1992-05-06May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 47
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 6, 1992, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesviller Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, Forrest R.
Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Ms. Giriny Decker spoke to the Board on behalf of the League of Women
Voters. She said that the Housing Committee Report is on the agenda, but
there is no indication of public comment. Ms. Decker read a prepared
statement from the League, in which she commended the Board for appointing and
providing staff for the Albemarle County Housing Advisory Committee. She
urged the Board's serious consideration of the recommendations of the report
and charged the Board to take leadership in analyzing Albemarle County's
housing problems and in getting the necessary commitment from the community to
address them.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.6, except Item 5.2, and
to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Marshall and Martin.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
Item No. 5.1. Letter dated April 13, 1992, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz,
Contract Administrator, Virginia Department of Transportation, requesting
approval of a resolution to add and abandon certain sections of Route 660 due
to recent reconstruction of that road and the bridge over the South Fork
Rivanna River. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albe-
marle County held this 6th day of May, 1992, it was duly moved and
seconded that:
WHEREAS, Secondary Route 660 from 0.21 miles north of Route
1530 to 0.29 miles north of Route 1530, a distance of 0.08 miles
and Route 660 from 0.29 miles north of Route 1530 to 0.42 miles
north of Route 1530 a distance of 0.13 miles, a total of 0.21
miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves
the same citizens as the road so altered.
WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new
locations, these being shown on the attached sketch (on file)
titled "Changes zn the Secondary System due to the Relocation and
Construction of Route 660, Project 0660-002-187,C501,C502,
Albemarle County", dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, February
19, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of
secondary Route 660, i.e., Section 3 and 4, shown in red on the
aforementioned sketch, a total of 0.21 miles be and hereby is,
added to the Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to
Section 33.1-229 of the Code of virginia of 1950, as amended;
And further, that the sections of old location, i.e.,
Section 1 and 2 on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of
0.23 miles, be, and the same hereby is abandoned as a public road
pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended.
Item No. 5.2. Resolution requesting acceptance of Marshall Court into
the State Secondary System of Highways.
Mr. St. John suggested that this item be voted on separately since Mr.
Marshall has a conflict of interest.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 48
(Page 2)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt
the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Martin.
NAYS: None.
kBSTAIN: Mr. Marshall.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229,
the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject
to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road in Marshall Manor Subdivision:
Marshall Court:
Beginning at Station -00+50, a point common to the
centerline of Marshall Court and the edge of pavement
of State Route 20, thence in a southeasterly direction
340.00 feet to Station 2+90, offset 25.00 feet in a
southwesterly direction, thence in a southeasterly
direction 50.00 feet, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Circuit Court Clerk of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 573, page 249; and Deed Book 1216,
page 687.
Item No. 5.3. Public Utilities and Required Buffers/Landscaping; recom-
mended procedures to avoid destruction of required buffer area/landscaping.
(At the Board's September 18, 1991 meeting, the Board directed staff to
provide recommendations on ways to ensure that identified landscaping in
required buffer areas remain undisturbed during development.) The Board
accepted the following recommendations by the vote shown above:
1. In cases where such easements may be anticipated to
interfere with required buffers, staff to insist on a
resolution prior to Planning Commission review; and
2. A letter should be sent to all utilities operating in the
County requesting cooperation in this matter, including
quick response to an applicant's pre-planning request.
The Board also authorized the County Executive to sign the following
letter to be sent to all utilities operating in the County requesting
cooperation in this matter, including quick response to an applicant's pre-
planning request:
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has requested that I
encourage all public utilities operating in the County to be mind-
ful of requirements imposed upon private development, particularly
in regard to avoiding destruction of required buffer areas/land-
scaping. The County often requires undisturbed buffers and/or
additional landscaping between dissimilar uses such as residential
development and a commercial site.
Obviously, when a utility subsequently clears such an area, the
Board must answer to the affected homeowners. While such occur-
rences have been infrequent, when such an incident does occur, it
is to no one's interest.
I feel the following course of action will address the concerns of
the Board of Supervisors:
1. All public utilities will be forwarded a listing of items
under current review by the Albemarle County Site Review
Committee to make each utility aware of potential develop-
ment;
2. The County site plan ordinance requires that water, sewer,
and other utility layouts, both existing and proposed, be
shown on the preliminary site development plan. In cases
where such utility easements may be anticipated to interfere
with required buffers, County staff will insist on resolu-
tion prior to Planning Commission review. This measure can
only be practical if each utility is readily available to
participate and negotiate in the pre-planning process. A
quick and cooperative response is needed from each partici-
pant in order to avoid unnecessary delay to an applicant in
forwarding his project.
In closing, it does not appear that these problems have occurred
frequently, however, these situations are viewed as serious
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. Pg. 49
(Page 3)
matters by the Board of Supervisors. A cooperative effort between
the County and the various utilities can improve matters. Your
increased cooperation in this matter is specifically requested by
Albemarle County."
Item No. 5.4. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board
for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional
Jail for the Month of April, 1992, were approved as presented by the above
recorded vote.
Item No. 5.5. First Response/EMS Agency Resolution: Authorize County
fire departments to serve as First Response/Emergency Medical Services Agen-
cies.
Mr. Bain asked if this would help avoid duplication of services. Mr.
Tucker responded that this would not change the current situation. He
explained that this resolution will sanction the volunteer fire departments to
still provide first responder service, because in many of the outlying areas
the resources are not available to get to these areas by rescue squad person-
nel. This response from the volunteer fire departments is necessary until
there is better coverage by the County. He noted that the rescue squads
support the theory that the volunteer fire departments will provide the first
responder service. He added that as service continues to improve, duplication
will be reduced. He does not think the County is in a position, at this time,
not to provide this first responder service with the help of the volunteer
fire departments.
Mr. Bain inquired if most of the fire departments have other vehicles
besides fire engines which could respond to emergencies. Mr. Tucker answered,
"no."
Mr. Bain said this could be a problem because it seems that several fire
trucks respond to minor accidents, and sometimes the trucks come from separate
fire departments. He knows this is an administrative problem, but someone
needs to watch over the situation. He would like to reduce some of this
action because he thinks it is an abuse to the system. He understands the
County needs to provide the personnel for safety and rescue efforts, but he is
concerned that this resolution will cause the situation to be worse.
The Board adopted the following resolution by the vote recorded above:
WHEREAS, in an effort to provide the citizens of Albemarle
County with immediate professional medical assistance in life
threatening emergencies, it is appropriate to license a number of
fire departments in the County as First Response Emergency Medical
Service (EMS) agencies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this resolution shall
constitute a statement of need and approval of service operation
by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the
following fire departments/companies to serve as First Response
EMS agencies:
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.;
North Garden Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.;
Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.;
Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.;
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.;
Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.;
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.; and
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority.
As First Response EMS agencies, said fire departments shall
be subject to applicable rules and regulations of the Virginia
Department of Health, Division of Emergency Medical Services,
Section 3.6c) (3) of which requires this statement of need and
approval of service operation.
Item No. 5.6. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, suggesting that a work session on the Sign Ordinance be held at an
extra meeting on May 13 at 4:00 P.M.
The Board scheduled a work session on the Sign Ordinance for May 13, at
4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, by the vote recorded above.
Item No. 5.7. Memorandum dated April 17, 1992, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled "Route 29 North Interchanges,"
received as follows:
"Several weeks ago, you requested staff to follow up on a comment
made by Secretary Milliken related to the interchanges proposed
along Route 29 North. I have, attached a copy of the Virginia
Department of Transportation's procedure for advanced acquisition
as well as a letter from Mr. J. W. Jenkins via Mr. Tom Farley (all
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54,B. Pg. 50
(page 4)
copies on file). I have discussed this matter with Mr. Farley
further and he indicates that the difference between the Alterna-
tive 10 By-Pass advanced acquisition and the interchanges along
Route 29 are that advanced acquisition funds were provided for
Alternative 10 at the time of the location hearing and funds are
used to purchase, for the most part, the entire tract of property
whether it is contained wholly or partially within the proposed
right-of-way of Alternative 10.
For commercial interchanges like that found along Route 29 North,
VDoT does not purchase right-of-way through its advanced acquisi-
tion procedure until they have more definitive design plans so
that they can purchase only those tracts which will be affected
by the interchange. That is to say, portions of tracts would be
purchased as well as entire tracts if the right-of-way necessi-
tates it. The primary reason for these differences is that with
the Alternative 10 alignment, they feel they can afford to
purchase an entire tract because the majority of the property is
rural or residential in nature and would not be as costly as
commercial property where they would purchase only the land that
was directly affected by the right-of-way needs of an inter-
change."
Item No. 5.8. Letter dated April 20, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Windrift
Drive was accepted into the State System effective April 1, 1992, received as
follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated February 5, 1992, the
following addition to ~he Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective April 1, 1992.
ADDITION LENGTH
WINDRIFT
Route 1573 (Windrift Drive
0.59 mile West Route 664
From Route 664 to
0.59 Mi."
Item No. 5.9. Letter dated April 22, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, re: Bridge over the
Moorman's River on Route 671 at Millington, received as follows:
"This zs in response to your letter to Mr. John G. Milliken of
February 12 and the February 5, 1992, resolution of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, concerning the bridge over the Moor-
man's River on Route 671 at Millington. This amendment of pre-
vious Board resolutions asked whether the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 would allow the construction
of a bridge with reduced design standards on the location of the
present bridge, without change in approach alignment.
The Board's question was reviewed by the Federal Highway Admini-
stration, which responded as follows (in part):
Although Section 1016(e) of the 1991 Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act allows reduced
standards for preserving historic or scenic values, it
also requires measures to ensure the safe use of the
facility. The S-type configuration of the approach
road on the south side of the existing bridge with 40
and 80 degree horizontal curves clearly compromises
the safety of a replacement facility which utilizes
the existing approaches. On a recent field review of
the existing bridge, we noted evidence of vehicle
impacts on the approach guardrail and bridge truss
sections which are indicative of operational and
safety problems.., we have determined that the
proposed design exception is clearly inappropriate for
this project.
An early planning option to replace the bridge where it now
stands, but straightening the approaches, was previously rejected
by the Board of Supervzsors in favor of 'the green line,' and as
the bridge has been designed (at considerable expense) on the
green line, I believe we have come full circle on this issue.
Accordingly, I ask that the Board of Supervisors request the
cooperation of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation in replacing the
substandard bridge at Millington, so the bridge can be replaced
promptly. In the meantime, we will continue to inspect the bridge
at six-month intervals, and if it becomes necessary to close the
bridge, I will, reluctantly, do so."
Item No. 5.10. Letter dated April 23, 1992, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley,
District Engzneer, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 51
(Page 5)
Board's comments regarding the interstate/primary/urban systems have been made
a part of the public record for the Preallocation Hearing to be held on
March 31, received for information.
Item No. 5.11. Letter dated April 27, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, stating that Willow Lake
Drive in Willow Lake Subdivision was accepted into the State Secondary System
effective April 13, 1992, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated February 12, 1992, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective April 13, 1992.
LENGTH
ADDITION
WILLOW LAKE
Route 1135 (Willow Lake Drive - From Route 1136 to
0.13 mile Southwest Route 1136
0.13 Mi."
Item No. 5.12. Letter dated April 29, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, enclosing list of "Projects Under Construction as of May 1,
1992," received for information.
Item No. 5.13. Copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for April 14,
1992, received for information.
Item No. 5.14. Letter dated April 17, 1992, from Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Roger Ray entitled "official Determina-
tion of Number of Parcels Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 105, Parcel 11; property
of Bear Island Timberlands," received for information.
Item No. 5.15. Letter dated April 24, 1992, from Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Zoning Administrator, addressed to Leonard and Sylvia Milgraum entitled
,,Official Determination of Number of Parcels Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 66,
Parcel 28; property of the Milgraums," received for information.
Item No. 5.16. Letter dated April 23, 1992, from Mr. James Christian
Hill, National Register Assistant, Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
stating that Castlebrook, Albemarle County, 02-656, does not meet the require-
ments for listing on the Virginia Landmarks Register, received as information.
Item No. 5.17. Letter dated April 24, 1992, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
Director, Department of Historic Resources, addressed to J. W. K. Properties,
Inc., stating that Enniscorthy, Albemarle County (DHR File No. 02-28) had been
placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and is to be endorsed to the Nation-
al Register of Historic Places, received for information.
Item No. 5.18. 1991 Annual Reports of the Allegheny Power System and
the Potomac Edison Company, received as information.
Item No. 5.19. Memorandum dated April 28, 1992, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled "Status Report of the South Rivanna
River Restoration Project," received as follows:
"At its meeting on April 27th, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Autho-
rity received the above referenced report from F. X. Browne, Inc.,
which outlined the current programs in place to protect the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir. I have copied two pages from the report
which indicates that, over the past decade, water quality at the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir has not significantly changed. The
data also indicates that eutrophication of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir is proceeding very slowly, if at all, and that it is
attributed to the restoration activities occurring within the
watershed as well as the implementation of watershed management
controls. These controls have been effective in reducing the
sediment loading in the reservoir.
A copy of the entire report is located in the County Executive's
office for your further review."
Item No. 5.20. Memorandum dated April 28, 1992, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled "1990 Recycling Rates, Rivarina Solid
Waste Authority," received as follows:
"As all of you know, the current recycling mandates in Virginia
require that localities must recycle at least ten percent of its
waste stream by 1991, 15 percent by 1993, and 25 percent by the
end of 1995. The attached (on file) table provides you with the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 52
(Page 6)
1991 recycling rates for Albemarle and Charlottesville as complied
by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority- Currently, the County and
City, along with the RSWA's programs and the university of
Virginia's programs, are recycling 18.6 percent of the area's
eligible waste stream. With this recycling rate, you can see that
we are well ahead of the mandates set forth by the State.
It is my opinion that when we refine our reporting and data
collection for business and industry recycling, we should be able
to meet or perhaps exceed the 25 percent mandate required by the
State for 1995."
Item No. 5.21. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Minutes for March 23,
1992, received as information.
Item No. 5.22. Memorandum dated April 30, 1992 from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Update on Sheriff's Request for an addi-
tional bailiff, received as information.
Item No. 5.23. Letter dated April 29, 1992, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell,
Deputy State Historic Preservation officer, Department of Historic Resources,
stating that an archaeological site located in Albemarle County (44AB348) is
not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places due to
its compromised integrity and low research potential, received as information.
Item No. 5.24. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydrau-
lic Road Apts.) for the Month of March, 1992, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: June 12, September 18 and
November 6, 1991.
Mr. Bowerman read the minutes of June 12, 1991, pages 47-67 and found
them to be in order. He also read the minutes of November 6, 1991, pages 1-11
(Item #9) and found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of November 6, 1991, pages 11 (Item $9) to
the end, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Route 682.
Mr. Martin informed the Board that, due to circumstances beyond his
control, he. has to leave the meeting. He has been subpoenaed to the Circuit
Court at 9:30 a.m. He was hopeful that he could return to the Board meeting
by 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Bain commented that there are people present at the meeting to speak
to the Route 682 issue. He said this matter is before the Board today for
discussion, and possibly some action, depending on what the Board members want
to do. He added that additional information may be needed from the District
Engineer, Mr. Farley. He noted that he (Mr. Bain) and Mr. Tucker have had
several discussions with Mr. Farley. He stated that the Route 682 project is
at the top of the priority list for gravel roads, and is ready to go forward.
He pointed out that this issue zs back before this Board mainly because the
policy that this Board had adopted and continued to use over the years, is
that if road rights-of-way are not donated by the adjoining property owners,
then the road would not be built. He stated that this issue relates to
rzghts-of-way that were donated for a couple of pieces of property. Subse-
quent to that, however, according to Mr. Bain, VDoT on examining the roadway,
made a determination that improvements were not going to be made on the road
as it goes across the tracks within the existing right-of-way. He pointed out
on a map the current railroad crossing, Route 250 West and Crafters' Gallery.
He stated that VDoT officials have said they will have to go across the LaVec
and Barbee properties, if the road is improved. He added that VDoT officials
have indicated they will not improve the road within the existing roadbed. He
noted that 25 feet have been dedicated from the McConnell property, but
because the location of the road has been changed, another ten feet is needed.
He pointed out that there had been dedication of property for this roadway,
but V/DoT had to change the location of the road for safety reasons, in terms
of where the actual road will be located to get across the railroad tracks.
He stated that the Barbees and LaVecs have said that they will not donate any
more rights-of-way. He said that the Barbees, and the Lavecs, as did the
Barbees' predecessors, did donate the necessary 25 feet. He reiterated that
it has been reported that the 25 feet has been dedicated from the McConnell
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 53
(page 7)
property and the Mechum's West Subdivision. Mr. Bain went on to explain that
originally the road was going to go from Route 250 to the Routes 787 and 682
interchange and proceed for a little more than a mile. He stated that, at
this point, VDoT officials have not gone beyond considering this issue,
because they know that they will have to come back to the Board of Supervisors
for the property decisions. He believes that most of the Supervisors have
been to look at this road, and they know the nature of the safety problems.
He mentioned, again, the ma3or safety problem of getting across the railroad
tracks.
He said that the second problem relates to the second section of the
road on the other side of the railroad tracks, which involves Routes 682 and
787. He added that this section of road is more narrow and dangerous than the
first section. He informed the other Board members that most of the residents
in that vicinity, whether they are opposed to or are in favor of dedicating
property for the road improvement, do not want that road made into a major
highway. He noted that the residents are not opposed to improving the road,
but they are concerned as to the Highway Department's regulations which
require that certain amounts of pavement have to be built. He said that the
residents want to have the road improved within the right-of-way, but this is
the Commonwealth Transportation Board's policy decision. He is wondering if
this Board should go to the Transportation Board and attempt to get a policy
decision that would allow improving gravel roads.
He stated that he would later discuss Route 610, which is listed on the
gravel road improvements list, and has a similar problem, and he wondered
whether or not gravel road funds could be used to cover more roads with less
improvements. He said that less improvements would involve improving roads
within the rights-of-way, clearing back banks and ditching, but not doing much
more than that. Mr. Bain has talked with Mr. Farley, and based on this con-
versation, Mr. Bain believes that it would take six or eight months to get
back to the Transportation Board with this proposal. Mr. Bain stated that Mr.
Farley believes that it is less than one chance in 100 that the Transportation
Board is going to change its position. Mr. Bain remarked that the Transporta-
tion Board is not going to change regulations for the whole State, and it will
certainly not do anything different for Albemarle County. He said that there
is an Attorney General's opinion, and there is a letter from an Assistant
Attorney General which went to Mr. Walter Johnson several years ago. He
indicated that the Attorney General's opinion, from VDoT's perspective, says
that if the road is left as it is, and as it was when it came into the State
system, and nothing is done but basic maintenance, then there will not be any
liability, if there is an accident, and the State was sued. However, Mr. Bain
explained that once any improvement is made to that roadway, then the
liability accrues. He then discussed the earlier letter from the Assistant
Attorney General to Mr. Johnson which indicated that there may well be
liability even if the road is not improved. Mr. Bain stated that this was not
an official opinion, and the author of the opinion made this clear in the
letter.
Mr. Bain believes that a decision has to be made as to whether the Board
should go forward, because of safety reasons, and improve the road, and con-
demn the small area that needs condemnation. He has a cost estimate, which he
distributed, to the Board. He said that the rights-of-way needed is approxi-
mately 1.7 acres, and most of it will be coming from Mr. LaVec. He noted that
Mr. LaVec has already donated property that is along the edge of the road. He
then pointed out where the Barbee house is located, and he said that the con-
demnatlon will affect their property, but it is not near their house. He has
talked to the Barbees, and he has correspondence from them. He added that the
Barbees are concerned about what will be done in front of their house, as well
as losing their land, since there has already been some dedication of the land
previously. He said that this plan would segregate a strip of land along the
railroad tracks from the remainder of their property, and this concerns the
Barbees.
Mr. Marshall asked how much land would be segregated from the rest of
the Barbee property. Mr. Bain replied that it would be less than an acre.
Mr. Marshall asked if this is enough land to sell to someone else. Mr. Bain
responded, "no." He said the land belongs to the Barbees, but it is not
usable, because of its proximity to the tracks. He stated that the total land
required is 1.7 acres, and the easements are estimated to require another 1.7
acres, with most of that coming from the LaVec property.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the extra 1.7 acres required includes the 50 foot
requirement. Mr. Bain answered, "yes." He described, with use of the map,
how much land is needed from each piece of property. He went on to say that
the cost estimate for both the easements and the rights-of-way is $18,000, and
the administrative costs are $21,000. He said that this is a total of appro-
ximately $40,000 to get to the Routes 787 and 682 intersection. He indicated
that he had made copies of the policy that was approved in 1988, as well as a
letter from Susan DeAlba, one of the property owners. He distributed these
documents to the Board members. He pointed out that Ms. DeAlba's letter is
dated December 5, 1991, and he believes that most of the people who live on
the road got this letter. He said that he was providing the Board members
with this letter because Ms. DeAlba relates some history of the area. He
added that Ms. DeAlba knows that the road needs to be improved, and if she had
some assurances of what VDoT will do, she would be willing to donate the extra
land that is needed along the property frontage. Mr. Bain stated that Ms.
DeAlba had indicated that she told Mr. Clatterbuck, who is the person from the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 54
(page 8)
Transportation District's office who is handling the rights-of-way situation,
that she would donate the land, if he would meet her requests. Mr. Bain said
it appears the problem with several of the people who still do not want to do
anything with the road in that area is not that they are opposed to the
improvement, but they are concerned about the significant nature of the
improvement. He noted that this Board can strongly recommend to VDoT offi-
cials that something be done, but that does not mean it will be done. He said
this Board can ask to see final engineering plans, and he thinks VDoT offi-
cials will allow the Board to see these plans before construction is begun, so
that these issues can be addressed.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there has been a public hearing on the alignment
of this road. Mr. Bain replied that there have been a couple of public
hearings held in 1988 or 1989. Mr. Bowerman responded that the design would
still have to be discussed at a public hearing. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident
Highway Engineer, informed Mr. Bowerman that there has been a public meeting,
but there has been no public hearing. Mr. Bain agreed that there has been no
public hearing in accordance with VDoT's requirements.
Mr. Bain stated that he had an open meeting with some of the people in
March, and there were 55 people from that road area, who came to the meeting
at Murray Elementary School. He said that a lot of good comments and
questions came out of the meeting. He noted that the 1988 resolution
discussed that where there is a clear, demonstrable danger to the public
safety, it might necessitate the use of secondary road funds to acquire the
rights-of-way. He knows that most of the people in the area feel that this is
an issue. He explained again the rights-of-way that are needed, and the
amounts of land that are needed for the road.
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Bain if he is strictly talking about State
liability, when he is referring to liability and the Attorney General's
opinion. Mr. Bain indicated that this is correct.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Bain believes that Albemarle County will have
any liability for this road. Mr. Bain responded that the County will have no
liability relating to this road. He said that the liability for this road
would belong strictly to the State. Mr. St. John explained that all counties
in the Commonwealth of Virginia, under present law, are absolutely immune from
any liability resulting from road decisions. Mr. Bain concurred. He went on
to say that as a follow-up to the danger aspect, there have been letters from
the Crozet Fire Department and the school system's Transportation Office in
terms of the narrowness of Routes 682 and 787. He mentioned, too, that the
uneven terrain on the second half of the road has created problems. He said
he would answer questions and let the people from that area make comments. He
noted that, at this point, he would support a change in the policy, but he
wants to limit the changes as much as he can.
Mr. Bain next discussed Route 610 improvements, and he said this is the
next road shown on the list for gravel road improvements. He noted that this
road has been in the plan for a long time, and rights-of-way have been donated
all of the way up to the last parcel or two before the intersection of Route
610 with Route 20. He mentioned that VDoT officials have indicated they will
not improve Route 610 unless the intersection with Routes 20 and 610 is
improved, which is deemed to be very dangerous. He stated that the landowner
there does not agree. Mr. Bain added that if Route 610 is to be improved, as
he understands from Mr. Farley, and the intersection is not improved, the same
thing is going to occur. He knows that there have been a number of gravel
roads improved where the policy before 1988 simply indicated that if rights-
of-way are donated then a road would be built, and if rights-of-way are not
donated, then the road would not be built. He noted that the 1988 policy
changes related to a three condition criteria and the safety issue, as well.
Referring back to the Route 682 project, he noted that the railroad track
crossing does make a difference, and now that donations of land have been made
to get across the railroad tracks, VDoT officials indicate they will not
improve the road in the old location, because of safety reasons.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain what he would like for the Board to do with
the policy in order to get the projects moving ahead for Routes 682 and 610.
Mr. Bain responded that some of the other roads that will not be built for
five or six years, will be shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He said that two
of them are in the North Garden growth area. He thinks the same problem will
arise there. He said the growth area is the number one criteria, but there
will be the same problems with rights-of-way and easements. He does not like
to use road funds for rights-of-way, particularly where there are people who
have already donated their land, because they are resentful that the other
people who will be giving up their land in the future will be compensated for
it. He said he does not want to indicate that when VDoT officials make the
determination that there ~s a safety issue, then this should be the exclusive
area of change. He noted that even though the County is not in the road
building business, VDoT officials will ask this Board which gravel road
projects will this Board list as its priorities. He thinks that if some
criteria can be developed relating to demonstrable danger to the public safety
as set out in the County's policy, then the policy should allow for the road
to be built with the donations that are possible to get. He pointed out that
if it is a new road and is not shown in the plan, then there may not be any
donations, so the policy may have to be revisited at a later time.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 55
(Pa~e 9)
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the words, ,,demonstrable danger," cover the
specific situation to which Mr. Bain is referring on Routes 610 and 682. He
asked if the current policy allows for this Board to deal with a particular
~ituation where funds would be used to purchase rights-of-way. Mr. Bain
responded that he knows that VDoT officials have indicated that Route 610 will
not be improved without rights-of-way being purchased. He indicated that VDoT
officials have indicated the same thing relating to Route 682 as it involves
getting across the railroad tracks. He said that after crossing the railroad
tracks, because of the way the plan has been developed, more land is needed
some people whose land has already been donated. He would like to say
that these situations could fit into the parameter of the current policy, but
he is not sure it is possible. He asked if the other Board members can be
happy with this arrangement as it relates to the current policy, or do they
think the policy needs to be changed.
Mr. Marshall then read portions from the policy, and said he thinks this
Board has the right to do what it needs to do under the language of the
current policy, if there is a problem dealing with public safety. He noted
that his aunt had lived on Route 682 years ago, but he did not recognize the
road when he drove out there recently. He went on to say that it is
unbelievable to him that there are that many people currently living on that
id. He said that school buses travel that road, and he wondered how fire
trucks would get across the railroad tracks. He said it is clear to him that
the road is a danger to the public safety, and he thinks this Board needs to
do something about the situation.
Mr. Bowerman then asked Mr. Bain what he wants the Board to do today to
move this project along to the next step. Mr. Bain responded that he thinks
the Board needs to take action to put restrictions on VDoT to bring the issue
back to this Board and make sure that improvements are kept to a minimum so
that the land is not torn up. He also believes this Board must indicate to
VDoT officials that they need to do whatever it takes to get the necessary
easements and rights-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman stated this is not a public hearing, but he understands
there are a lot of people here for this discussion. He asked if there are any
people in the public who want to make a statement regarding the situation
before the Board discusses it further.
Mr. Craig Redinger indicated that he has been asked to be the
spokesperson directly for almost 100 families who live on Route 682 and
indirectly for the 400 other families for whom the provision along this road
of fire and safety vehicles is the most efficient and sometimes the only
access. He noted that no one could have pointed out more eloquently than Mr.
Marshall the real problem in that area. He said the project was started 28
years ago, and almost three decades ago the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion officials began acquiring rights-of-way for the purpose of improving this
road. In the ensuing three decades, nearly all of the rights-of-way, accord-
ing to Mr. Redinger, have been acquired for the improvements to this road. He
said the project has been included in the Six Year Plan since 1988, and now it
is in first place in the Plan.
He added that the people in this room and the County staff probably deem
this road as one of, if not, the most dangerous road in the County. ~e thinks
that despite what the policy of this Board used to be, it would be appropriate
today for the policy to be coqnizant of public safety issues. He noted that
he and Walter Johnson have pu~ together a packet for the Board which includes
a letter and some enclosures, which he hopes the Board members have had an
opportunity to review. Mr. Redinger pointed out that among the enclosures is
a short history of the project, as well as a few of the letters which have
been received over the years from people who are important to the issue, such
as fire service people. He said that almost u~iformly these letters point out
the surface of the road as one of the main problems. He added that because of
the gravel surface, the road becomes washboarded, and the washboarding effect,
the narrowness and the ditches on either side of the road present an extreme
problem, particularly for the children who live there. He pointed out that
there are school buses loaded with children which travel that road every day.
He said one of the problems noted by the Crozet Fire Department and the Post
Office is that this washboarding effect and configuration of the road result
in a real danger because vehicles get pushed off the road. He stated that the
road is so narrow, school buses must travel in the middle of the road. He
added that the sudden appearance of another vehicle on the road, many times,
forces the school buses off the road. To date, Mr. Redinger knows of no child
who has been injured, but he believes it is just a matter of time until this
happens.
Mr. Redinger then recalled Mr. Bain's discussion of the difficulties
with a couple of landowners. He would like to put this discussion in more
perspective. He agrees that because of VDoT's reconfiguration of the project
over the railroad tracks, there is a larger piece of property that needs to be
taken by eminent domain. He said that rights-of-way acquisition was contem-
plated when the project was put into the Six Year Plan in 1988, and the
rights-of-way acquisition is still in the Plan. He noted that the three or
four landowners who still feel there is an issue about this acquisition, live
very close to Route 250, and some of them do not live in the area at all. He
said the major condemnation portion of the 1.7 acres is owned by a man on
whose property there is no house, and he does not live there, and his property
is directly adjacent to Route 250. He reiterated that he is representing
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B. 41, Pg. 56
(page 10)
almost 100 families at this meeting. He said those people who live further
from Route 250 are uniformly in favor of the road improvements. He said,
again, that the project has been in the Six Year Plan since 1988, and it was
reaffirmed in 1992 when a change was made in the budget to increase the funds
from the original $1,050,000 to $1,250,000. He added that this increased the
amount of funds for some engineering costs and put into the budget the money
necessary for the improvement of the railroad crossing. He believes that this
is one of five or six railroad crossings in the entire County which does not
have any gates, lights or signals. He stated that it is simply a roadbed
through which the train tracks travel, and this, in itself, is a tremendous
danger. He went on to say that VDoT has the power of emmnent domain, and has
been granted this power in and for the purpose of preserving and protecting
the public Safety. He pointed out this is not something this Board is being
requested to exercise, and he understands the Board's role is an advisory one.
He noted that the project has already consumed $73,000 of tax money in
preliminary engineering, and he said VDoT has gone further than normal in
trying to accommodate the needs and desires of those few people who have
objections to the proposed crossmng over the railroad tracks. Mr. Redinger's
point is that the road is incredibly dangerous, and it is not a matter, in his
view, of whether or not it is this Board's or VDoT's liability. He does not
think that this is an issue of legalities, and he agrees with Mr. St. John
that, whatever the decision, the County of Albemarle has no liability for that
road. He submitted, however, that this Board has a hard duty in this case,
which is a concern for and responsibility to the safety of the people who use
this road every day. He urged the Board to end the 28 years of effort and to
vote for the approval of this project.
Mr. Bain asked if there was anyone who is opposed to this project who
would like to address the Board. No one came forward to speak.
Mr. Bain noted that early in the process, there was a determination that
the width of pavement was going to be greater on one section than on the other
section of the road. He recalled that a letter from Mr. Roosevelt several
years ago indicated the 40 foot right-of-way would be sufficient to go down
Route 687 to Route 682, although there would be other easements that may be
necessary. He said this will be taken into consideration during the design
portion of the project. He knows, after talking to Mr. Farley, that, because
of the railroad crossing and the distance to the oak tree at the intersection
of Routes 682 and 787, it is uncertain what the cost will be until bids are
taken. He added that VDoT officials may have to come back to this Board, if
this is a major problem, once the design portion of the project is studied.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it will cost $1,250,000 to construct the road from
Route 250 to the oak tree at the intersection of Routes 682 and 787. Mr. Bain
responded that it is supposed to cost $1,250,000 to go the entire length of
Route 682, after the intersection. Mr. Bowerman then inquired if this figure
is likely to be revised after the design work is done. Mr. Bain answered that
the figure probably will be revised.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the balance of the roadway could be upgraded
within the 40 foot right-of-way. Mr. Bain replied that VDoT officials are
unsure how much easement will be necessary because of the higher banks on that
section of the road. He said that some easements may have to be obtained
outside of the 40 foot right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this Board should communicate to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board by letter or appearance. Mr. Bain stated that he could
indicate in his motion that, in terms of design, V/DoT officials must take
these issues into consideration before they actually start construction. He
added that the Supervmsors want to review the plan, along with the property
owners along that road, to make sure that VDoT officials are doing what is
necessary for safety reasons with minimum design standards. He noted that a
number of trees have been saved, but some trees may have to be removed on the
section of the road that has high banks. He said VDoT officials have reduced
the curve speed, after crossing the tracks, to a mmnimum design speed of 20 to
25 miles per hour. He noted that this speed cannot be decreased any more. He
thinks that if VDoT officials can observe this criteria during the process,
then the public in that area will be served.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved that the Highway Department move forward on
the Routes 682/787 gravel road project, as well as the Route 610 project, zn
accordance with the Board's adopted policy on unpaved roads, recognizing that
there is not sufficient right-of-way dedicated for these projects, but, also
recognizing that there is a clear, demonstrable danger to public safety, which
necessitates the use of the funds to purchase right-of-way for the projects.
Mr. Bain explained that he included the Route 610 pro]ect in this motion,
because of the safety issue involved with Route 610.
Mr. Marshall seconded the motion.
Mr. Perkins stated that he will support the motion, but he has a concern
relating to VDoT's position on the liability issue. He said this Board tried
to deal with this matter, and has gotten nowhere, and he thinks that the State
representatives should be contacted as to the possibility of getting this
regulation changed. He speculated that maybe it cannot be changed because it
is a legal matter. He commented, however, that it disturbs him because VDoT
will sometimes open up a road that has been abandoned for 30 years. He gave
an example by pointing out that this happened with Route 674 which travels
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 57
(Page 11)
from Nelson County into Albemarle County. He asked if this type of situation
is considered as an improvement, and he wondered what sort of liability is
involved with Route 674. He said the road is no more than a jeep trail and
probably was completely washed out during the flood a couple of weeks ago. He
thinks that VDoT officials use this type of situation as an excuse to do what
they want rather than serving the people.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a motion is needed regarding communication with
the Commonwealth Transportation Board relative to the 40 foot easement and the
sensitivity toward design standards for all secondary roads.
Mr. Bain answered that he would make a motion but he would like to have
staff work on the language that will go into the letter to send to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board and to the District Engineer's office where
this design work will take place.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved that this Board direct staff to draft a
letter to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and to the Culpeper District
Engineer asking the Highway Department to consider Board concerns about the
State requirements for improvement of gravel roads, the 40 foot right-of-way
requirement and design standards for secondary roads, taking into considera-
tion aesthetics, safety and environmental concerns. He asked that the letter
come back to this Board for approval.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Roosevelt thanked the hundreds of people who live in the Route 682
area for their support.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain mentioned that he and Mr. Roosevelt have gotten a packet from
the Bellair Homeowners' Association and other people who live in that vicinity
concerning the intersection at the Bellair Subdivision. He asked Mr. Roose-
velt to give him a status report on this matter.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that a letter was sent directly from the Bellair
Homeowners' Association to the District Traffic Engineer, Mr. Farley. Mr.
Roosevelt indicated that he (Mr. Roosevelt) is doing a traffic signal study,
which involves counting the traffic at the intersection and reviewing the
accident data. He added that he did not know this matter would be approached
today, and he does not know anymore about the status of the issue. He would
guess, though, based on the time that the request has been in, that the home-
owners should be hearing something quickly, and he feels certain that this
Board will hear something in regard to this matter before the next day
meeting. He will see that this Board gets a copy of the report.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt to examine a situation at Clarke Lane
in Carrsbrook. He described the specific situation by saying that there is a
vertical curve, and he wondered if additional signage could be placed at this
curve warning motorists of a hidden drive or the fact that there is a school
bus crossing. He said he is not trying to indicate the nature of the sign
that should be there, and the speed limit is probably appropriate. He noted,
however, that when a vehicle gets to the top of that hill, if it is going 35
miles per hour, which is the speed limit there, if someone is exiting,
specifically from one driveway, it leaves a very short period of time to
react. He said that some smgnage might help reduce the potential danger in
this situation. Mr. Roosevelt answered that he would examine the situation,
and respond.
Mr. Tucker stated that he has received some calls and has also been
contacted about an issue regarding patrol officers from the County's Police
Department, who are on duty on Route 250, East in the event that there is a
tie-up of traffic while the improvement on Pantops Mountain is occurring. He
asked Mr. Roosevelt to respond to the Board regarding this situation.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that when the traffic control plans were being
developed for the Route 250 project, VDoT officials realized there would be
times when workers would be in the signalized intersections, both in the City
at River Road and Route 250, and in the County at Riverbend Drive, Routes 20
and 250. He said that arrangements were made in the contract, and the
contractor was advised, that when the road was narrowed down from the three
lanes that were normally available and the intersections were affected, that
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. 41, Pg. 58
(Page 12)
he should obtain police assistance. He added that VDoT officials contracted
with the County and City police to pay an off-duty policeman to assist at
these locations. He pointed out that it is the contractor's responsibility to
contact the police, and the City and County Police Departments bill VDoT for
the costs of supplying the policemen. He knows there are times when the
signals will still control the traffic better than the officer, but VDoT
officials feel that it is better to have the off-duty policemen at the
intersections for assistance, rather than to try to handle the traffic only
with the signals, in case there is a sudden back up of traffic, such as when
State Farm employees are getting off from work. He said it may appear to the
public that at times a County policeman is not earning his pay, but as far as
VDoT officials are concerned, he is assisting with the work that is being done
on Route 250 by seeing that the traffic is running smoothly. He reiterated
that the police officers are working on Route 250 at VDoT's request, and they
are not being paid by County or City funds.
Mr. Bowerman next asked Mr. Roosevelt if he would see that a new sign ms
installed at Greenbrier Drive and Hillsdale Drive. He said the old sign has
been totally removed from the site.
(Mr. St. John left at 10:01 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Sara Watson Preliminary Plat (Defer to
September 2, 1992).
Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that there is a request to defer Agenda
Item No. 8, which is the appeal for the Sara Watson preliminary plat, until
September 2, 1992.
Mr. Bain offered motion to defer the appeal for the Sara Watson
preliminary plat until September 2, 1992. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 9. Architectural Review Board's decision re: Hardee's
signs (Applicant requests indefinite deferral).
Mr. Bowerman stated that there is also a request from Hardee's to defer
indefinitely the Architectural Review Board's decision regarding signs.
Mr. Tucker remarked that he thought the Hardee's request should be
deferred to a definite date. He suggested that the July 1, 1992 meeting would
be a good time for the Board to hear this request. He added that the request
could always be deferred again, if necessary.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins,
to defer the Architectural Review Board's decision relating to Hardee's signs
to the Board of Supervisors meeting on July 1, 1992.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin and Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Tipping Fees.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority
(RSWA) deferred action from its public hearing on April 27, 1992 in regard to
the proposed increase in tipping fees from $32 per ton to $40 per ton. He
said the staff has considered providing some type of subsidy and wanted to
review this matter with the Board before RSWA takes further action regarding
fees. He added that there are several informational items that he would like
to discuss with this Board. He stated that the easiest and most effective way
to subsidize the fee at the Landfill would be for the County and City to both
jointly subsidize the fee as it relates to capital expenditures, particularly
the closure costs on those cells that were created prior to Rivanna taking
over the project in 1991. He explained this would basically mean the County
would cover all of the costs through subsidy for any of the Landfill opening
and closure of cells and remedial costs that occurred prior to RSWA taking
over the Landfill's operation. He has discussed this with the City Manager,
but there are no funds available in the City's budget to subsidize the
Landfill's costs this year, and the County does not have the funds to do it,
either.
In lieu of this situation, Mr. Tucker has examined the possibility of
providing some subsidy directly to the haulers that they could pass on to
their customers. In doing this, Mr. Tucker said the staff found several
issues that need to be addressed. One, according to Mr. Tucker, is the issue
of mixed loads that come to the Landfill. He said that currently private
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 59
(Page 13)
haulers will pick up refuse in the County and sometimes in the City with the
same truck. He explained that when the haulers drive across the scales, there
has to be a way to separate the City's and County's refuse, so that the County
is not subsidizing the City's refuse. He noted that the haulers are also
picking up commercial waste as opposed to domestic waste. He said that
commercial waste relates to refuse picked up at apartment buildings or
businesses and industry. He said that the problem relates to how the
weighmaster at the Landfill can make a determination with the hauler as to
where the refuse was collected. He believes, too, that the haulers are not
always sure if they are picking up waste in the City or the County, if they
are not familiar with the boundaries.
Secondly, Mr, Tucker stated that the issue of equity was addressed by
the staff. He said the staff developed this idea of a subsidy to the haulers
by looking at residential or domestic refuse, only. He stated that then the
staff wondered if consideration should be given to subsidizing commercial
waste and debris, such as stumps, brush and trees, etc., that is brought to
the Landfill from development activities occurring in the County. He next
discussed the issue of accounting, and pointed out, again, the question of how
to account for the separation of waste that might be picked up in the County
and City in the same truck. He stated another problem arises when it is
considered that there are administrative costs involved in working with the
various accounts, and determining what the subsidy would be, and getting the
credit back to the hauler. He wondered, again, if there would be a savings
that could be passed on to the property owner. He added that the only
allocated reserve available to the County is a $100,000 reserve fund that is
tied directly to solid waste. He said this amount was taken into considera-
tion in trying to determine if a subsidy could be provided to the landowner,
if all of the other issues could be solved. He went on to say the staff
determined that there could be a 48 cents per month savings that the hauler
could return back to the property owners. For this amount of money, the staff
did not feel the plan was workable. He noted that out of the 48 cents
savings, there will be administrative costs relating to the accounting issue.
He mentioned that these are issues the staff had planned to address in the
report over the summer, which should come to this Board in August or
September. He stated this report will also deal with recycling issues and
charges and will offer directions, recommendations and options, as well as
recommendations relating to the subsidy issue. He reiterated that, after
reviewing all of these issues, it is the staff's basic feeling that the cost
savings that were identified are not worth the effort required to put the plan
into action, at this point, because the issues of mixed loads, equity and
accounting are not resolved to the staff's satisfaction. He added that there
may be other problems, too, that the staff has not addressed, and the staff
feels that time needs to be spent on this matter to make sure that all of
these issues are resolved.
Finally, Mr. Tucker remarked the staff wants to explore the issue of
providing direct subsidies to the Landfill that are related to capital costs
that are tied to those cells created prior to Rivanna's operation. He
believes that this should involve a subsidy from both the City and County. He
thinks the County staff needs to work with the City staff, and he suggested
that this could be a discussion item for the next joint Board of Supervisors
and City Coumcil meeting. For all of these reasons, Mr. Tucker indicated that
the staff feels it is not the opportune time to move forward with this type of
subsidy at this point, and he would rather'address these issues in the report
that will later be coming to this Board. He then stated that he does not feel
that it is appropriate to maintain a differential fee. He added that if the
County has a tipping fee of $32 and the City funds a $40 tippzng fee, there
would be the same accounting problems, as far as the mixed loads were
concerned. He said that it would be an incentive for someone to say that the
whole load of waste was from the County because of the lower tipping fee. He
reiterated that there are too many problems to address to expedite the matter
at this time. He recommends that the Board approve the $40 tipping fee and
address the issues more definitively with the recempt of the summer report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker ms saying that unless the Board
instructs them otherwise, the $40 tipping fee will become effective. Mr.
Tucker agreed that this is correct.
Mr. Bain stated that he had heard a lot of this same information at the
Rivanna Board meeting. He pointed out that the $40 tipping fee will not be
needed this year, but the Authority's Board is saying that if the tipping fee
is left at $32 this year, the fee would move to $55 next year. He noted that
if the $40 tippmng fee becomes effective this year, the fee would increase
only to $47 the following year. He mentioned, though, that if there is a
year's leeway at a $32 tipping fee, a lot more will be known in the next year
from the reports that the Board will be receiving. He said then the Board
will have a better understanding and will know whether or not these problems
can be worked out and whether or not some subsidizing can be done. He is
still inclined to leave the tipping fee at $32, but he knows the City has
already approved the $40 tipping fee which would cause the situation to which
Mr. Tucker referred, and he does not want to get involved with this problem.
He wondered if the City could take the extra $8 and hold it until some of the
problems are resolved, but he realizes some of the reporting problems that are
also involved.
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that in talking to officials in the
surrounding counties, their tipping fees range from $40 to $45. He pointed
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 60
(Page 14)
out that Chesterfield County already has a $45 tipping fee and Prince
William~s tipping fee is at $48. He noted that Greene and Fluvanna Counties'
tipping fees range from $40 to $42.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to work toward eliminating the
tipping fees and funding the whole program. He does not think tipping fees
are the answer to the problem, and he thinks the County officials need to tax
in another direction.
Mr. Bowerman recalled Mr. Tucker's comments about the staff's
consideration of a situation whereby the County and City would pay for the
capital costs of closing the Landfill cells that were there prior to the
inception of RSWA. He asked if the staff would also be considering subsi-
dizing all of the capital costs by the City and County. Mr. Tucker replied
staff would have to come back to the Board with this recommendation, because
he is not sure about the related subsidy costs, at this time. Mr. Bowerman
remarked that he thinks the operational costs should be separated from the
capital costs in the event that the Board chooses to fund the program out of
general revenue. Mr. Tucker responded that capital costs can be considered
and any associated costs tied to the old cells would involve operating costs.
He stated that the staff hopes to totally cover all costs with County and City
funds that occurred at the Landfill prior to February, 1991, when the Autho-
rity took over the operation. He noted that there could be further operating
costs involved there. He agreed, though, that the difference in operating and
capital costs can be examined by staff.
Mr. Bowerman referred to cost separation, and he said that one cost
could be paid for by every City and County citizen, and the other cost could
be related directly proportionate to the waste that the citizens generate. He
said this would be a differential fee, such as the City has currently.
Mr. Marshall commented that a tax is a tax no matter where it comes
from, and he thinks that it will work better for the County to involve real
estate or personal property taxes with this project.
Mr. Tucker answered that this is one way to look at the situation. He
stated that another consideration is for the County to provide the incentive
for people to recycle so that those people are paying for the waste they are
generating. He said that as the program is now, it does not matter if ten
bags of trash are accumulated in one week or one bag, the same amount is paid
to the hauler. He added that it would be good if there could be some
~ncentive so that the fee is based on the amount of trash that is collected
from a particular person. He thinks it would be more equitable for the people
to pay a portion of the tipping fee rather than for the County to cover the
whole cost, because there would not be an incentive for people to recycle or
divert waste from the Landfill. He said that this is his only concern about
totally using County funds to fund the Landfill.
Mr. Bain remarked that if there was total County funding for the
Landfill, mandatory recycling could be considered. Mr. Tucker agreed that
this ~s another option.
Mr. Marshall stated that when he came to work yesterday morning, there
were nine bags of trash setting in front of his dumpster. He said that he put
locks on his dumpster, but now people are setting the trash in front of the
dumpster in the parking lot. He commented that he is having to unlock his
dumpster, and put somebody else's trash in it. He thinks this is the type of
problem is being created now, and it is being created on the back roads of the
community. He said he could show the Board hundreds of pictures of places
where people are dumping their trash illegally.
Mr. Tucker commented that this is another reason why he thinks the City
and County should try to work together on the same subsidy. He said that if
separate subsidies are provided, the trash will either be shifted into the
County or shifted into the City depending on where the lower costs are
involved.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he thinks the top priority in the joint City
and County meetings should be addressing this problem. He noted that all of
the business men in Charlottesville, who have dumpsters, have this same
problem. He said this problem will only get worse.
Mr. Perkins stated that when the Authority was created he, as well as
others, felt that this program needed to be on its own, and the tax base
should not be used to support it. He said at that time, the assets of the
City and County were considered, and the Landfill and equipment were given to
the Authority. He asked how many millions of dollars did this involve. He
said that if this program was beginning with no equipment or land, the tipping
fee would probably be $80 a ton. He wondered if the County should consider
subsidizing the cells that were there before the Authority took over. He
noted that the Authority was given a tremendous subsidy, anyway. He thinks
that if people are going to be conscious about their waste, then it is going
to cost them money. He said when people go to the store, they can select
items that can be recycled. He commented that there will always be people
throwing trash in ditches, because it was happening when the real estate fees
from the City and County were being used for this program. He said that it
might be worse now, but it was against the law then, and it is against the
law, now. He does not know the answer to all of the questions, but he thinks
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B, Pg. 6]
(Page 15)
that the people who use the service should have to pay for it, and that this
has to be done through tipping fees.
Mr. Marshall responded that he would like to see the people pay for this
service, too, but he can say that he, personally, did not have a problem until
recently. He has had a business in the same place for over 30 years, and he
never locked his dumpster until two years ago.
Mr. Perkins stated that people are living in a throwaway society, and it
has not changed.
Mr. Bain stated that things will not change overnight.
Mr. Marshall remarked that when he was Executive Director of the Retail
Merchants Association, the Association tried to get legislation started
regarding return bottles, etc., rather than throwaway bottles. He stated that
in front of his farm, on any day, there are McDonald's bags and styrofoam
cups. He wondered if there is any way County officials can put pressure on
the people who are using these throwaway containers and have them pay some of
these costs. Mr. Bain replied that State officials have the responsibility
for putting pressure on situations to which Mr. Marshall referred, through
legislation. Mr. Tucker noted that this has been done in other states. Mr.
Marshall stated that it would be helpful if this type of trash could be
eliminated.
Mr. Bain commented that he agrees with Mr. Perkins that it is going to
cost people to get rid of their trash. He said that it is just a question of
trying to treat everybody equally and provide incentives. He added that he
has no doubt that there will be mandatory regulations eventually, but the
County will have to go through a strong educational process. He reminded
Board members that the program is just beginning, and the situation the County
is experiencing now will continue. He does not know what the City will do,
but he thinks that after July 1, there will be more experiences that will come
back to City Council, and the Council members will have to reconsider the
situation. He does not know what is going to happen, but he believes that
even where there are businesses with no dumpsters, there will be bags of trash
dropped. He added that these bags will be counted as the businesses' bags of
trash, even though they do not belong to the businesses.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a lot of this information will be developed in
the report that Mr. Tucker will be giving to the Board by the end of the
summer. He said that these are significant issues that the Board has been
discussing, but the Supervisors need input from Mr. Tucker and the staff.
Mr. Bain commented that the capitalization costs will have to be
considered, too. Mr. Tucker agreed. He said that this is all part of the
total picture.
Mr. Bain stated that it does not matter what collection system is used,
going through the whole process is the key to making the system work.
Mr. Bowerman then said he was going to move from Agenda Item 11 to the
Housing Committee Report, which is listed as Agenda Item 15, because there
were a lot of people at the meeting who were waiting to hear the report.
Agenda Item No. 15. Housing Committee Report.
Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Housing
Advisory Committee, introduced the Committee members present at the meeting,
who were: Forrest Kerns, the new Executive Director of the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation; Ben Webb; Virginia Greenwood; Tom Jenkins; and Kobby
Hoffman, staffperson. She said the Committee's purpose was to develop a
housing policy and connect it to a group of action oriented strategies which
the County could adopt and implement over a period of years. She said the
intent was to make the strategies as comprehensive as possible, so that the
end result would be success and not frustration. She stated that the
Committee members recognize that housing is the place for all land use and
social issues to meet, and there is currently an imbalance between growth
limitation and adequate opportunities for affordable housing at many income
levels. She added that the Committee members' approach, after the realization
of the complexity of the problem, was to meet every two weeks in order to seek
input from everyone who had an interest in housing, and then sort out what was
being learned. She noted that interested organizations and individuals were
invited to attend all meetings. In addition, according to Ms. Lilleleht, four
public forums were set and invitations were sent to nearly 100 people in
agencies, businesses and organizations in both the County and City and
advertising was done with the media. She stated that there was good
attendance at all of the forums, and a lot of very helpful ideas were
generated. She said that the Committee represented public, private and
nonprofit sectors of the community, and the report included well over 600
hours of work. She pointed out that the staff had spent over 1,000 hours on
the report.
She went on to say the Committee members began by reviewing the
Comprehensive Plan, including the growth management policy. She said it can
be seen from the report that the national resource base of the Comprehensive
Plan is supported by the Committee, but Committee members found it weak as it
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 4], Pg. 62
(Page 16)
dealt with housing and related social issues. After problems and strategies
were identified by Committee members, two facilitators were brought in from
the State Department of Housing and Community Development to help put the
pieces together into a coherent, workable document. Ms. Lilleleht noted that
Committee members and staff worked on the total housing report, and what is
being presented today, is a long range housing plan, whose cost, although
substantial, can be spread over two decades, and the benefits will last much
longer through fair housing and will increase job opportunities. She said the
report takes the Comprehensive Plan one step further to implement the growth
management policy by creating incentives for locating housing in the growth
areas and changing the pay-as-you-go infrastructure inflation policy.
Ms. Lilleleht said the report addresses the three major housing
problems, which are: affordability, availability and condition for owners,
renters and very low income renters needing direct assistance. She commented
that the most intense need is among the latter group, particularly low income
families with children, who have little help, and whose need for affordable
housing is tied to education and job opportunities. She noted that the
recommendations are broad ranged, but very specific. She asked the Supervi-
sors make this report part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and provide
staff plus a citizen review committee to see that it is carried out. She
added that Committee members are also asking that the growth management policy
be implemented by providing infrastructure in the growth area, realigning
boundaries to match infrastructure and encouraging maximum residential use.
She went on to ask that the supply of assisted rental housing be increased,
using private, nonprofit and public housing strategies, including Section 8
and the Housing Authority. the Committee members also request that the
condition and supply of affordable housing be improved through rehabilitation
at a rate of at least five percent per year, a land trust or a land bank, a
revolving loan fund, including area legislation, increased density bonuses and
accessory apartments in all areas. Ms. Lilleleht said that Committee members
are also requesting assistance in financing affordable housing through a
revolving loan fund, employer-assisted housing and all available funding for
citizens. She added that housing counseling and educational programs should
be established, including financial counseling for students and families and
skills training for renters. She also recommended the development approval
process be streamlined to make it simpler and less costly and to treat single-
wide and double-wide manufactured housing equally. She asked that inter-
governmental coordination of housing be obtained through a regional housing
committee, a regional fair share agreement and standardized regulations and
ordinances. She stated that Committee members feel that implementation should
be initiated first through the private sector with incentives in partnership,
and next through nonprofit organizations, using partnerships and subsidies,
and then through the public sector, by creating or contracting with a housing
authority. She said that all three will be necessary to complete the process.
She added that Committee members would like for the Supervisors, staff,
other agencies and groups in the general public to review and discuss this
report. She urged the Board to act on the report as soon as possible. She
said the need is all around, and it is urgent. She thanked Board members for
giving the Committee members this opportunity to share ways in which the work
can be done together to make Albemarle County a comfortable place to live for
all its residents. She said that she and Ms. Hoffman would be happy to answer
any questions.
Mr. Marshall stated that he had received a letter from a gentleman who
reported that basement apartments in middle class subdivision areas are being
constructed. He said that the gentleman's letter states that this is not
occurring in Ednam Forest or Flordon, but it is occurring in Woodbrook and in
some of the areas close to Route 29 North. He asked if this is part of the
Committee members' recommendations. Ms. Lilleleht replied that these could
very easily be included in the category of accessory apartments. Mr. Marshall
commented that the gentleman's argument was that a basement type duplex
situation would be detrimental to the property owners in the areas that are
designated as single family housing. Ms. Lilleleht responded that the opinion
of the Committee members is that it is doubtful if this is going to happen
very much. She added that she does not know who this gentleman expects will
live in the apartments. She suspects that it will not be students because of
the distance, unless they are related to the families who have the apartments.
She stated that it will probably be children or parents of the people who live
in these houses. She said this is one of the reasons for the recommendation.
She went on to say this is a real problem for people who have children who
cannot find jobs or people who have elderly parents. She thinks this
situation really needs to be considered and people need this kind of help.
She noted that whenever there is a change in housing use, the first thing
people say is the change will ruin their property. She is not sure there is
proof that this is true. She would like to have someone prove to her that two
basement apartments in one block are ruining the property values in that area,
and she pointed out that in this area property values are very high.
Mr. Bowerman asked which zoning types allow accessory apartments,
currently. Mr. Tucker replied that areas zoned R2 and above allow for
accessory apartments. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that there is an allowance for a
two family dwelling, such as a duplex, even in the rural areas. He said that
accessory apartments, are not defined or allowed in the Ordinance. Mr.
Bowerman then asked if duplexes are allowed in areas zoned R2 and above, and
also in the rural areas. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." He said there has to
be enough land associated with that use, and in rural areas, it takes four
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
M.B. 41, Pg. 63
~cres for a duplex.
Mr. Bain pointed out that a lot of the subdivisions, regardless of the
County's ordinance, have restrictive covenants which will not be changed,
because the percentage of the people in those areas will not want these
changes made. He stated that in the Samuel Miller District, there must be 35
subdivisions which have such restrictive covenants.
Ms. Lilleleht remarked that her subdivision has these restrictive
covenants, also.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked if any other member of the Housing Committee
wished to speak.
Mr. Forrest Kerns came forward to urge the Board to set a date today for
a public he&ring to be held sometime in the near future. He also suggested
that the Board set up a committee to serve as a review committee which would
meet maybe once or twice a year, as long as it is needed, to review and advise
the Supervisors about the things that have happened relating to the housing
report and things that could and should happen.
No one else wished to speak.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the Board members felt that a work session
should be held prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Tucker commented that he had some suggestions as to how the Board
members might want to handle this matter. He thinks everyone will agree that
the Committee did an outstanding job. He has reviewed the report, and it
includes some excellent suggestions and recommendations. He added that a
process to implement the plan will have to be put together, and it will not
happen overnight, and he does not think that Ms. Lilleleht expects it to
happen overnight. He said this process will be tedious, to some extent,
because there has to b~ some time spent in developing a work program of how
the plan should best be implemented. He said there are a lot of different
issues, particularly regarding funding from the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements Program budget, which will be affected. His suggestion would be
to accept the report, but refer it to the Planning staff and the Planning
Commission for review and start the public hearing process at that time. He
said the staff and Supervisors could attend the public hearing, if they so
wish. He added that from this public hearing the Commission and staff can
develop, for the Supervisors' review, a work program and time line on how the
various strategies and recommendations of the report can be implemented. He
went on to say that this will put the housing plan in a programmatic perspec-
tive with which the Supervisors can deal, and then everyone will know the
direction the housing plan is taking. He reiterated that a lot of things
proposed in the report will have to go through the Operating Budget process,
which will not start until next fall, as well as the Capital Improvements
Program budget.
Mr. Bain commented this was a monumental task that was assigned to this
Committee, and he thinks the hours spent on this report are probably double
the amount that Ms. Lilleleht reported. He said the report is more than
comprehensive and addresses everything that needs to be considered as far as
developing and incorporating housing strategies into existing policies, and,
in some cases, changing policies. In terms of timing, he would like to have a
~oint public hearing with the Planning Commission and this Board on the
overall plan in June for those people who are interested in going through the
plan. He said the public would be allowed to comment on whatever section of
the report that they wished, and after that, the plan could follow the
procedure that Mr. Tucker suggested. He noted that copies of the report could
be sent to everybody who is interested and to all segments of the community.
He stated that, in addition, this Board may want to have its own work session
pertaining to policy questions, before the report is sent on to the Commis-
sion. He said the Supervisors may want to direct back to the Commission some
of the Supervisors' own concerns that have been found, so that this Board
could give some guidance before following a specific work program.
Mr. Tucker stated that the only reason he was suggesting that this
report be sent to the Commission first is because many of these items need to
be incorporated into the County's Comprehensive Plan. He said that this would
allow the process to beg~n. He added, though, that Mr. Bain's plan will work
just as well.
Mr. Marshall asked if the idea is to have a public hearing in June. Mr.
Tucker replied, "yes." He said he would like to take a look at the agenda in
June and make a recommendation later this afternoon. Mr. Bain commented that
the public hearing needs to be held at a night meeting, which means that it
would have to be held either on June 10 or 17.
Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Bain's comments. He believes that the
Supervisors need to hear from the public. He remarked that he was at a
meeting recently with a group of people who do not believe that it is the role
of the Board of Supervisors to provide jobs or have the responsibility of
providing jobs or affordable housing for people in the community. He thinks
this is the wrong attitude, and it is this Board's responsibility to do that.
He would like to hear more from the public to find out how other people feel
about the situation, before the plan progresses further.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 64
(page 18)
Mr. Bowerman also thinks that Mr. Bain's suggestion is good because,
while the public has participated up to this point, he thinks it would be good
to involve the public at the beginning of the process so that the public's
thoughts can be incorporated. He also feels the joint meeting is an excellent
idea because it is more efficient, and the Supervisors and Commissioners can
learn how the public feels without having two meetings. He commended the
Committee on the completeness of the report. He said the report will serve as
the information under which future work will revolve. He added that this is
the first comprehensive report this Board has had that deals with the issue of
housing and the affordability of housing. He next inquired as to the
practical application of the question on mobile homes, as it relates to
single-wides, double-wides and rental of mobile homes. He said there are a
number of applications pertaining to mobile homes, and he does not want to
delay that process any more than is necessary. He thinks additional informa-
tion is needed from staff to deal with this matter because there are some
unresolved issues.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a Resolution of Intent was sent to the Planning
Commission, but Commission members took no action, and it came back to this
Board. He said this resolution was going to add specific language in the
ordinance that would not allow anyone, other than the owners, to occupy mobile
homes. He stated that the staff needs guidance if there is different thinking
by the Supervisors as to any change in this resolution universally, so that
this regulation will not be applied with special use permits as it has been in
the past. He pointed out that the staff has gone in the direction that is
opposite from the Housing Report.
Mr. Marshall asked how many people are in mobile homes illegally, now.
He commented that the law is totally unenforceable. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that
this has been pointed out. He informed the Board members that the staff does
not have a position against the Housing Committee's recommendations regarding
mobile homes. He said the staff has taken this Board's Resolution of Intent
and brought it through the process. He added that it may not be the direction
in which this Board wants to go any longer.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks the original recommendation which
this Board initiated should be combined with the Planning Commission review
and incorporated with the issues of this report, in terms of policy questions
the Board will be dealing with when the matter is reviewed. He asked that
these matters of substance be pulled from this report so this Board will have
everything to review when the text change is considered. He thinks this needs
to be done as soon as possible.
Mr. Cilimberg asked if the Supervisors want the resolution to go back to
the Commission, since there is no recommendation from the Commissioners. Mr.
Bowerman answered that the Commissioners should have the first look at it, if
other Board members concur. He said the Commissioners need to consider the
intent of this report against the policy and zoning text, to see whether or
not the Commissioners might have a recommendation that would be different than
before, in light of this report. He added that setting a public hearing with
the Commission members and the Supervisors in June is fine with him. He is
unsure, however, if a work session prior to that public hearing is necessary,
but he thinks it would be helpful if the Supervisors could become familiar
with this report before the comments from the public at the public hearing.
Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have a work session, and he thinks
that it could be held from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. before a night meeting. He
said the work session might have to be held in July, and it could be held
jointly with the Commission. He does not mean that the mobile home issue
should be delayed. He believes this issue should be brought back to this
Board as soon the Planning staff can deal with it.
Mr. Marshall said he would prefer that this matter not be considered the
latter part of July. He will not be in town at this time, and he wants to be
a part of this discussion. Mr. Bowerman stated the Supervisors would try to
work around Mr. Marshall's schedule.
Mr. Bain suggested the public hearing could be held in June, and then
the work session could be held. He said this gives the Board slx weeks to get
its thoughts together, incorporate the public's ideas and then have the work
session in late June, even if it means a separate meet±ng.
Mr. Bowerman explained to the group that the intention of the Board is
to set a public hearing to have the public review on the Housing Report
sometime in June. He said after that, the Board will have a work session to
give the staff guidance, and to discuss the issues that were brought up by the
public, as well as the Board's plan. He anticipates having a joint meeting in
June with the Planning Commission so that there can be one large hearing on
this issue. He stated this date will be selected this afternoon, if Mr.
Tucker can provide the Board with the dates. He thanked the Committee members
for coming to this meeting, and then thanked them for the work they did on
this report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker would still like to review the items
for June 10 before a time is set for the public hearing. Mr. 'Tucker replied
that he would look over the agenda items for June 10 and 17. He next
suggested that the Supervisors consider having the joint hearing in the
evening of June 3, after the afternoon meeting.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 65
(Page 19)
Mr. Bain mentioned it would reduce the amount of time that the public
could consider the housing report by a week, if the public hearing was held on
June 3. He said June 3 might be the best time for the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that the evening of June 3 would be a good time for
the public hearing. He said the Board could discuss the time of the public
hearing later today.
Non-Agenda Item. At this time, Mr. Bowerman announced that today is
Youth-in-Government Day, and he recognized the students who came into the room
during the meeting. He identified the students from Western Albemarle High
School as follows: Tony Hensley, J. J. Sims, Misty Childers, Beth Pandy, Liz
Watson, Justin Wood and Bob Holub, the Advisor. Mr. Bowerman thanked the
students for coming. He said the Supervisors appreciated them being at the
meeting, and he hoped that the students would learn something from this Youth-
in-Government Day.
Agenda Item No. 11. Statement for the Governor's Advisory Commission on
the Dillon Rule and Local Government (Deferred from March 11, 1992).
(Mr. Perkins left at 10:52 a.m.)
Mr. Tucker explained that the Governor's Advisory Commission on the
Dillon Rule and Local Government has been holding hearings throughout the
State since March and are concluding those hearings on May 20. He said the
staff has developed a draft statement for this Board's review which can be
presented at one of the three remaining meetings being held by the Advisory
Commission. He stated the dates these last three meetings will be held are:
May 14 in Fredericksburg; May 19 in Harrisonburg; and May 20 in Leesburg. He
said this statement was developed with an eye toward supporting the two pro-
posals that have been outlined by the Virginia ASsociation of Counties (VACo).
He added that the two VACo proposals have been attached to the statement. He
noted that the staff is requesting the Board's review and approval of this
statement. He commented that the draft statement was developed with the idea
that the Chairman of this Board would make the presentation. He said, how-
ever, if the Chairman could not work this presentation into his schedule, the
staff will do whatever is necessary relative to this matter.
Mr. Bowerman responded that he would like to attend the Harrisonburg
meeting on May 19 and make the presentation. He added that any member of the
Board who would like to accompany him is encouraged to do so. Mr. Bowerman
then called attention to the portion of the statement dealing with, "Land Use
Authority." He asked what is meant by the language, "five year life on site
plans." He wondered if this means that the County wants more control.
Mr. Tucker replied that this is one of the recent legislative issues
that was adopted this year. He said the staff is pointing out these issues,
but the staff is not saying whether the issues should be supported. He went
on to say that the staff feels localities should have more ability to review
and make determinations of what they feel are important for their particular
community. He noted that the life for the County's site plans is approxi-
mately 18 months, so this is a major change. He said this legislation covers
the entire state, and site plans and subdivision plans are "grandfathered" for
a five year period.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the fact that it is difficult to know
whether the County is for or against the issues, as they are shown in the
statement. He thinks there needs to be some clarification of the statement so
that it is clear which things are opposed by Albemarle County officials, and
which things are encouraged.
Mr. Bain concurred. He said that some specific areas need to be cited
where broader authority is desired on the local level, because that is the
· ssue to which the Dillon Rule relates.
Mr. Bowerman then called attention to Item One on the second page of the
statement. He asked if this item would have the effect of reversing the
Dillon Rule. Mr. Marshall agreed that Item One on the second page seemed to
be eliminating the Dillon Rule. Mr. Tucker responded that VACo's language is
used in the item to which Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Marshall referred. Mr. Bower-
man stated that the effect of that language is to give to the localities any
authority that the Legislature does not remove. Mr. Tucker commented that
VACo has taken a stronger stand realizing that the likelihood of actually
getting that type of authority is slim. He referred the Board's attention to
the second item which ~s more definitive and talks about the ability to
provide taxing authority that is comparable to cities and the ability to
provide the necessary revenues to implement the various programs that a
locality deems necessary for its citizens.
Mr. Bowerman next inquired if the term, "taxes," as used in this
statement, incorporates income taxes. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes."
Mr. Marshall wondered if impact fees is incorporated in this statement.
Mr. Tucker replied that the broad language that VACo has prepared under Number
One would incorporate just about anything that the counties desire.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
M.B. 41, Pg. 66
(Mr. Perkins returned at 10:55 a.m.)
Mr. Bain mentioned a memo from Flip Hicks, VACo's Counsel, which
indicated that Numbers One and Two are involving language that is already in
the Code. He said that municipalities already have this authority, and this
language is simplifying what the counties hope to do in addressing the Dillon
Rule. He said the counties are not asking to go beyond the cities' authority,
but, instead, the counties want the same authority.
Mr. Marshall asked if the cities have the right to use impact fees. Mr.
Tucker answered, "no."
Mr. Bain explained that the counties are simply asking for the same
rights that the cities currently have. He said if specific enabling legis-
lation is needed for impact fees, the General Assembly would still have to
authorize it. He added that the statement would give the counties the same
authority as the cities as far as general borrowing and taxing powers.
Mr. St. John commented that there are many State laws on the books now
that pre-empt local action that is contrary to those State laws. He said that
whether or not the counties get the desired approval of Numbers One and Two mn
the statement, they are still not going to be as free to do anything that the
counties feel is needed for the public's health, safety and welfare considera-
tion. He added that counties could not enact an ordinance that is in conflict
with a State statute nor could an ordinance be enacted in an area where State
statute has pre-empted local action. He gave an illustration involving impact
fees. He said that if there is a State statute relating to road impact fees,
this means that impact fees are limited to roads, and they are limited to
certain counties. He said that even if the counties can repeal the Dillon
rule, there will be the State statute that will pre-empt local action. He
believes that most of the objection to the Dillon Rule is in the area of land
use law and collection of revenues. He stated that most states, particularly
rural states, still adhere to the Dillon Rule. He added that the Dillon Rule
gives states a certain degree of uniformity and consistency throughout the
state. He said Albemarle County officials object to this Dillon Rule because
the counties constantly feel they are under the watchful eye and heavy thumb
of Richmond. He said this is true, but it does give Albemarle County the
benefit of uniformity and consistency in the laws. He went on to say that if
there is a total home rule situation, there is a hodgepodge of laws. He
added that this creates a situation where something can be taken in a vehicle
from this county into another county or city, and it is perfectly legal. He
said, however, that even in the same State, this person could be violating an
ordinance of that particular county or city. He pointed out that there is no
way to know what are the laws in a situation such as this, because there ms no
requirement that every law be posted as a person crosses a county line. He
noted that there is some benefit to the Dillon Rule, and he feels that the
Supervisors need to keep this in mind and be conservative about this matter.
He is glad to see the language on the last page of the statement, and he read
this to the Board. He said he would be in favor of the County officials advo-
cating the relaxing of the Dillon Rule in certain functional areas, rather
than advocating total home rule. He does not think that there is much
likelihood of getting the General Assembly to be in favor of home rule.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks the Supervisors understand the
benefits of the Dillon Rule in terms of the application of laws throughout the
State, but there has to be greater recognition on the part of the State as to
the localities' responsibilities and the lack of authority to meet them. He
then suggested, under "Taxing Authority" on iPage One, that the language be
changed to, "equal taxing power with cities," or enumerate all the areas. He
believes that the message would be stronger ~y using the language, "equal
taxing power with cities." He said that he would remove the meals tax and
cigarette tax areas from the statement, if t!his is acceptable to other Board
members.
Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. Bowerman's comments.
Mr. Marshall stated that he was glad to hear Mr. St. John's comments
because he was not aware of what was involved with the whole situation. He is
an avid hunter and fisherman, and he does not want to get arrested if he goes
to Amelia County to pursue a sport of some kind. He noted that if a person
drives into Massachusetts, the authorities Will take a person's gun and car,
and he does not want the County to get into ~a situation such as this one. He
is concerned about some of the other taxes, too. He does not ever want the
County to get involved with income taxes, and he is interested in impact fees
as they affect this County. He wishes that someone would spend some time
explaining this matter to him, and he wants!to talk more about it, before the
Supervisors endorse the statement. He said it is his understanding that if
the counties can get the same powers as the cities, the counties would not be
involved with all of the things to which Mr. St. John referred. He asked if
this is correct.
(Mr. Martin returned at 11:01 a.m.)
Mr. St. John responded that he does not feel counties will get into the
situation such as Mr. Marshall described. He cannot imagine the General
Assembly allowing the Commonwealth of Virginia to get into this type of situ-
ation no matter what the localities endorse. He does not take the language in
the statement as a petition by this local government for total repeal of the
Regular Day eeti g M.B. 41, Pg. 67
(Page 21)
Dillon Rule. He thinks that from the language in the statement, the main
concern will be identified, which is the raising of revenues. He said the
local income tax could be interpreted as being included in the request, but
the cities do not have this power at present. He pointed out, however, that
there are strong arguments pro and con, and this is a matter of individual
judgment as to whether there should be a local income tax. He noted that it
is not his function to give advice on the income tax issue. Ee thinks that if
a local income tax bill ever came before the Legislature, the boards of super-
visors of localities, as well as individuals, would have a chance to petition
the legislature. He pointed out that this statement is not the final word
that the Supervisors would have on issues such as that.
Mr. Bain stated that he believes the staff took the words verbatim from
Flip Hicks' memo. He would like to know the Code sections involved with Mr.
Hicks' comments, because Mr. Hicks states that his language comes from
provisions already in the Code. He does not think this Board should make a
presentation that exceeds the cities' powers at this point.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the statement could indicate that VACo's
language was considered, but Albemarle County officials' primary interest is
to have equal taxing and authority that is enjoyed by the cities. He believes
this is going to be the Commission's recommendation, anyway, because the
localities are requesting land use and taxing powers comparable to cities.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker to revise the statement and bring it back
to this Board on May 13.
At this time, Mr. Perkins informed Mr. Bowerman that there were some
people present at the meeting who wanted to hear the discussion on the Open
Space Plan. He asked if this discussion could be held now. Mr. Bowerman said
the Board could hear the public input from the people who are at the meeting
to speak to the Open Space Plan. He added that even if the discussion has to
be continued at another time, at least the Supervisors would have the benefit
of the public comments.
Agenda Item No. 17. Work Session: Open Space and Critical Resource
Plan (continued from April 1, 1992).
Mr. Cilimberg explained that this Board has had a chance to consider the
recommendations, and there are some comments included in the Board members'
packets that the staff has received. He distributed some information from Mr.
Blaine, of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, that is more definitive
as far as the Blue Ridge Home Builders are concerned. He added that the staff
had planned to answer Board members' questions about the Open Space Plan.
Next, Mr. Bowerman asked for comments from members of the public.
Mr. C~ Timothy Lindstrom stated that others may have something to say,
but the majority of the people attended the meeting to hear the Board's
discussion about Open Space.
Mr. Bowerman then asked if Board members had any questions to ask the
staff about the Open Space Plan. Mr. Bowerman went on to say that some of the
issues raised by Mr. Blaine, in his March 3 letter, are legitimate. He asked
if Mr. Blaine was present at the meeting. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "no." He
added that the staff is setting up a meeting with Mr. Blaine to go over some
of his specific concerns. He noted that the April 23 letter, which he just
distributed, elaborates on the March letter and may be helpful to the
Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman commented that it was not very helpful to get the
information at today's meeting.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the supervisors were supposed to get the
information on Friday, but it was not sent to the appropriate office. He
apologized. He said that Mr. Blaine did not get a chance to meet with the
staff before today's meeting, and he had wanted to do that before a public
hearing was held.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he spent a lot of time looking over the
information, and he was impressed, but he cannot disagree with most of the
Open Space report. He is unsure, however, how important agriculture and
forestry industries are to this County. He does not know if they are
significant enough to be called industries.
Mr. Bowerman answered that he had a speech that he gave to different
groups for a period of a few years where he talked about the~ County's land use
policies, agriculture and the Comprehensive Plan. He said that one of the
things he did was to put together a total dollar figure for agriculture, which
involved wineries, fruit trees, etc., as well as livestock. He added that the
total amounted to approximately $40.0 million on an annual basis. He said it
is a significant part of the County, however, it is widely diversified. He
noted that there is a large segment of income which comes back to the County
that is agriculturally based.
Mr. Marshall noted that he had been relating agriculture to vegetable
crops. Mr. Bowerman replied that this County is more involved with agricul-
ture than is apparent. He said it is hard to point to a 400 acre farm in
Albemarle County with row crops, as is seen in Ohio and Illinois. Mr.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 68
(Page 22)
Marshall agreed. He said that when apples and grapes are considered, it does
amount to a significant amount of agriculture in Albemarle County.
Mr. Perkins commented that there must be other copies of the Open Space
report because some of the information is different from the Board members'
.erials. He noted that when he met with some people from the forestry
community, his copy of the report was different from their copy.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that there were several drafts, and the Commis-
revised some things, and a new version was created by the staff. He said
the information the Board has is the document that was recommended by the
Commission, and copies can be made available to anyone who wants them. He
that if there is confusion on anyone's part, that person should contact
his office, because correct copies are available.
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks the Board needs to have a work
session, which could start at 3:30 p.m., on an afternoon before a night
meeting. He knows that staff is going over the report with Mr. Blaine. He
thinks the Board needs to go through the report, although the Supervisors
might not have to spend a lot of time on it. He said there will obviously be
certain things that will need to be changed, and a vote of this Board may have
to be taken, but there is certainly not time to consider this matter today.
Mr. Marshall was pleased to see that, within the open space guidelines,
mountaintops would not be destroyed. He said that it is pleasing to see trees
on tops of mountains. He added that he hoped he was not bothering Mr. Perkins
with this comment.
Mr. Perkins stated that his concerns relate to the information on Page
Eight of the plan, involving clear-cutting. He wonders if an ordinance will
be adopted where clear-cutting cannot be done above a certain elevation. He
if anyone can tell him where any clear-cuts in Albemarle County can be
seen. Mr. Marshall answered that there is a clear-cut area near him that can
be seen. Mr. Perkins responded that the area to which Mr. Marshall refers is
not on top of a mountain, and would not be affected with this plan. Mr. Bain
commented that he can see a clear-cut area on Heards Mountain from where he
Mr. Perkins stated that there are no clear-cut areas on Heards
Mountain. Mr. Bain clarified his statement by saying that the clear-cut area
is not on Heards Mountain, but he can see it from his property. He said that
he does not know which mountain the clear-cutting is on, but it is in the
direction of Heards Mountain, looking south from Batesville.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that clear-cutting had been brought up as an
issue to the Planning Commission, and the Commission did not make a recommen-
dation that this Board adopt a restriction on clear-cutting. He said the
Supervisors will probably want to discuss the matter. He added that now with
the emphasis on agricultural and forestal activities that are in the Compre-
hensive Plan, and the intention of leaving those emphas~s areas in place, this
Open Space Plan would only be addressing the development side relative to the
effect to mountains, and it would have no effect from a forestry standpoint.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he does not think the Supervisors would have
any control over clear-cutting on mountains. He said that he complained about
a man cluttering his lake with mud, etc., but the man was within his rights,
and he had no control over what that man did.
Mr. St. John questioned whether the Supervisors would have the power to
decree the methods for conducting forestry operations. He added that within
the State Division of Forestry regulations, clear-cutting is permitted and
methods are described for clear-cutting. He does not believe this Board can
adopt ordinances that would negate State regulations.
Mr. Bain commented that Mr. Cilimberg has informed the Board that this
· s not what.is intended with this plan. He questions, though, whether or not
Mr. Marshall would not be able to take action against somebody if he lost his
pond, if the source of the problem could be traced. He thinks Mr. Marshall
would have the right to bring action against someone in this situation,
whether it is in accordance with the law or not. He added that if Mr.
Marshall's property was damaged, then he can take action.
Mr. Marshall responded that the Judge said no action could be taken. He
stated that recently, with the last rains, he and his neigb_bor both had the
same problem with their lakes. Mr. St. John told Mr. Marshall that he might
be able to take action in a private, civil court.
Mr. Marshall then stated that he is not trying to cause Mr. Perkins any
problem at all, but he would rather see trees on tops of mountains rather than
houses.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that he will discuss, at a later time, some of the
things on Page Eight Of the plan that are wrong. From a forestry standpoint,
according to Mr. Perkins, most of the good hardwood sites are not on top of
mountains. He said that there are some good hardwood sites, particularly on
tops of mountains, etc., that are away from the Blue Ridge. He said there zs
such a misunderstanding about clear-cutting, and he noted that a lot of people
think that if clear-cutting is done in an area, there will not ever be any
trees there. He said that trees start growing the minute harvesting is done,
and clear-cutting is a tool that is used to regenerate a stand of trees. He
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B. Pg. 69
(page 23)
stated that people are always saying selective cutting needs to be done. He
stated that usually what is left, when selective cutting is done, is a bunch
of scrub trees.
Mr. Marshall responded that he has no objection to clear-cutting, but he
objects to landowners being allowed to let the land erode and infringe upon
the rights of the neigh_bors.
Mr. Perkins answered that now clear-cutting is a voluntary effort
overseen by the Department of Forestry, and each logging job is reviewed by
the Department of Forestry. He said the logger is given a grade on what type
of job he has done on a particular piece of property, and he has to comply
with the best management practices that the Commonwealth of Virginia has
adopted.
Mr. St. John inquired if there is a bill each year introduced in the
Legislature for mandatory regulations regarding clear-cutting. Mr. Perkins
replied that reporting dates are required, and this situation is similar to
the County's recycling efforts. He stated that there are certain benchmarks,
and the loggers have to reach those benchmarks or they are facing the threat
of mandatory regulations.
Mr. Marshall asked if there is a law on the books that would make it
mandatory for a logger to stop soil erosion. Mr. Bowerman wondered if the
Resource Protection Act would be of help in the type of situation that Mr.
Marshall described. Mr. Cilimberg commented that there is a 100 foot buffer
regulation relating to soil erosion that is covered by the Resource Protection
Act, but, generally, it is not as restrictive on forestry operations as it is
on development activity. He said the areas beyond 100 feet are not covered,
and in this case the affected area was probably more than 100 feet away from
the stream. He said it was also probably not a USGS stream, at least at its
headwaters. He added that many times these situations are not covered by the
RPA. Mr. Marshall noted that the headwaters of this particular stream is at
Biscuit Run. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he is unsure about the matter until
the staff can examine the situation.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the Board is going to have to spend an hour
and a half to two hours on the Open Space Plan. He asked when a work session
could be scheduled to study the Open Space and Critical Resource Plan.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that they will be adjourning from this
meeting to May 13 to have a work session on the Sign Ordinance at 4:00 p.m.
He suggested the Supervisors have a work session on the Open Space Plan on
that same afternoon, or on May 20, at the regular night meeting.
Mr. Marshall commented that he has a meeting at Monticello on May 13.
After some discussion, Mr. Tucker said that in light of the Supervisors'
activities on May 13, it would probably be better to have the work session on
May 20. He next pointed out that there is no night meeting for May 27, so the
afternoon of that day might be a good time for the work session.
Mr. Martin was in favor of having an afternoon or night work session on
May 27.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that an afternoon work session on Open Space and
the interviews for the Fiscal Resources Committee both be held on May 27.
Mr. Martin informed the Board members that he could not be present on
May 27 until 4:00 p.m.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Fiscal Resources Committee interviews be
held on May 20 starting at 4:00 p.m.
Board member~ then agreed to have the interviews for the Fiscal
Resources Committee at 4:00 p.m. on May 20, and the Open Space work session on
May 27 at 4:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: Jail Ordinance amendment.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 21 and April 28, 1993.)
Mr. Tucker recalled that last month the Supervisors set a hearing for
this date to consider an ordinance to amend and reenact Article VII, Section
2.42 of the Regional Jail Board Ordinance regarding Vacancy; Removal from
Office; Maximum Number of Terms. He said the proposed change is amending the
appointment of the private citizen member on the Jail Board to extend the term
from two consecutive three year terms to three consecutive three year terms.
He stated that the term of the Chairman of the Jail Board is expiring, and it
was the Jail Board's request that both the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors consider amending the consecutive term period of the citizen
appointee.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is another problem, now, because of the fact
that this individual has not reapplied. He said the ordinance requires that a
person apply for the Chairman's position, and it is his understanding there is
no application from this particular person.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B, 41, Pg. 70
(page 24)
Mr. Tucker replied that if this ordinance is amended, he does not think
the person would have to apply for the position. He went on to say that
usually if there is an incumbent, the Clerk will check with that individual to
see if he or she is still interested in continuing to serve.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Mrs. Humphris is not at the meeting today
because her mother died last evening. He said that Mrs. Humphris' husband had
communicated to him that Mrs. Humphris wanted to make sure that this particu-
lar individual is eligible to be reappointed to the Chairmanship. He asked
Mr. Tucker if it is his understanding that this person is eligible to serve
again, because he is an incumbent. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes," that is his
understanding.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to amend and
reenact Article VII, Section 2.42 of the Albemarle County Code dealing with
the maximum number of terms for a private citizen member to serve on the
Regional Jail Board and changing the limitations from no more than two
consecutive three year terms to three consecutive three year terms.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 19. Tour of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, and
lunch.
Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session on Personnel and Property
Acquisition.
Mr. Bowerman told Board members they needed to adjourn at this time in
order to get to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport for the tour. He said
that when the Board of Supervisors reconvenes in the afternoon after the
Planning Commission meeting, the SupervIsors would be discussing Agenda Items
12, 13 and 14.
Mr. Tucker informed the Supervisors they needed to adjourn to the 1:30
p.m. executive session relating to personnel, property acquisition and legal
matters.
Mr. St. John identified the legal matter as contemplating possible
litigation in reference to the McIntire Land Trust in connection with the
County's sale of the McIntire School.
Mr. BoWerman inquired as to how he could participate in the vote for
adjournment, but eliminate himself from any association with the McIntire Land
Trust issue. Mr. St. John told Mr. Bowerman that it is proper for him to vote
on the executive session, but he has to remove himself from the McIntire Land
Trust discussion.
Mr. Bain asked if the Blandemar Farms issue would also be discussed in
the executive session. Mr. St. John answered, "yes." He added that the
Supervisors would also discuss in executive session the dec~sion by the Board
of Zoning Appeals in reference to the number of parcels on Blandemar Farms.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved that the Board go into executive session
for personnel, property acquisition and legal matters dealing with the
McIntire Land Trust issue and the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals
relative to the number of parcels on Blandemar Farms. Mr. Perkins seconded
the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman and Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bowerman stated that before the Board adjourns from executive
session, he would like to make known that a representative from the media has
asked the Supervisors make a better identification of the reason the Board
went into executive session as it relates to the acquisition of property and
personnel matters. He believes that this is a reasonable request. He went on
to say that the property acquisition deals with Berkmar Drive Extended, and
the personnel matters deal with reviewing applicants for vacancies on the
Fiscal Resources Committee, the Jail Board, the Children and Youth Commission
and the Architectural Review Board. He added that other matters relating to
personnel dealt with individuals in County government.
At 4:07 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the
follow Certification of Executive Sessmon:
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Martin
MEETING DATE: May 6, 1992
M.B. 41, Pg. 71
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of
The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:'
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mrs. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 21. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Ellen I. Anderson, Mr. Thomas
Blue, Mr. Phil T. Grimm, Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Mr. Thomas H. Jenkins and Mr.
Walter F. Johnson.
Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman of the Planning Commission, called the
Commission to order.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he had a communication from the Planning
Commission regarding items the Commission wishes to discuss with this Board.
He asked Mr. Grim to discuss those items, and the Supervisors would try to
deal with them.
Mr. Grimm explained that there were three particular items which were
outlined in the letter to the Supervisors. He said the first item on the list
was the Capital Improvements Program. He went on to say that in the planning
process each year, there have been some questions which have arisen concerning
the financing of the various items in the CIP, and the extent to which the
Commission should or should not be involved in the determination of sources of
financing and amounts financed, etc. He said there is information in the Code
of Virginia which substantiates that the means of financing CIP projects could
fall under the purview of the Commission. He said the Commission wanted to
bring this item up for discussion with the Board to get the Supervisors'
input.
Mr. Bowerman responded by saying that when he served on the Commission,
the members were basically directed that they needed to consider, from a
public policy point of view, to fulfilling the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. He said those items that needed to be funded, on a
priority basis were based upon the need as evidenced by the Comprehensive Plan
and other planning documents. He added that the question of financing was not
as important because the Board was looking to the Commission to prioritize the
items on the CIP list on the basis of need in fulfilling the Comprehensive
Plan, rather than availability of funds, which was a Board concern. He went
on to say that if the Commissioners are forced to 3uggle items because they
know the money is not available, then they could put an item of some substance
further down on the list, which the Commissioners might feel deserves a higher
priority. He stated that by placing an item on the list as a higher priority,
even though the funding is not available, forces the Board of Supervisors to
take the judgment that the Commissioners made about a certain issue and make a
decision about whether or not the funds should be made available through
taxing authorities or a reallocation of funds. He pointed out that when he
was on the Commission, the message that was communicated to him was that the
Board feels it needs this input from the Planning Commission. He said that
since the Commission is not responsible for the actual raising of funds, the
Board's responsibility is to consider the fund razsing, and the Commission
needs to think about the priority question. He said that anyone else is free,
either on the Commission or Board, to comment at this meeting.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 72
(Page 26)
Mr. Johnson commented that he was the one who initiated this item for
discussion, and his intent related more to interpretation than identifying the
funds. He said that he was told in his first experience with the CIP, that
the Planning Commission should not consider budget, funding or cost. He added
that this general statement comes up periodically during the deliberations
when there is a question of cost effectiveness. He said generally it is more
or less inferred that the Commissioners are not to become involved in cost
effective considerations. He went on to say that it is within this wider
context that he was looking at this question. With respect to the CIP,
according to Mr. Johnson, historically the Commissioners have gotten a list of
projects and have not gone ahead to see if there is a regrouping or reorien-
ration or a combining of those, which could result in a less costly approach
to achieve the same end. He is at a complete loss as to how anything can be
evaluated without considering the cost. He said this is his position, and it
is more basic than the question of from where the funding is coming.
Mr. Bowerman replied that the scenario which Mr. Johnson has outlined is
an appropriate one for the Commission. He went to say that if the Commis-
sioners are faced with an item on the CIP that listed $3.0 million for a
County Office Building addition, and this would fulfill the Comprehensive Plan
relating to public, health, safety and welfare, the Commissioners could still
ask the staff what would happens if something else was done. Mr. Bowerman
thinks that those types of things are genuine concerns that the Commissioners
are responsible for when making their recommendations. He agreed with Mr.
Johnson on this issue and sees no problem with it.
Mr. Bain commented that he believes this is what the Commission has done
in the past, as far as trying to tie cost items together as they relate to
projects.
Ms. Huckle stated that she knows all of the Supervisors have been
working very hard on the school system's problems in trying to fit all of the
children into the schools and plan ahead for a new school. She understands
that 900 new lots were approved in 1991, and that does not include several
large projects which have not yet been approved. She noted that all of these
children who are going to live in these houses and apartments are going to
have to be educated. She mentioned the site plan for the Broadus Wood School,
which she said certainly is overcrowded and needs better facilities, but she
thinks that adding more to a school on an already inadequate acreage seems a
sad way to solve the problem. She wondered if anyone is working with the
people in Richmond to try to get impact fees allowed which would help to build
more schools for these incoming children.
Mr. Bowerman answered, "yes." He said there are a number of initiatives
with VACo, this Board and the Legislative Liaison working through the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission in seeking such things as equal taxing
powers with cities. He stated that a number of issues revolve around the fact
that the Federal and State governments are pushing increased responsibilities
on counties without giving the counties the authority to meet those needs. He
went on to say that the approach this Board is taking is to try to get the
additional authority to obtain the funds that are reasonable to provide servi-
ces at the local level that are needed.
Ms. Huckle asked if the County would have the right to disapprove a
project coming into the County because there would not be classroom space
available for the children. She wondered what is the County's responsibility
in that respect. Mr. Bowerman answered that if the land is already zoned for
the project, it is clearly an administrative decision in regard to the site
plan and the review process, and not a legislative one. He went on to say
that if there is a question of rezoning, and it is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan, the means whereby the Commissioners think the request is
premature has to be clearly articulated. He said that Commissioners do have
discretion, but the Comprehensive Plan has to be taken under advisement in
that review. He added that Commissioners are free to use their own judgments,
and ask staff members whether or not they have communicated with the school
system in terms of the number of children that the pro3ect will generate and
what the plan is to deal with those children through the build-out of the
particular proposal. He said Commissioners should also find out if this
particular proposal was in the School Board's long term plan, and whether or
not the children were already counted. He thinks that these are legitimate
items with which the Commission and this Board need to deal.
Mr. Bain gave a specific example of the Bargamin case versus this Board,
which this Board on a vote of three to three, denied. He said this project
was in accordance with the Plan, but there was a question of traffic, and
there were some roads which several Board members thought were not capable of
handling more traffic. He said that a court suit followed, and this Board has
now appealed the decision that was reached. He reiterated that this request
was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, but the Supervisors did not
feel that this was the right time for the project. He thinks the Board can
make an independent judgment of whether or not the time is right.
Ms. Huckle stated that it is a lot quicker to build a house than it is
to build a school, so County officials need to think ahead as far as enroll-
ments, etc.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it is ~mportant to recognize that school
officials, in the annual review of the five and ten year capital long range
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 73
(Page 27)
plans for the schools, take into account the zoning and the information that
is known on an annual basis relative to applications in the Planning
Department. He said that the School Board is trying to make fairly accurate
projections in terms of future needs. He added that the community has to make
the decisions on an annual basis through their elective representatives and
the School Board as to what really happens. He said this is part of the
process.
Mr. Bain brought out the fact that this Board discussed the Dillon Rule
aspects this morning, and a statement is being prepared for a meeting in
Harrisoriburg on May 19. He said the issue is that infrastructure needs to be
put into place before rezoning requirements, etc. He stated that now there is
no enabling legislation on any part of this, but the Dillon Rule situation is
key to this issue.
Mr. Johnson noted that he had read a Supreme Court decision relating to
Virginia where infrastructure non-availability cannot be used as the sole
cause for rejection.
Mr. St. John responded that Mr. Johnson is referring to an old case
where the Supreme Court and Virginia's judiciary were unfamiliar with and
hostile to the entire concept of zoning. He said that zoning was a new thing
at that time, and Mr. Johnson's remarks relate to two cases -the Williams case
and the Allman Case -- in which the Supreme Court said lack of infrastructure
should not and cannot be used to delay development because development creates
the demand for infrastructure. He stated that in the Bargamin case, to which
Mr. Bain referred, the local Circuit Court Judge cited those cases and based
his decision in a substantial part on those cases. He said this opportunity
is being taken to expressly ask the Supreme Court to take a second look at
this section of the Williams case. He noted that there are several pages of
reasons why-that is the very opposite of the statutory scheme for land use
planning, and he said that it is the very antithesis to good zoning and land
use planning. He thinks the Supreme Court will not overrule those two cases,
but they will distinguish them out of existence. He added that the Supreme
Court will find some difference in other cases with which they will deal to
indicate that while the decision is still valid for these two cases, it does
not apply for future cases. He stated that the counties have been looking for
a chance to challenge the Williams case, but the Legislature could do that
instantly, without any doubt, without the counties having to go to the Supreme
Court.
Mr. Cilimberg stated, relating to Mr. Johnson's earlier comments, that
the staff is considering how to best get information into the Commissioners'
hands on the appropriateness of the cost that is being estimated for a
particular project, so there is some means for the projects to be evaluated.
He added that staff needs some help in refining the process so staff would
have the expertise necessary to evaluate every cost estimate for its
efficiency as well as alternatives to that project. He noted the cost can
become a big consideration. He is hoping that, with the help of the County
Executive's office, ways can be identified to deal with the whole CIP process.
He pointed out that the Planning staff is not an expert on costs of CIP
projects.
Mr. Martin asked if project costs were not a part of the coordinator's
job description. Mr. Tucker replied that, while the coordinator is involved
in reviewing and submitting costs, she is not directly involved in looking at
all of the nuances and efficiencies to which Mr. Johnson is referring. He
noted that a lot of the problems occur because many of these projects are five
years in the future, and firm costs are not in hand. He pointed out that
actual costs will not be known until the project goes to bid, and many figures
are estimates at the time costs have to be presented. He said this creates a
problem, but as projects get closer to the time they will be done, firmer
figures are possible.
Mr. Bowerman stated that some issues fall outside of the planning area
and are more in line with school issues. He said the School Board decides
whether or not a new middle school will be built or whether or not to add to
an existing school. He commented that it is the School Board's policy to take
other things into account, besides costs. He went on to say that costs should
be made available to the Commissioners at the time of the CIP review by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Johnson recalled that last year, the school system was replacing
antiquated heating and cooling systems. He noted that from four to slx
different items came to the Planning Commission which totaled approximately
$2.50 million. When he asked the school representative why all of these
projects could not be put together so that the school system could take
advantage of multiple purchases and multiple operations, the answer was that
this had never been done before. Mr. Johnson said he asked the representative
to try it, but that was the end of the subject. Mr. Tucker commented that
these are the types of things staff needs to consider.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that these are germane topics for the Commissioners
to review when they are considering the CIP. He said Commissioners deserve
the answers from whichever agency is involved.
Mr. Grimm mentioned that during the time he has been on the Planning
Commission, the Commissioners have tried to be more efficient in their efforts
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
M.B. 41, Pg. 74
when dealing with the CIP and to provide as much input of information as
possible before decisions have to be made.
Next, Mr. Grimm discussed conditions of approval relative to special use
permits. He said there was some discussion a couple of weeks ago at a Commis-
sion meeting as to the extent of conditions involving special use permit
applications. He added that a question was asked, at that time, as to this
Board's philosophy regarding specificity of conditions. He asked if the
Supervisors want a high degree of specificity in the conditions and number of
conditions, or would it be better to limit the conditions and provide more
flexibility for the application.
Mr. Martin stated that he strongly believes there should be as few
rules, regulations and restrictions as possible. He added that approval can
be given for a special use permit, and conditions can be added, in order for
the approval to be appropriate.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the special permit, by its very nature, is a
legislative action. He said a special use permit has some aspects which can
be detrimental to the community in many cases. He added that there are
supplementary regulations in the ordinance which refer to special use permits,
and there is a certain criteria under which they have to be reviewed. He
stated that there is a potential for conflict between that use and the adja-
cent neigb_borhood, and the people who are ad3acent to that use have to have
the opportunity to express their concern. He went on to say the Commission
and the Board of Supervisors, after listening to the applicant and those
concerned, should tailor an application so that it meets the needs of the
applicant, and it also meets the concerns of those who have problems with it.
Mr. Martin stated that he agrees with everything Mr. Bowerman has said.
He added, however, that everyone has the right to pursue his or her happiness,
but only to the extent the person is not interfering with somebody else's
pursuit of happiness. He added that if a person wants a special use, that
person begins with the right to pursue his or her happiness. He went on to
say the only limits that are placed on the application would be if the
boundary is crossed where that person is interfering with someone else's
happiness.
Mr. Bowerman replied that he cannot believe either the Planning
Commission or Board is putting excessive conditions on special use permits.
Mr. Martin remarked that he is not disagreeing with what the Planning
Commission is doing. He said that his answer to Mr. Grimm's question was that
the taxpayer needs to pursue his or her happiness, but when it infringes on
someone else's happiness, a restriction is needed.
Mr. Bain stated that all zoning relates to restrictions, and an area
either has zoning or it does not. He added that a person can pursue his or
her happiness, but once zoning is in place, it has to be pursued within the
confines of the Zoning Ordinance. He went on to say that when an area has
zoning, there are different categories of zoning, and there are special use
permits which relate to different zones. He gave an example by mentioning the
scenario of a daycare center in a rural area. He asked how big should a
daycare center be in a rural area. He noted that there would need to be a
limit to the number of children who could be kept at the daycare center, and
the road where the daycare center is located has to be taken into considera-
tion. He added that another consideration would be whether or not the daycare
center is in a community. He next stated that the Supervisors had just gotten
a complaint from someone in Ivy relative to a bank with a drive-in teller
window. He said that drive-ins have been reserved for special use permits,
even in a permitted category, because of the number of vehicle trips created
by banks having three or four drive-in windows. He noted that when the
complaint from Ivy relating to the Jefferson National Bank came to the
Supervisors, consideration was given as to what was needed for that community.
He said that neither the Hollymead nor Pantops communities need the same thing
as the Ivy community. He went on to say that uses are tailored to fit certain
areas.
Mr. Martin reiterated that he is not disagreeing with anything that
other Board members are saying.
Mr. Blue commented that he would tell the Supervisors why this question
relating to special use permits was asked. He added that, as far as the
Planning Commission ~s concerned, the question is very specific. He mentioned
that recently the Commissioners had a request from a church, and the size of
the sanctuary had to be limited according to the number of people that it
would hold because of septic system, health, safety and traffic reasons. He
noted that then accessory uses were brought into the picture, such as use of
the church by the Boy Scouts. He said it seems ridiculous for the Commission
to stipulate that only a certain number of people can be at a Wednesday night
prayer meeting. He added that this stipulation cannot be enforced, because
there will be no one there from the County to count the people. He stated the
Commission is asking if the Supervisors want to go beyond the specificity of
the number of people for the size of the church, and indicate that a church
can have a 300 seat sanctuary, but only 50 people can be at the church on a
Wednesday night for prayer meeting. He added that the Commissioners have put
some of these restrictions on applications, and it has happened because the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 75
(Page 29)
staff will ask the applicant what else will be taking place at the church. He
next mentioned that sometimes daycare centers are involved with churches. He
stated the question to which the Commissioners are referring, does not deal
with the size for the total use of the main church, but it refers to all of
the other accessory uses that are unenforceable and ridiculous.
Ms. Huckle stated that most of the church requests have come from the
rural area where there was no water and sewer. She said the Commissioners
relied on the Health Department because the Health Department officials
indicated how many people could use the facilities that were present. She
thinks that a lot depends on whether the churches will have cooking and
dishwashing in the building, which makes a bigger problem for the disposal
system. She mentioned that these things fall into the health and safety
category and have influenced the Commissioners on some of the approvals.
Mr. Grimm remarked that the Commissioners have had lots of discussions
about these applications relating to the number of people who can use the
facilities, and he thinks it has been a matter of debate.
Mr. Bain responded that he thinks there should be room for debate on
these types of applications. He noted that he had opposed the application for
a church on Route 643 because of the size. He said the question to which the
Commissioners are referring is debatable and he thinks it will continue to be
debatable. He believes it depends on where the church is located. He
recalled that some of the adjoining property owners objected to the size of a
Scottsville Church. He added this is something with which the Commissioners
will have to deal, but it is part of the planning process.
Mr. Johnson pointed out another problem that has given the Commission
some concern. He mentioned that the commissioners might put a limitation on a
church whereby there can only be three meetings a week for adult education and
there can only be 20 people there. He remembers, however, a situation in Ivy
where the church members wanted to expand the daycare center to handle 35
children. He asked if this was the number the people wanted, and they replied
that they would like to be able to keep more children at the building. When
the church members were asked why they did not ask for a higher figure, they
replied the figure had been stipulated by the Health Department. He added the
Health Department record stated the building would adequately serve 35 people,
but it did not state that the number was limited to that. He has also heard
other applicants reply to this same question by saying they thought this was
the total number of people who could be approved. He went on to say that by
putting in some of these figures arbitrarily rather than basing them on
facility capacity or other considerations, the Commissioners are having to
extract information from the applicants as to what they want and what they can
use. He said that the Commissioners then have to see if this is compatible
with other aspects, such as size of facility and location, etc. He wondered
if there could be a guide dealing with the condition and capacity of the
facility rather than just placing a number on an application, arbitrarily. He
went on to say that if there is a septic system involved, then the use could
be limited by Health Department approval of the septic system. He stated the
Commzssioners get into numerical limitations when it might be better to have
facility limitations or location limitations.
Mr. Bowerman said he believes the Commissioners are doing exactly what
they need to do by taking applications on a case by case basis. He went on to
say that when the number of weekly meetings at a church are discussed, as well
as the number of participants who will be attending those meetings, then the
total impact of that particular use on a community is being considered. He
thinks the process, when an application is reviewed, determines the conditions
the Commissioners feel are appropriate. He said there cannot be rules that
deal with all of the situations. He added that this is why there is a Plann-
ing Commission and a Board of Supervisors and not just available language. He
thinks these are things with which the Commissioners will have to continue to
deal.
Mr. Bain remarked that he would rather have the Commissioners study each
situation, and when it is appropriate, they can indicate that the approval is
based on Health Department requirements. He stated that it is uncertain when
these requirements will change and whether or not it will affect the rural
areas.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that if applicants have the land available,
they can have any size septic system they desire. He noted that other issues
are involved.
Mr. Johnson stated that if buildings are expanded, it would require
another permit and review. He said he would like to be as flexible as
possible with the applicants, but he wonders how far the Commissioners can go
toward the applicants' desires rather, than arbitrarily limiting the
application.
Mr. Martin responded this is what he was trying to say. He said the
Commissioners should not be wondering how many restrictions can be put on an
application, but, instead, they should put as few restrictions on the
application as possible. He indicated the Commissioners should also make sure
the proper restrictions are used for a particular application.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that the applicants need to be straightforward in
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
M.B. 41, Pg. 76
terms of what they want.
Mr. Grimm commented that the Commissmoners have found, in more than one
~ituation, where the desired numbers may not have been the ones that came
before the Commissioners, but there were certain restrictions that came about
as a result of conversations with some of the regulatory agencies. He said
there is a fine line between what should be done and what the Commissioners
want to do.
Ms. Huckle stated that one of the churches in the rural area recently
had approval for a congregation of 400. She said the septic drain fields were
~ized for 200 when the church was built, because a larger drain field was not
needed at that time. She went on to say this church also had a daycare
center, a senior citizens' group and a Boy Scout group. She thinks that
Commmssioners have to be careful to find out all of the extra uses of the
church, because the applicant had the permit to build a sanctuary that would
accommodate 400 people, but he was not prepared to deal with that number of
people, at that particular time.
Mr. Blue recalled that the Commissioners also received an application
from a church in the South Fork watershed area. He said this application was
approved because the applicant could get approval for a septic system, etc.
He said the Commmssioners should know, if the Board really wants to allow
churches in the watershed area and whether or not they will be allowed to have
septic tanks. He noted that, in this particular case, a sewer was available,
but the church was not in the jurisdictional area for the Albemarle County
Service Authority because it was in a watershed area. It seems to him that a
septic system is a temporary solution, and he does not think people generally
realize that. He added that if it is the desire to protect the watershed
areas, and churches are going to be allowed to be built in those areas, and it
is possible to be connected to the Albemarle County Service Authority sewer,
then this connection should be made. He said this would be protection of the
public health. He realizes all the reasons for making watershed areas part of
the jurisdictional area, and he agrees. He reiterated that if churches are
going to be allowed to be built in a watershed area, and he thinks this is a
political decision that has been made, then he believes that it is a mistake
not to allow the churches to apply for sewer service. He asked if the
Supervisors have any feelings about this mssue.
Mr. Martin recalled that the Supervisors had approved such an
application recently.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that a church on Route 643 was recently approved for
sewer service, but it was not located ~n a watershed area. He went on to say
the policy issues that Mr. Blue mentioned are paramount in discussing the
broader issues of the public policy being pursued in the watershed areas and
the extension of the jurmsdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service
Authority within the watershed areas. He said one of the things that initi-
ated special permits for churches was the application of Monticello Wesleyan
Church. He stated this church is located on Route 743, and it is the first
church after the bridge is crossed near the Reservoir. He added there were no
limits that could be put on that application at the time of approval, and that
is why the special use permit was put into the process for churches in the
rural area.
Mr. Blue noted that there was no economical sewer available in the
situation to which Mr. Bowerman referred. Mr. Blue said there is an
economical sewer available to the church that is proposed to be built on
Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Bowerman stated the only question that can be asked relates to
policy because there are other industrial uses involved along Hydraulic Road.
He wondered, if the jurisdictional areas are actually extended to this church,
how this situation will be separated from a new application in the watershed
area if an applicant asks for extension of jurisdictional areas.
Mr. Blue responded that everyone would need to be treated on an indivi-
dual basis. He said these would be existing uses, and it would be protection
of the public health, to allow them to have sewer servmce. He reiterated that
new uses would have to be considered individually, and the applications may
not be approved for certain areas. He said this regulation could be applied
to churches, but according to what has happened in the past, it seems as
though churches will be allowed in the watershed areas, if they can get septic
system approval. Mr. Bowerman said applicants would have to meet other
requirements, too. Mr. Blue concurred. He said his question is directed
specifically to new applications for churches or other uses mn the watershed
area, where sewer is physically available. He noted that the Supervmsors have
not yet received the application to which he has been referring.
Mr. Bain recalled a request from Roslyn Ridge for water service, and
even though the ]urmsdictional area was close to this subdivision, water
service was not extended.
Mr. Blue stated'the situation mentioned by Mr. Bain is different,
because he thinks the septic tank is a temporary solution. He said this is a
public health issue.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that some people believe that a properly
May 6~ 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~{.B. Pg. 77
(Page 31)
maintained septic system combined with proper soils can last indefinitely.
Mr. Blue responded that he does not think any expert would think that a
septic system would last indefinitely, although they do last a long time. He
noted that this is why reserve fields are required. He wondered what happens
when the reserve fields can no longer be used.
Mr. Bowerman stated this will be something that County officials will be
considering, because of all of the subdivisions in the County. Ms. Huckle
noted that County officials have already had to deal with some of the
subdivisions' septic problems. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He said that in the
urban area, some people have had to connect to public sewer, when their septic
systems fail.
Mr. Grimm commented that nothing was resolved with the special use
permits and the conditions of approval, but he understands that the Commis-
sioners should continue with the same process.
Next, Mr. Grimm mentioned the Sign Ordinance, which the Commissioners
approved on April 22. He noted that the Commissioners have a concern dealing
with nonconforming signs that currently exist and will exist under the new
Sign Ordinance. He wondered how to deal with these as approvals are given for
new signs. He asked what should be done in regard to nonconforming signs in
reducing the variances that are currently being allowed. He said the Commis-
sion passed a resolution to be forwarded to the Supervisors to consider ways
and means by which the nonconforming signs can be dealt with separately or
incorporated into the new Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker responded that nonconforming signs can be dealt with
separately, and it would be possible to consider this issue today.
Mr. Bowerman thinks it is in the best interest, from a public policy
point of view, to have consistency on Route 29 or any corridor with existing
smgns. He stated that there are signs in the County now that do not conform,
and they will not conform in the future if the new ordinance passes. He
wondered whether or not the County would have to buy the signs, and pay the
total cost, or whether there could be a stipulated time period for compliance.
He explained that there could be a certain date whereby all signs would have
to conform. He added that this has to be discussed in terms of how the
communities want to handle the situatzon and whether or not the communities
want to pay for the signs, or allow the time necessary to have the project
accomplished.
Mr. Grimm stated that the Commissioners spent a lot of time working on
the Sign Ordinance, and they really want to see the new ordinance embraced by
the community, and they want it to be functional. He said that the Commis-
sioners wanted to bring the issue of the nonconforming signs to the Supervi-
sors' attention in terms of how to move forward with the whole project and
make it successful.
Mr. Bain noted that the Supervisors have also discussed the Board of
Zoning Appeals and variances. He thinks the new Sign Ordinance should be put
into effect, because it has been reviewed, and public hearings have been held.
He said that once the ordinance is enacted, an individual coming to the Board
of Zoning Appeals will have a much more difficult time getting a variance. He
also thinks the Supervisors will look carefully at any variances that are
granted. He pointed out that the Supervisors receive the action of the BZA,
and, from time to time, the supervisors do consider whether or not to appeal a
BZA ruling. He noted one situation three years ago where the BZA denied a
variance, and the applicant took the matter to the court system. He said the
ruling was against the County at the Circuit Court level, but County officials
took the case to the Supreme Court, and the ruling was reversed.
Mr. St. John stated that he is convinced the County cannot amortize
signs of any kind over a period of years. He said that amortization is
different from paying for the signs. He explained that condemnation would be
a method of paying for the signs, and amortization would be giving a person
the impression that the County officials think there will be a reasonable
return of a person's money within ten years. He said after that the smgn
would have to be removed, and a new one would have to be installed that
complies with the County ordinance. He emphasized enabling legislation in
Virginia absolutely prohibits that. He mentioned that under the Federal
Highway Beautification Act, which Virginia has been forced to adopt as State
Law in order to receive highway funds, certain signs can be paid for and
condemned. He stated that when this is done, the economic value of the sign
has to be paid for, as well as the expense of taking the sign down. Mr.
Bowerman asked if this is true if the sign is eliminated totally. Mr. St.
John replied, "yes." Mr. Bowerman then asked if this is true if the sign is
replaced with something else. Mr. St. John responded, "no." He said the
right to have a sign in a certain place might be mitigated by the right to
have a lesser sign there. He stated this only applies to off site signs,
because there are certain exemptions listed in the Beautification Act. He
went on to say that the Act does not even apply to on site signs. He added
that the signs which can be condemned and paid for are billboards, which are
considered off site advertising, and he noted that the signs on Route 29 are
not of that nature. He mentioned that even if County officials are willing to
buy a sign and pay for it, this cannot be done with respect to most of the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 54.B, Pg. 78
(Page 32)
signs that are on site on Route 29 North. He said that until the legislation
is changed, County officials will have to work around the pre-existing,
signs. He mentioned that it would be possible to have some
incentives, and he encouraged the Supervisors to get other opinions on this
matter, if they so desire. Mr. Bowerman clarified Mr. St. John's opinion by
saying that Mr. St. John believes this is an undisputable position, and the
County officials cannot purchase, at fair market value, on site signs. Mr.
St. John agreed.
Mr. Bain added that on site signs cannot be purchased without specific
enabling legislation, but this issue can be pursued.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that he thinks the Planning Commission was aware
of the County's position as Mr. St. John described it, and the Commissioners
were asking this Board what can be done.
Mr. St. John replied that this matter can be handled by the General
Assembly. He reiterated that it is impossible to tell the owner of a sign
that the sign has been installed for ten years, and the owner should already
have his or her money's worth, so the sign has to come down. He noted that
Federal courts will not uphold this action. He said there is a lack of
enabling legislation, and there is an affirmative Virginia statute which says,
"vested rights shall not be impaired." He added the only exception is the
section in Title 33.1 of the Code, which relates to highways, bridges and
ferries, which states that it is possible to condemn and pay for the same
signs that the Federal Highway Beautification Act describes.
Mr. Johnson stated that, from his personal opinion, the most objec-
tionable signs are those that are along the highway and are free standing. In
his opinion, because there is no way to address these nonconforming signs, the
basic principle of the sign ordinance is completely devolutive. He recalled a
case with Shoney's Restaurant on January 21, 1992, when the owner made a
complaint because the Shoney's sign was located between two bigger signs. He
said it was not that the Shoney's sign could not be seen, it was lust that
there was a complication with the other two larger signs being in that same
vicinity. He said the BZA allowed the Shoney's owner to move his sign. He
stated that the County cannot expect a merchant to comply with the ordinance
in his area of business when there are two noncomplying s~gns that compete,
not for site visibility, but for attention. He recalled that the Commis-
sioners were shown situations in cities in other states which have been able
to accommodate this situation in six to ten years. He stated that with the
interest that the Legislature has given to aesthetics, particularly in
entrance corridors as reflected by the entrance corridors' provisions, it is
appropriate for the Board and Commissioners to take a position. He said the
legislators could be contacted and support could be sought from other commu-
nities to try to get the necessary enabling legislation adopted.
Mr. St. John commented that a move by other communities has already
begun to get legislation adopted, and Albemarle County officials could join in
this effort.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Mr. Johnson's comments have been well taken,
and during the discussion of the Sign Ordinance, the Board can begin an
initiative for the legislative package. He said it is difficult for the BZA
to not approve a merchant's request, when there are existing signs that are
not in compliance and, there is no future remedy.
Ms. Anderson asked if current enabling legislation ~n other communities
has developed a formula for establishing the economic value of a sign. Mr.
St. John replied that a table is established, and it is the same process as
working out an amortization schedule for tax purposes of any physical asset
such as a truck. He added that it is not a difficult or highly complicated
project, so it would not be any problem. He thinks it can be done easily if
the legislation is adopted. Mr. Bowerman stated that every business depreci-
ates its equipment and s~gns, so the value of the sign could be established
fairly easily.
Mr. Grimm then mentioned there have been some individual comments made
at Commission meetings recently regarding the planning for interconnecting
roads. He pointed out there are disjunctive road systems in some places. He
wondered what would be the future policy in regard to this matter. He asked
if Supervisors want to have more of these interconnecting roads by having the
subdivisions connected to each other with road systems, or should the roads
remain as they are today.
Mr. Blue commented that 20 or 30 years ago the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors required developers to leave access to adjacent
subdivisions. He said nothing was excepted from that. He pointed out that
there was no master road plan, and there still is not. He thinks that if the
County had not gone to the other extreme of letting each subdivision or
development become a peninsula unto itself, then maybe the County would not be
burdened with so much traffic on Route 29 and Rio Road. He does not think
each street should be connected, but there could be some through roads. It
seems to him that the philosophy has changed over the years, and he wonders if
this is something that has evolved, or was there a conscious decision
involved.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 79
(Page 33)
Mr. Tucker responded that the Planning Commission worked with this road
situation many years ago. He noted that it was a conscious decision, as
subdivisions were brought before the Commission, to eliminate the policy that
had existed many years ago, where there was always some type of connector
street provided from subdivisions into land that was totally vacant at the
time of that subdivision. He said the basis of this action was that it was
felt that it was not good, from a neighborhood perspective, to have a
lot of traffic going through existing neighborhoods that would connect then to
a major arterial or connector road. He mentioned that it is also hard to
design a roads from VDoT's perspective, to get the right base, when it was
uncertain how many lots are going to be developed in the adjoining
subdivision. He is not saying that it cannot be done, but there has to be a
lot of forethought given to the matter, and thought has to be given as to
which of these roads in the subdivision should be the connector road that will
tie into the next adjoining property. He stated that then there has to be
some consideration given to how that property is going to be developed so the
road can be sized in order to get it into the State system. He mentioned this
has been a problem with Timberwood and other parkways relating to Hollymead.
He said it may be that County officials might have to make a determination
that if the road is not designed properly when a subdivision develops, it
might be the responsibility of the County to resurface the road, or widen it,
etc. He reiterated that it was a conscious decision on the part of the
Commission and the Board of Supervisors, at that time, to approve cul-de-sac
streets for subdivisions that would not connect into other areas or
subdivisions because of the problem of through traffic. He mentioned that
people use Greenbrier Drive as a short cut, and this road goes through
neighborhoods, and a lot of residents have complained about it. He next
stated that there is a right-of-way involving Carrsbrook and Woodbrook
Subdivisions that would allow a connection. He said to try to get that right-
of-way open would be very difficult. He added that it makes good planning
sense, but there are other aspects that have to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Grimm responded that the biggest problem that local Government has
had to face recently has been the Route 29 alternatives. He wonders if this
problem could have been avoided if a different tactic had been followed in
earlier years. He said that since most of the Route 29 traffic is local, it
would have been better if it all did not have to travel Route 29.
Mr. Tucker agreed that there are alternative ways of moving traffic, but
it does force that traffic through existing neighborhoods. He said this would
be another Problem the Commission and Board would have to face.
Mr. Bain pointed out that commercial areas on Route 29, North are
required to have connecting roads. Mr. Blue mentioned there is a problem
driving from Giant, at Seminole Square, to Fashion Square. Mr. Bowerman
stated this area is not in the County's jurisdiction, but the problem has been
identified to City Council.
Mr. Grimm commented that he thought everything on the Commissioners'
outline had been discussed. He said that he would open the meeting for any
additional comments, at this time.
Mr. Johnson asked when is a hardship case not a hardship. He went on to
say that in a circumstance where zoning restrictions control zoning that is
established, when someone else moves into that area, there is a hardship
because of these restrictions. He mentioned a 1976 decision which indicated
that self inflicted hardships are not a basis for granting them. He asked if
this is applicable at all, now. Mr. St. John answered he does not think this
sort of hardship exists in relation to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Johnson
responded that he is not talking about signs. He is referring to general
variances.
Mr. Bain remarked that Mr. St. John has sent letters and explained to
the BZA what constitutes a hardship situation. He said that Mr. St. John has
also examined the Code sections with the BZA. Mr. St. John stated that the
Code does not describe a hardship case.
Mr. Johnson asked if the Board is interested in investigating the
feasibility of a cigarette tax in Albemarle County as has been approved for
one other city and f6ur other counties in the State.
Mr. Bowerman s~ated that the Board had participated in introducing
legislation for a CoUnty cigarette tax, but it was not approved.
Mr. Johnson remarked that all legislators react to public opinion. He
inquired if it is appropriate to try to generate a groundswell of the grass
roots of the people who support this legislation so that it might be more
effective. He then said he was not going to spend any more time on this
subject, tonight. He stated that he had just wanted to bring up the cigarette
tax as a topic.
Mr. Bowerman commented that this has been a very useful meeting. He
believes that the joint meetings between the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors need to be held at least a couple of times a year.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 80
(Page 34)
Mr. Bain announced that the Supervisors would like to have a public
hearing with the Commission and this Board on June 3 to accept public comments
on the Housing Report.
Mr. Bowerman explained it was hoped this joint meeting would be
acceptable to the Commissioners because it would be helpful if both bodies
could get the benefit of all of the input at the same time. He encouraged
Commissioners to bring issues of concern to this Board.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that some of the Commissioners had mentioned the
idea of whether or not there could be an established time for these joint
meetings. He stated that it would be helpful for the staff next year if the
Commissioners and Supervisors could have a joint work session at the beginning
of the review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Supervisors might have to meet with the
School Board and the Planning Commission in October, or the Supervisors could
meet during another month with one of these groups.
Mr. Bain stated that he thinks that these joint meetings with the
supervisors and commissioners should be held in addition to the School Board
meetings.
(Mr. Perkins left at 5:17 p.m.)
At this time, the Planning Commission left the meeting, and the
Supervisors proceeded with their agenda.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to amend the Albemarle County Service
Authority "water only" service area boundaries to include Stone-Robinson
Elementary School.
(Mr. Perkins returned at 5:19 p.m.)
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to set a public
hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority "water only" service
area boundaries to include Stone-Robinson Elementary School for June 3, 1992.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: Education - for Microcomputer
Initiative.
Mr. Tucker said this request from the School Board is to appropriate
$1000 received from the state as part of the 1990-92 Microcomputer Initiative.
The subsidy will be used to purchase software for use in the fifth grade
classrooms. He recommends approval the request.
Mr. Bain moved to adopt of the following resolution of appropriation in
the amount of $1000 for microcomputer initiative (Form #910044). Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FI/ND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FLTNDING OF 1990/92 MICROCOMPUTER
INITIATIVE.
EXPENDITLTRE
COST C~NTER/CATEGORY
1211461101601600
DESCRIPTION AMOLTNT
DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
TOTAL
$1000.00
$1000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2200024000240231
SOFTWARE RIGHTS PAYMENTS
TOTAL
$1000.00
$1000.00
Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriation: Education - Instructional
Technology In-Service Grant.
Mr. Tucker said the School system received $4200 from the state to be
used to offset the expenditures incurred for instructional technology staff
development programs. He recommends approval the request.
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt the following
resolution of appropriation in the amount of $4200 received from the state as
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B, 41, Pg. 81
(Page 35)
part of the 1990-92 Technology Initiative (Form #910050).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY IN-SERVICE
PAYMENTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1211461101800700
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ADP EQUIPMENT $4200.00
TOTAL $4200.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200024000240251 INST. TECH. IN-SERVICE $4200.00
TOTAL $4200.00
Agenda Item No. 13c. Education - Title II Grant.
Mr. Tucker said the School system has received a $22,620 grant from
Title II, under the Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education
Act. The grant will be used to develop a packet of math/science assessment
tools at each grade level K-8 including evaluation/scoring guidelines. He
recommended approval of this request.
Mr. Perkins moved, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
resolution of appropriation in the amount of $22,620 received from the Title
II, Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Act (Form #910048).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
AI~SEATT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PROCESS APPROACH LE (PAL) GRANT
TITLE II.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1320361101152100
1320361101160300
1320361101210000
1320361101312500
1320361101600100
1320361101601700
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SUB WAGES-TEACHER
INSTRUCTIONAL STIPENDS
FICA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MATERIAL & SUPPLIES
PRINTING & BINDING
TOTAL
$ 4,545.00
2,000.00
500.00
5,000.00
10,350.00
225.00
$22,620.00
REVENLIE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320333000330208
TITLE II/GRANT ~00291
TOTAL
$22,620.00
$22,620.00
Agenda Item No. 13d. Education - Title II Demonstration and Exemplary
Grant.
Mr. Tucker said the School system has been awarded a $16,000 Demonstra-
tion and Exemplary Grant through the Title II Eisenhower Program to implement
its Science Assessment Project. He recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
resolution Of appropriation in the amount of $16,000 received from the Title
II Eisenhower Program, Demonstration and Exemplary Grant (Form ~910049).
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAi~: 91/92
FI/ND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PROCESS APPROACH LE (PAL) GRANT
TITLE II EISENHOWER PROGRAM.
EXPENDITURE
COST ~¢NTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOI/NT
1320361101152100
1320361101210000
1320361101312500
SUB WAGES-TEACHER
FICA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
$ 6,800.00
550.00
3,000.00
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
1320361101600100
1320361101800700
MATERIAL & SUPPLIES
ADP EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
M.B. 41, Pg. 82
650.00
5,000.00
$16,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320333000330209 TITLE II/D & E GPJLNT $16,000.00
TOTAL $16,000.00
Agenda Item No. 13e. Education - Project Success.
Mr. Tucker said the Elis Olsson Memorial Foundation has awarded
Albemarle High School $3000 in support of the "Project Success" program. The
program is designed to address the needs of ninth grade students identified to
be at-risk for failing or dropping out of school. The grant will be used to
compensate the teachers involved with the project for the time spent on the
program above and beyond their contracted hours. He recommended approval of
the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $3000 received from
the Elis Olsson Memorial Foundation in support o the Project Success Program
(Form ~910051) .
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FI/ND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
PROJECT SUCCESS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1230160010002100
1230161101210000
SALARIES-TEACHER $2,790.00
FICA 210.00
TOTAL $3,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOLTNT
2200018100186030
PROJECT SUCCESS-AHS
TOTAL
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
Agenda Item No. 13f. Capital Improvements Program Appropriation Ordi-
nance.
Mr. Tucker recommended approval of the Capital Improvements Program
Appropriation Ordinance. He said this item is a follow-up from last week's
public hearing on the Capital Improvements Program for FY 1993 in the amount
of $4,291,504. He commented that the majority of this funding will be used
for projects under Administration and Courts, Education, Public Safety,
Highways, Libraries and Parks and Recreation. He mentioned that approximately
$628,000 will be used for a Stormwater/Utilities Fund for stormwater drainage
and landfill projects. He stated the bond issuance expenditure schedule for
FY 1993 is also included. He noted that this is a new requmrement that has to
be done in order for the County to expend funds from bond issue projects. He
recommended adoption of the CIP appropriation, as well as the bond issuance
expenditure schedule.
Mr. Bain wondered if the Board would be voting on the bond issuance
expenditure schedule. Mr. Tucker explained that this is part of the schedule
for the bond issue. He noted that parts of the schedule may have to be
changed, but he said this approval will meet the requirements of allowing the
County to use funds from the bond issue on projects that have already been
extended.
Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the Capital
Improvements Program Appropriation Ordinance mn the amount of $4,291,504 for
FY 1993.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
None.
Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGR3%M
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JI/NE 30, 1993
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all
necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1993; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and
M.B.
(Page 37)
to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance
and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent
of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are
appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1993:
PARAGP~APH ONE - ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
For the current expenses of the function of ADMINISTRATION
AND COURTS the sum of eight hundred seventeen thousand six hundred
seventy eight dollars and no cents ($817,678) is appropriated from
the Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Regional Jail Expansion and Renovation
2. County Office Building A_nnex/PBX Replacement
3. Charlottesville/Albemarle Health Dept./Clinic
Wing
4. Juvenile and Domestic Court Roof Replacement
5. County Computer Upgrade
$ 373,100
295,000
47,500
18,078
84,000
PARAGP~APH TWO - EDUCATION
For the current expenses of the function of EDUCATION the sum
of one million seven hundred eighty five thousand three hundred
dollars and no cents ($1,785,300) is appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
2.
3.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14.
Flashing School Zone Signs
Greet Elementary Walls
Underground Storage Tanks Replacement
New Middle School Facility
Broadus Wood Expansion
Stony Point Phase II
Energy Maintenance Management Systems
Woodbrook Elementary - HVAC
Fire Alarm Replacement
Stone Robinson - Water Line Installation
Burley Middle School Phase II
Jouett Middle School HVAC
Henley Middle School Masonary Repair & HVAC
Replacement
Burley Middle School Roof Replacement
$ 28,G00
58,000
87,300
447,000
460,000
25,000
82,000
250,000
110,000
50,000
75,000
24,000
64,000
25,000
PARAGRAPH THREE FIRE, RESCUE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
For the current expenses of the function of FIRE, RESCUE AND
PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of three hundred thirty six thousand nine
hundred dollars and no cents ($336,900) is appropriated from the
Capital Improvements Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Police Dept. Satellite Receiver Addition
2. Air Utility Truck Replacement
3. Volunteer Firefighters Advance Allocation Fund
$ 56,900
30,000
250,000
PARAGRAPH FOUR - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
For the current expenses of the function of HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION the sum of five hundred twenty six thousand dollars
and no cents ($526,000) is appropriated from the Capital Improve-
ments Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Projects
2. Barracks Road Sidewalk
3. Ivy Road Corridor Study
500,000
11,000
15,000
PARAGRAPH FIVE LIBRARIES
For the current expenses of the function of LIBRARIES the sum
of fifty four thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($54,600)
is appropriated from the Capital Improvements Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Northside Branch Additional Books/Materials $ 54,600
PARAGRAPH SIX - PARKS AND RECREATION
For the current expenses of the function of PARKS AlqD RECREA-
TION the sum of one hundred forty three thousand dollars and no
cents ($143,000) is appropriated from the Capital Improvements
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
May 6, 1992 (Regular)ay Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 84
(Page 38)
1. Albema
2. Urban.
Improv
3. Scotts
~le High School Tennis Court Lighting
~rea Elementary School Recreation
~ments
;ille Community Center Maintenance/
Replacement
Whitewood Road Park Improvements
$ 75,000
40,000
8,000
20,000
SUMMARY
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 1993:
$3,663,478
To be provided as follows:
General Fund Transfer $ 880,289
CIP Fund Balance 765,775
Fire/Rescue Payments 23,000
Borrowed Funds (See Attachment-on file) 1,710,300
Interest 274,114
Miscellaneous Revenues (City Share-Five Senses Trail) 10,000
Total CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1993 $3,663,478
SECTION II - STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are
appropriated for stormwater and utility improvement purposes
herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1993:
PSd~AGRAPH ONE - STORMWATER/UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
For the current expenses of the function of UTILITIES/
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS the sum of six hundred twenty eight
thousand twenty six dollars and no cents ($628,026) is appro-
priated from the Stormwater/Utilities Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. County Master Drainage Plan $ 90,000
2. Lynch_burg Road Storm Sewer Improvements 9,500
3. Windham/Jarman Gap Road Channel Improvements 28,526
4. Keene Landfill Closure 500,000
SUMMARY
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 1993:
$ 628,026
To be provided as follows:
General Fund Transfer
Stormwater Fund Balance
$ 508,026
120,000
Total STORMWATER/UTILITIES FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 1993 $ 628,026
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I AND II IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1993:
RECAPITULATION
Section I Capital Improvements Fund
Section II Stormwater/Utilities Fund
$3,663,478
628,020
GRAND TOTAL $4,291,504
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby
authorized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from
time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in
excess of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General
Fund for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION III
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained
items in Sections I and II are appropriated upon the provisos,
terms, conditions, and provisions hereinbefore set forth in
connection with said terms and those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained,
all appropriations made out of the CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM,
are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appro-
priations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in
full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the
event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the
fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
M.B. 41, Pg. 85
to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said
appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as
the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the
said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the
Board of Supervisors included in its estimate of revenue for the
financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of Supervi-
sors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of
the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies
or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of
an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of
appropriation without the consent of the Director of Finance being
first obtained.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or
contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any
department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control
of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchas-
ing agent; provided, however, no requisition for contractual
services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided
further that no requisition for contractual services involving the
issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the
contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the
Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent
shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the
basis of specification furnished by the contracting department,
bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein
required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded
through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq proce-
dures prescribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall
not be considered obligations of the County, and the Director o£
Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obliGa-
tions.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this
ordinance by any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies
under the control of the Board of Supervisors to any of their
officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such
officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the
discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and
shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like
rates.
Paragraph Five
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and
according to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of
Finance.
Paragraph Six
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the
provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby
repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen
hundred and ninety-two.
Agenda Item No. 13g. Reappropriation: Stormwater Projects.
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that he was requesting a reappropriation
for stormwater projects, because the Four Seasons and Berkmar Detention Basins
need some maintenance. He noted that the funds for these projects were found
by examining other current projects that were completed and which had some
money left, and some other projects were canceled. He added that the staff is
recommending approval of the appropriation request in the amount of $60,384.31
in order to make these stormwater projects improvements. He pointed out that
this is part of a much larger picture, as it relates to the County's urban
stormwater needs. He said staff will be bringing a status report with regard
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 86
(Page 40)
to a stormwater study to this Board in the fall.
Mr. Bain called attention to the fact that some deletions in the
stormwater projects are shown, such as the Route 678 relocation project. He
asked if these deletions are temporary. Mr. Tucker explained that a deletion
could mean that the project is not going forward in this fiscal year, or there
was no money left, after the project was finished.
Ms. Jo Higgins, County Engineer, explained that the Route 678 project
was transferred to the Highway Department budget, so this project will not be
with local funds.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt
the following resolution reappropriating $60,384.31 from completed or canceled
stormwater and CIP projects to the Berkmar and Four Seasons detention basin
projects (Form ~910045) .
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
FUND: CAPITAL/STORM
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CURRENT STATUS
OF PROJECTS
EXPENDITLTRES
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1900041000950038
1900041000950049
1900041000950056
1900041000950064
1900041020950050
1900093010930202
1910041033360000
1910041033800975
1910041042800975
1910041047800975
1910041034800975
1910041035312400
1910041035800975
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
RIO ROAD SIDEWALK
GEORGETOWN ROAD PATHWAY
MEYERS DRIVE
SIDEWALK 708/631
ROUTE 678 RELOCATION
TRANSFER TO STORM WATER
($33,823.89)
(2,103.66)
(22,000.00)
(2,500.00)
(53,750.00)
87,280.93
STORM WATER FUND
SMITHFIELD ROAD-ADV
SMITHFIELD ROAD-STORM SEWER IMP
SOLOMON ROAD CHARNEL IMPROVEMENTS
KING GEORGE CIRCLE DRAINAGE
BERKMAR DETENTION BASIN
FOUR SEASONS BASIN-ENGINEERING
FOUR SEASONS BASIN-IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL
(150.00)
(5,736.60)
(2.40)
(219.07)
4,000.00
14,389.00
75,000.00
$60,384.31
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100
2910051000512000
CIP-APPROPRIATED FROM F/B
STORM WATER-TRANSFER FROM CIP
TOTAL
($26,896.62
87,280.93
$60,384.31
Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Road Name and Street Address Ordi-
nance.
Mr. Tucker stated that this work session on the Road Name and Street
Address Ordinance is being held for discussion of the ordinance and to set a
time for a public hearing, if the Board so chooses. He added that if the
Board feels more time is needed for review of this ordinance, then it can be
considered during another afternoon work session.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the Supervisors need to decide whether or
not they want this ordinance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He
said there is no legal reason why this ordinance has to be reviewed by the
Commission. He added that when the ordinance was being drafted by the
committee, there was some discussion about Commission review.
Mr. Tucker explained that the Commission has not been totally involved
with this ordinance. He said the ordinance has been driven by the 911 system.
Mr. St. John noted that the Commmssion has not been involved at all with this
ordinance, to his knowledge.
Mr. Martin then moved to set a public hearing to consider the Road Name
and Street Address Ordinance. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain wondered when the formal notices will be sent to County
residents informing them of their addresses. Mr. Robert Brandenburger,
Assistant County Executive, responded that the contractor is in the process of
address verification, as far as house numbers and block assignments are
concerned. He said address notifications will be in the post offices on July
3, and it will probably take six weeks to get feedback from the different
areas mn the County. He added that official address verification will be done
after that time, and the sign installation will begin during the month of
July. He went on to say it will take approximately four months to complete
installing the signs throughout the County.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 87
(page 41)
Mr. St. John wondered if this Board would be interested in hearing how
Orange County handled the assigning of house numbers. Mr. Tucker replied this
could be handled as a separate matter. He then explained Mr. St. John was
referring to the fact that Orange County went to the expense of purchasing
house numbers and giving them to the property owners. He said this could be
considered, but Albemarle County's proposed ordinance requires the property
owners must locate the numbers either on their properties, or at the entrance
of their properties, if structures are more than 100 feet back from the road.
Mr. St. John stated that people coming to the public hearing on the
ordinance will probably be asking a lot of these types of questions.
Mr. Bain asked how much money would be involved if Albemarle County paid
for its house numbers. Mr. BrandeD_burger answered that there has been a lot
of discussion about this matter since Orange County's project, but he does not
know how successful the program was as far as the homeowners actually
installing the numbers. Mr. Tucker commented that he believes the house
numbers would be eligible for surcharge funds, so the County would not have to
pay for them.
Mr. BrandeD_burger remarked that the staff will be bringing more informa-
tion to the Board before the public hearing. He said the information would
involve estimates, the number of homes involved, as well as building
structures, etc.
Mr. Tucker suggested that the public hearing be held on June 17.
Mr. Martin agreed to include the date of June 17 in the motion. Mr.
Bain, as the seconder of the motion, agreed.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 16. Whitewood Road Park Committee Report. (Defer to
June 3, 1992)
Mr. Bowerman noted that this item was removed from the agenda and
deferred to June 3, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments.
Mr. Bain offered motion to reappoint Patricia L. Smith to the Jail Board
for a term of three years, with said term expiring on April 30, 1995. Mr.
Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Bowerman stated that it has been brought to his attention, by the
Director of Social Services, that Mr. Bain's appointee to the Social Services
Board does not live in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. He asked Mr.
Bain to verify this appointee's place of residence, and he suggested that Mr.
Bain may have to appoint another person to the Social Services Board.
At this time, Mr. Bain read a resolution relating to the construction
and extension of Berkmar Drive north from Rio Road to the section of Berkmar
Drive fronted by the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. He said that, by this
resolution, the Board would ratify the option agreement, signed by the County
Engineer, made on February 25, 1992. He then offered motion to adopt this
resolution which would authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
sign a Real Estate Sales contract, dated April 29, 1992, between Preston
Stallings, the seller, and the County of Albemarle, as the buyer. Mr. Martin
seconded the resolution.
Mr. Bain noted that the money involved included $100 for the option and
$22,500 for 18,814 square feet of right-of-way.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors supports the construction
of an extension of berkmar Drive north from Rio Road to the
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 88
(Page 42)
section of Berkmar Drive fronted by the Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School; and
WHEREAS, contracts and agreements between the County and
various property owners are necessary to complete this project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Chairman is authorized to
sign the Real Estate Sales Contract made on April 29, 1992, by and
between Preston O. Stallings (seller) and the County of Albemarle
(buyer) and, by adoption of this resolution, to also ratify the
Option Agreement signed by the County Engineer, Jo Higgins, made
on February 25, 1992, by and between Preston O. Stallings
(grantor) and the County of Albemarle (grantee).
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Board has reviewed the applications for
the Fiscal Impact Committee, the Children and Youth Committee and the
Architectural Review Board, and selections have been made for interviews on
May 20. He stated that all of the applicants will be notified as to whether
they have been selected for an interview. He said he would not indicate who
has been chosen for interviews, however, until the applicants have had an
opportunity to get the letters.
Mr. Tucker added to Mr. Bowerman's comments by saying the interviews
will start at 3:00 p.m. on May 20. Mr. Tucker went on to say that there will
be a work session on Open Space at 4:00 p.m. on May 27.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOAi~D.
Mr. Tucker stated there has been some discussion about illegal dumping
in the County, and there have been several individuals, as well as private
haulers, who have indicated they would like to be a part of a cleanup project.
He indicated to these people that he would be happy to bring a suggestion to
this Board that the County cover the tipping fees for individuals who, either
through an organization or private haulers, would like to work with the Zoning
office in reference to cleaning up some of the illegal dumps. He recommended
that the County spend up to $5000 through June 30 of this fiscal year for this
project, which would be taken from the Board's contingency fund.
Mr. Martin asked if this project would be monitored, or would there be a
trust system. Mr. Tucker replied that some monitoring will be done through
the zoning Office, as well as Landfill staff.
Mr. Bowerman said the intent is to notify owners, when properties are
cleaned, that the next time it will be the o~rners' responsibility. He said
that this will be enforced.
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that he is going to bring back some other
information and suggestions probably next week, that would involve more on
this proposal.
Mr. St. John asked if the Landfill will take mattresses, bed springs and
refrigerators, etc. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes."
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to adopt the following resolution
of appropriation authorizing up to $5000 from the Board's contingency fund for
tipping fee costs related to cleaning up illegal dumping sites. Mr. Bain
seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991/92
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING TO PAY TIP FEES FOR CLEANING
UP SPLTRIOUS DUMP SITES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100011010999999
1100042040510430
BOS-CONTINGENCY ($5,000.00
TIPPING FEES 5,000.00
TOTAL $ 0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $ 0.00
Mr. Tucker next announced the staff has attempted to get a date for the
public meeting with regard to the expansion of the Town of Scottsville. He
suggested that either May 14 or May 21 be set for this meeting. He said
either of these dates is acceptable to the Town Council of Scottsville, and
the meeting would be held at 7:00 p.m. at the Scottsville Elementary School.
May 6, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B, 41~ Pg. 89
(Page 43)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he will be out of town on May 21.
Mr. Bain was concerned that there would not be time for the public to be
notified.
Mr. Tucker explained that notices will be sent through the children in
the Scottsville Elementary School, as well as through the media.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the public hearing for the
Town of Scottsville's expansion will be held on May 14 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Scottsville Elementary School.
Mr. Bain asked if the meeting would be recorded. He cannot attend the
meeting. Mr. Tucker responded affirmatively. He said it would be a regular
meeting of the Board.
Mr. Tucker said he just heard this morning that the Governor has
declared Albemarle County a disaster area, but only as it relates to highways
and roads damage. He said it has been determined that there is $133,000 of
damage in Albemarle County. He added that staff had thought that a resolution
would have to be adopted because the staff thought it was disaster relief
relating to agricultural damage, etc. He said that a resolution is not needed
for the highway relief.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn to May 13, 1992, at 4:00 P.M.
At 5:42 p.m., Mr. Bain made a motion for the Board to adjourn until 4:00
p.m. on May 13. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.