system. Their purpose in being here today is to review the overall concept and get input from the Board as to their priorities. Highway standards have been upgraded to provide for a 20-foot surface on roads. When the standards are upgraded, this in turn raises the cost of construction. Mr. Warner said he feels priorities should be established on those roads which have had surveys and on which plans have been developed. With the cost of financing projects which are underway, some other projects may not be finished as quickly as had been expected. When the Rio Road project was conceived it was estimated at $350,000. By the time it is completed it will cost approximately $1,500,000. Funds were included in the 1967 budget for the Rio Road project, but it has taken this long to get the project near completion. The right of way cost $500,000 and utilities over $t00,000. Not all of the money will be spent in actual construction of the road. In next year's budget, he must finance this project to completion, or approximately $375,000. The Milton Bridge will cost approximately $275,000 to close out the project. The citizens will have to make up their minds that certain things are tolerable or some of the gravel roads, in the county will never be improved. At the beginning of ~the Milton Bridge project he had pointed out the cost side. He agreed that it is a needed improvement, but it will cost approximately $750,000 for one mile of road and the bridge. He said the impact of this must be considered in the overall improvement program. The local Highway Department only receives $800,000 for construction and after taking out $6~50,000 for completion of the two projects mentioned, there is not much left in that fund. Mr. Warner said the County has received $173,000 in Recreational Access Funds for improvements to the Mint Springs Road. Based on current prices, this improvement is estimated at $275,000. This will require an additional $102,000 to be taken from Secondary Funds to get this project underway. 5-22-74 (afternooni Mr. Fisher asked if after all this there is any money left for improvements on secondary roads. Mr. Warner said he must have enough money in his budget to finance State force improvements or he cannot carry his present personnel on the maintenance program. He must also have construction.money in order to break even at the end of the year. The only way to get State force money is for other new projects to be pushed ahead in time. Therefore, he must have input from the Board at this time so priorities can be established on projects which have already had preliminary work. He could then finance one project a year, or at least get it under contract. Mr. Warner said there are some projects which have been underway for quite a long time, for example, Route 660 to Murray Manufacturing. The County received $100,000 Industrial Access Funds for this project, but the final cost is estimated at $425,000. He must include $225,000 in his budget this year to finish paying off that project. Mr. Fisher asked if this was the reason Mr. Hope had appeared at a recent Board meeting to talk about Route 637. Mr. Warner said no, he was seeking input from the Board as to the overall development of that area. Circumstances have changed since that project was visualized. Mr.. Warner said if the three projects which are underway can be financed in the 1975-76 budget, then finance one new project for contract each year, and schedule other improvements, his budget will be somewhat in line. This is not attributable to growth poor planning~ but everyone has been caught in an escalation of prices. Mr. Warner said the major projects at this point are: 1) Route 637; 2) Route 684; and 3) replacing the railroad bridge on Route 649 at Proffit. Mr. Batchelor asked if Route 649 from Route 29 North to Automated Structures would be eligible for Industrial Access Funds. Mr. Warner said it might qualify, but this would not be a drop in the bucket. Mr. Batchelor said with the inflated prices, the Board should consider changing the form of budgeting. Instead of setting up a project and financing a little each year, they should set up a priority list and finance a project each year. Mr. Henley asked how much Secondary Road funds increase each year. Mr. Warner said it is generally 5% and inflation has been increasing 10% to 15% a year. Mr. Wheeler asked if the County is alloted additional money for maintenance when subdivision roads are accepted into the State system. Mr. Warner said yes, total road mileage is part of the distribution factor, but it has to increase tremendously to have an impact on that part of the distribution. Mr. Wheeler said it looks like the money ~ill have to come from the users of the roads. Mr. Warner said the user tax is the only source of revenue available to the Highway Department. With the reduction in travel, the Highway Department may loose $40,000,000 in funds as a result of the energy crisis. 5-22-74 (afternoon) 279 Mr. Batchelor asked if monies needed for improvements to Rio Road from the McIntire tennis courts to the Vocational Technical School could be taken from urban funds. Mr. Warner said the only part eligible for urban funds is that part from Melbourne Road to the 250 By-Pass in the City. Mr. Batchetor said the County's budget is being taken. Mr. Fisher said the situation described has been coming on and getting worse for a long time. This situation may cripple the County as far as making the impro~ents which most people agree are needed. He said the Board's only recourse may be to support something that will put more money into the Highway Department. Mr. Warner said inflation has taken its . arouna town where the traffic is the greatest, the facilities become more and more obsolete. The three projects now under way must be completely financed within six months after they are completed. The Board can establish priorities on Routes 637, 684 and 649 because they ha~e had preliminary work performed. In the 1975-76 budget he can finance the number one priority and get that project going and use the balance of the budget on State force improvements. The Highway Department has been fighting a loosing battle~ for the last few years because of floods. They are now about to surface Route 640, Route 600 from Route 747 toward the railroad tract and Route 616 south of Route 250. Route 621 off of Route 20 is finished. Mr. Fisher asked the location of Route 684. Mr. Warner said it runs from Yancey's Mill to Route 691. There have been several fatalities on this road, mostly caused by speed. The vertical alignment is terrible, but the horizontal alignment is not too bad. Mr. Henley said the Board should Establish priorities for the roads on which work has already begun. Mr. Warner said the work established and which has gone this far must be included somewhere. Mr. Thacker asked if these three roads had a high priority in the previous master plan. Mr. Warner said 649 at Proffit was included because of increased traffic and the condition of the bridge. Mr. Wheeler asked how these projects were set up before. Mr. Warner said Route 637 was first, then 684, then 649. Mr. Wheeler asked which road has the most traffic. Mr. Perry said the traffic counts are 335 v.t.p.d, on Route 684, 331 v.t.p.d, on Route 637 a~d 350 v.t.p.d, on Route 649. Mr. Thacker asked if a definite route were established for Route 637 how long it would take to get this project under construction. Mr. W~nar~said if one of the routes on which a public hearing has been conducted is selected, it would not take too long. They have enough surveying by which to develop plans. This project is estimated at $450,000. Mr. Wheeler asked how these three projects compare2in cost. Mr. Warner said Route 649 would cost less because there is less road work involved. It would be only about 1/2 ~o 6/10th of a mile. Mr. Wheeler said the most traffic is on the 280' 5-22- ~--~a f t erno on)- west side of the. bridge on Route 6.49 and since this would not help the people, who use the road the most he did not think this project should have a high priority. Mr. Warner said he also felt this should be number three although the project for Route 684 is further along at this time than the others. Mr. Fisher said he felt that the bridge itself is not going to help a great number of people. If some of the curvy roads in the county can be straightened with that money it will be a better expenditure of funds. Mr. Wheeler said he could not put this project ahead of the others,. He suggested the projects be an.d go ahead and listed as 684, 637 and 649,/proceed with Route 684, aince~.a,~definite route has not been picked for Route 637. The Board will be studying that area and the cluster concept in the next few months and they will have more information about what will develop on the other end of Route 637 in the near future. Mr. Warner said they will still need some indication from the Board as to how the Highway Department should proceed with Route 637. They feel there is still a need for this project. Mr. Fisher asked when construction would begin on Route 684. Mr. Warner said it can be financed in the 1975-76 year and if the right of way is cleared, it can probably be advertised for construction later this year. Mr. Wheeler said he hopes the Board can work on the different clusters in July and August. This cannot be put off too long or the Board will be back working on the County budget for the next fiscal year. Mr. Warner thanked the Board for their comments and said he would present them with the Highway budget soon. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Thacker, an ordinance establishing the equalization of pay of members of certain boards and commissions appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,~ Virginia, was ordered advertised for a public'hearing at 10:00 A.M. on June 20, 1974. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. The Board continued with a discussion of the restricted roads provisions in the proposed Land Development and Subdivision Ordinance. The staff had asked for a clarification of the Board's policy relative to the incorporated homeowners association. Mr. Wheeler said a number of people have spoken to him and they feel deed restrictions are a better way to handle this matter. ~Mr~,~Stv,.John said he feels they are~if..based on standards, however that is something which would have to be decided on the basis of each case. If there is a large subdivision, deed restrictions are unwieldy. If there are only three lots, deed restrictions are better than a corporation because a corporation would probably be defunct in two years. Mr. Wheeler said the Board is only going to allow restricted roads in subdivisions of 10 lots or less. Mr. Fisher said that is 10 on one road, but there could be a 5-2~--~-4- (afterno0~) - 28i large subdivision with a State road running through the middle that might have numerous cul-de-sacs off of that State road. Mr. St. John asked if in that sit'at,ion tha Board would require that each cul-de-sac have its own homeowners association or if there would be only one association. Mr. Fisher said there ~ould be a homeowners aasociation either way. Mr. St. John said there could be a homeowners association for each cul-de-sac or one big homeowners association. If there were one large or~ it would be better to have a corporation. In any case, whether the Board required a corporate structure or not, there could be deed declarations. Deed restrictions is not a good word because you are speaking of something in the title. If this is put in the chain of title maybe people will not see it but they are responsible for seeing it. Mr. Wheeler said he felt they w±ll see it but not pay that much attention. But he did not believe the lot owners will keep a small homeowners association going either. Mr. Carwile said most people only see these restrictions after they have contracted to buy. This is one of the things the Restricted Roads Committee was concerned with. Mr. St. John said he has doubts about the enforc.~ility of this. The fact that there is a corporation on top of the deed restrictions will not notify the purchaser any sooner. Mr. Carwile said the Board could adopt a policy to allow deed restrictions, but with the Board reserving the authority, if it deemed it to be in the best interest of the public to require a corporate structure also. Mr. St. John said that is the way it should be done. Mr. Fisher said his experience in buying two homes in the community ha~a. been where there were homeowners associations and one had deed restrictions. These were not given to him until after he had signed for the house. However, a homeowners association can be required whether or not it is incorporated. A homeowners association seems to be the heart of communciation between the people. Mr. Fisher said it seems the only question is whether or not the Board is going to require the homeowners association to register with the State. Mr. St. John said he would recommend that if the Board is not going to allow more than 10 lots on a restricted road, that the corporation not be required. Mr. Carwile concurred. Mr. Thacker asked if the Board should require a registered homeowners association in subdivisions where there are more than 10 lots served by restri~cted roads. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Thacker said there could be two restricted roads in one subdivision that serves a total of 15 or 20 lots. Mr. Carwile said there is a possibility that a subdivision could be platted with more than 10 lots in the total subdivision and yet there could be two State-maintained roads and one restricted road could go off of one road and another restricted road off of the other road and technically they would be part of the same subdivision. 282 (afternoon) Mr. Carwile offered motion that the Board not require an incorporated home- owners association in a subdivision if there are 10 or less lots, but if there are 11 or more lots that an incorporated homeowners association be left to the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher asked if the Subdivision Ordinance would have to be redrawn and sent back to the City for further approval because of this change. Mr. Carwile said this is just a policy and not a part of the ordinance. Mr. Thacker asked what happens to those restricted roads that the Board has already approved. Mr. Carwile felt it would be appropriate to have the Planning Staff notify those people that the Board will lift this restriction, if they so request. Mr. Wheeler concurred. At 5:06 P.M., the Chairman requested the Board adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P~M. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned. C ha irman