1992-07-01July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg288
(Page 1) '
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 1, 1992, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (Arrived at 9:03 a.m.), Mr. David P.
Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.,
Charles S. Martin (Arrived at 9:03 a.m.) and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
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. Cynthia Hash, a resident of Forest Lakes Subdivision and repre-
senting the Forest Lakes residents, read a prepared statement in which she
informed the Board that a great many Forest Lakes residents are opposed to the
portions of Meadow Creek Parkway alignment alternatives known as Ti, T3 and
T4. She distributed copies of her comments to the Board. Mr. Bowerman asked
Ms. Hash to send her written comments to the Planning Commission also.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph-
ris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Item 5.1 and to accept the remaining
items on the consenu agenda (except for Item 5.9 which will be discussed later
during this meeting) as information. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and
Mr. Martin.
None.
Item 5.1. Marriott Sign Maintenance Agreement. Staff noted that the
Courtyard Marriott Hotel sign was initially relocated at Marriott expense from
the Highway Department's right-of-way for Route 29 to its current location
along Branchlands Boulevard. This placement was at the County's direction,
but inadvertently the sign was located partially in the Branchlands Boulevard.
right-of-way. Instead of requiring the Marriott Corporation to incur the
expense of a second relocation of the sign, the County initiated the follow-
ing: (1) delete this sign from V DOT's right-of-way, and then, (2) have the
Courtyard Marriott Corporation assume maintenance responsibilities for the
sign and landscaping.
By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was AUTHORIZED to sign
the following agreement:
SI~NMAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS SIGN MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this
1st day of July, 1992, by and between COURTYARD MANAGEMENT CORPO-
RATION d/b/a Charlottesville Courtyard Marriott Hotel, with
offices at 10400 Fernwood Road, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817 ("Court-
yard"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, with office at 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 ("County").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, Courtyard is the operator of the Courtyard by
Marriott Hotel ("Hotel") located at 638 Hillsdale Drive, Char-
lottesville, Virginia, 22901; and
WHEREAS, the County has allowed Courtyard to locate a sign
advertising the location of the Hotel in the area designated "for
public use" but not accepted by the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation ("VDOT") adjacent to Branchlands Boulevard and more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and by refer-
ence incorporated herein ("County Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the County allowing Courtyard to
locate said sign, the County has required Courtyard to provide for
the maintenance of the sign and landscaping of the County Property
surrounding the sign.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the
adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg289
(page 2) '
1. Courtyard shall be responsible, at its sole cost and
expense, to maintain the sign and landscaping in consistent good
appearance and good repair.
2. In the event that Courtyard does not comply with its
obligations under this Agreement, the County may give 60 days
notice to Courtyard to remove the sign or the County will proceed
to remove the sign and invoice Courtyard for the reasonable cost
and expense for such work.
3. Courtyard hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the County from and against any and all claims, liabili-
ties, damages, fines, penalties or costs of whatever nature
(including reasonable attorney's fees), and whether by reason of
death or injury to any person or loss of or damages to any person
or otherwise, arising out of negligent acts or wiIlful misconduct
of Courtyard, its employees or agents, in connection with is
performance under this Agreement.
4. There shall be no amendment to this Agreement unless
such amendment is in writing, signed by both parties hereto.
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of both parties hereto and their respective heirs, succes-
sors and assigned.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the
Agreement the day and year first above written.
Item 5.2. Letter dated June 16, 1992, from Mr. John G. Milliken,
Secretary of Transportation, acknowledging the Board's letter concerning the
Route 682 road improvements, received as follows:
"June 16, 1992
The Honorable David P.'Bowerman
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Chairman Bowerman:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding design criteria for
Route 682 road improvements in Albemarle County.
I have forwarded your request to Department of Transportation
Commissioner Ray D. Pethtel and asked that he have someone from
his staff arrange to meet with you.
I appreciate your thoughts and hope that we can accommodate your
concerns.
Sincerely,
(Signed) John G. Milliken"
Item 5.3. Senior Citizen Volunteer Incentive Initiative Tax Credit.
Staff report was received as follows:
"Modeled after a program within the City of Denver, Colorado's
Public Schools, the Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) has
recommended a tax credit and volunteer incentive initiative for
property taxpayers over the age of 60. This $250 voucher, issued
by the County, would be in return for a minimum of 100 hours of
volunteer service within the public school system.
Current State law does not give localities the authority to grant
tax breaks for volunteers outside of the emergency services arena.
If State statutes were to be amended to include such a consider-
ation, careful thought should be given to the distinction between
school volunteers and other volunteers in the community. Present-
ly, the distinction made for emergency service volunteers ~s the
risk of personal safety involved in their volunteer effort.
Beyond this separate and distinct case, all other forms of tax
relief are based on need given a taxpayer's income and net worth.
The Board recently denied a request to expand tax relief for
emergency service volunteers to include ladies auxiliary members
and other personnel in non-life threatening situations.
Recognition of senior citizen volunteer work in our public school
system should continue to be addressed by the school system within
the framework that exists for all school volunteers. The contri-
bution made by these individuals should not go unnoticed at
volunteer appreciation activities. If the Board wishes to support
legislation at the State level regarding this matter, staff would
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
M.B. 41, Pg. 290
recommend discussing the need for additional volunteers with the
School Board in September before pursuing such legislation..,
Mrs. Humphris said she has been doing some research on the potential for
volunteers in county government, in general. She has not brought any proposal
to the Board because she felt the County staff had all it could do with
projects that the staff has already been asked to study. She stated that
perhaps it is time to consider this matter. She went on to say that there are
a tremendous amount of people in this community who give volunteer hours to
everything, and the community would probably collapse without these people.
She said this is true across the country to the point where the National
Association of Counties has published a workbook on volunteers called, "The
Volunteer Tool Box." She has ordered a copy of this workbook from NACO. NACO
developed a study of counties across the country, and compiled the experience
of counties into an outline form, with samples of documents which can be used.
This study covers the legal framework for volunteer programs, such as develop-
lng volunteer job descriptions, supervising recruitment screening, interview-
lng and the hiring of volunteers, as well as training them, recording and
reporting their activities, evaluating their work, recognizing them and even
firing them. She suggested that, if the County Executive can find time in the
staff's work schedule, maybe some time could be set aside for investigating
the potential for volunteers in county government. There are people in the
community who really want to help. She stated, too, that with the current
revenue problems, there are meaningful jobs that the volunteers could do for
the County. With regard to a tax credit for senior citizens, the Board would
need to seek legislation in State government that allows the County to give
property tax credit. A decision would have to be made as to whether or not
the County even wants to seek such legislation that would allow for this. She
reiterated that the workbook, to which she referred, is an excellent resource
relating to dealing with volunteers in the framework of County government.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like some support from this Board in
requesting that the County Executive investigate whether he can fit such a
study into the staff's work program. She would also like to know whether or
not such a volunteer program could be done in Albemarle County, how it would
be implemented and recommendations provided from the staff.
Mr. Perkins pointed ouE that the County already has a Volunteer Coordi-
nator. Mrs. Humphris answered that this coordinator's position relates only
to rescue squads, etc. Mr. Perkins suggested that perhaps the Volunteer
Coordinator's job could be expanded to other areas. Mr. Tucker felt the staff
could work this study into its schedule.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to see the overall framework of such a
volunteer program. This study should show if a significant number of volun-
teers could be used in the County, as well as where and how they could be
used. There are a lot of questions surrounding the idea of tax credit and
needs a lot of investigation and discussion. One question relates to whether
or not it is fair to give tax credit to some volunteers and not to others.
Mr. Tucker commented that this can be a big program, and it can take a
lot of time and effort to organize and administer. If such a program is
adopted, people will need to be kept on schedules, and agencies should be made
aware that the County has this program and that volunteers can be provided to
the different agencies for help and support. He had thought, if the Supervi-
sors are considering such a program, that the School Board should be contact-
ed, so that the Supervisors can get feedback from School Board members.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that the schools already have their individual
volunteer programs. She mentioned that she had talked to Pat Lloyd, Elementa-
ry Education Coordinator at Greet Elemensary School, and Ms. Lloyd had ordered
a copy of, "The Volunteer Tool Box." A lot of volunteers are used at Greer
Elementary School. She was told that there are 21 different languages
represented by the students who attend Greer Elementary School. She went on
to say that this requires a lot of help from volunteers, just in the language
area, which the school system is not able to provide. She thinks the idea
behind the plan presented by JABA for a volunteer senior citizen coordinator
is great, although she found it to be unrealistic. The proposal is for a job
that is way beyond a volunteer position. She believes this should be a paid
staff position, and she mentioned that there has to be accountability in the
program. She went on to say that it would be difficult to make sure that the
volunteers are matched with the correct job, and this is important, most
particularly when it comes to working with children.
Mr. Tucker said staff will need to consider how such a program could be
put together and if it can be done. What is already being done in the County
needs to be considered. He is sure that RSVP and the County Police Department
has its own active volunteer program for retired senior citizens who help them
in different areas of police work. He reiterated that he wants to see what
volunteer programs are already available. He said that maybe coordination
between the other programs and agencies could be done.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board's consensus is for staff to proceed with
a study of a volunteer program.
Mr. Martin remarked that he does not have a problem with the staff
examining such a program, but he thinks the County already has a lot of
volunteers. He said there are plenty of places where additional volunteers
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg. 291
(Page 4)
can be used, and it makes sense to try to organize the volunteers. He thinks,
however, that the County will probably need a Volunteer Coordinator for the
County, in addition to the Volunteer Coordinator who is currently working with
the rescue squad. He believes the concept of a tax break is unrealistic. He
noted that there are already so many different types of volunteers in the
County, and he does not see how any particular group of volunteers can be
singled out for a tax break. Me thinks the definition of a volunteer means
that a person is giving his or her time to the community. He said that, at
his office, there are volunteers and interns. He added that the interns get
class credit, and they are not volunteering. He reiterated that he considers
volunteers to be people who donate their time.
Item 5.4. Growth Area Neighborhood Plans.
The staff's report noted that there has been a need to conduct more
detailed planning for the County growth areas that would further support the
Comprehensive Plan and would include significant participation by citizens in
the respective growth areas. The staff report (on file) outlines the proposal
and will start with Neighborhood 3. The first step in development of this
plan is to establish a committee from each neighborhood/growth area to advise
staff. Unless otherwise directed, staff will coordinate the selection of
committee members with the respective Board member from the various growth
areas.
Mrs. Humphris noted that this item involves providing opportunities for
significant participation, on the part of the citizens, in the growth plans
for their respective areas. She doubts if most citizens would know which
neighborhood they were located in, as far as the Comprehensive Plan is
concerned, if they were asked.
Mr. Tucker said it has always bothered him that the County's urban area
neighborhoods are identified by numbers. He would prefer to develop a name
for the neighborhoods. He added that this seems to be an easy task, but it
will be difficult. He believes that if names are used instead of numbers,
people would have a better sense of where the area is located. This might be
something that the committees can work on together.
Mr. Perkins asked if there was a schedule attached to the Growth Area
Neighborhood Plans. Mr. Tucker answered that there is not a definitive time
Schedule, but the staff will start with Neighborhood Three, which is the
Pantops area.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that a committee will be established to advise
the staff, and the committee will be made up of a representative from each
neighborhood. He said the review process can begin anytime for Neighborhood
Three, because all of the background analysis has been done for that area. He
estimated that it would take six months to deal with Neighborhood Three, and
then another neighborhood would be examined.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that Mr. Cilimberg's progress will depend on his
workload and staffing ability. He noted that during the summer months, Mr.
Cilimberg may have some interns help with developing background data, etc.
Mr. Tucker emphasized that the Board has the priority list of the schedule for
the neighborhoods, but work on some of them could overlap.
Mr. Bain commented he had understood that a lot of the work on the
different neighborhoods would be going on at the same time. He said the
Comprehensive Plan review would start in January, and the review of the
neighborhoods and the Comprehensive Plan need to be occurring at the same
time. ~He stated that one review might be finished in six months, and the
other review might take a year to 15 months, but they should still coincide
with each other. Mr. Tucker noted that these plans might be more definitive
than the ones in the Comprehensive Plan, which are more general. He believes
the staff is spending more time doing specific planning for these neighbor-
hoods. Mr. Bain responded that he understands this. He said the Comprehen-
sive Plan should not be different from what is being shown for a particular
neighborhood.
Item 5.5. Financial Management Report for April, 1992, received as
information.
Item 5.6. Notice dated June 23, 1992, from the State Corporation
Commission stating that Virginia Power has applied to revise the proposed
Schedule 27 to also include a "Suburban Lighting Service" for the purpose of
making the cost of outdoor lighting affordable to customers in areas serviced
by underground facilities, received as information.
Item 5.7. Copy of Minutes of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for
April 27, 1992, received as information.
Item 5.8. Copy of Minutes of the Plannmng Commission for June 16, 1992,
received as information.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
M.B. 41, Pg. 292
Item 5.9. Letter dated June 25, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, re: "Current Projects - Construction Schedule," received
for information, as follows:
ROUTE LOCATION STATUS EST. COMP.
NO. DATE
250 St. Clair Ave. to Rte. 64 Construction 42% CompLete SEP 93
20 AT AVON ST EXTENDED (RTE 742) - CONSTRUCT TURN LANES ADV 5 .0
20 3.5 MI SOUTH RTE 53 - SAFETY PROJECT 07-93 6 MO
29 HYDRAULIC ROAD TO RIO ROAD - WIDEN TO 8 LANES 07-93 2 YRS
29 RIO ROAD TO S FORK RIVANNA RIVER - WIDEN TO 6 LANES 07-94 2 YRS
29 S FORK RIVANNA RIVER TO AIRPORT RD - WIDEN TO 6 LANES 07-95 2 YRS
601 ROUTE 250 W TO RTE 29 BYPASS - WIDEN TO 4 LANES 10-97' 18 MO
610 FROM RTE 20 TO 1.8 MI E RTE 20 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-93 6 MO
627 RAILROAD CROSSING SIGNALS AT WARREN 10-93' 3 MO
631 ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 743 - RIO ROAD WEST 07-95 12 MO
631 1.33 MI S RTE 64 TO 0.1 MI S RTE 64 - 5TH ST EXT 07-92 18 MO
631 NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE TO RTE 631 - MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY 01-99 2 YRS
637 RTE 635 TO 0.55 MI W RTE 682 - WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-97'* 9 MO
654 RTE 1406 TO GEORGETOWN RD (BARRACKS RD) - WIDEN TO 4 LANES ADV 6 MO
656 GEORGETOWN ROAD FROM RTE 654 TO RTE 743 - SPOT IMPROVEMENT 10-97' 6 MO
671 MOORMANS RIVER - BRIDGE AND APPROACHES 07-92** 12 MO
678 ROUTE 250 TO .2 MI N RTE 250 - AT IVY 05-93 6 MO
682 ROUTE 250 TO 1.7 MI $ RTE 787 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-92 6 MO
691 .4 MI E RTE 240 TO RTE 240 - PARK ROAD 02-94 3 MO
708 INT RTE 631 - NEAR SOUTHERN REGIONAL PARK 05-93 5 MO
711 FROM RTE 29 TO ROUTE 712 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-96* 6 MO
712 ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 692 - WIDEN AND PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 01-95 6 MO
743 HYDRAULIC ROAD RTE 657 TO RTE 631 - WIDEN TO 4 LANES 06-94 1 YR
759 FROM RTE 616 TO FLUVANNA COUNTY LINE - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-97* 5 MO
760 FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 712 - PAVE GRAVEL ROAD 07-95* 5 MO
866 RTE 743 TO GREENBRIER DRIVE - NEW ALIGNMENT 07-95 9 MO
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: October 9 and November 13,
1991.
Mr. Perkins had read Pages 13 (#10) to the end of the October 9, 1991
minutes, and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read Pages 1 to 15 (#7d) of the minutes of November
13, 1991. She found the minutes to be in order with the exception of some
typographical errors.
Mr. Bain moved approval of the minutes which had been read. Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. ~umphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Public hearing on the proposed
budget for Secondary Road Improvements for FY 1992-93 (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1992).
The following staff report was received:
"As requested by the Board of Supervisors, staff has evaluated the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Primary Road
Plan and provides the following comments:
TOTAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
The total funds available for FY 1992-93 for the interstate,
primary and urban systems for the District are $22,825,000. This
is a 44 percent increase over the FY 1991-92 allocation of
$15,849,000. The FY 1992-93 allocation includes $90,000 for the
interstate system (including $50,000 National Highways System (Nt{S
funds), $3,003,000 for the urban system, and $19,732,000 for the
primary system (including $5,000,000 in NHS funds). This primary
system allocation reflects an increase of 48 percent over the FY
1991-92 allocation of $13,278,000.
Much of this increase in funds is attributable to the NHS funds.
NHS funds were created in the 1991 Federal Aid Act as a special
funding category. NHS funds in the amount of $5,000,000 are
allocated in FY 1992-93 to the Charlottesville Bypass project for
preliminary engineering (to public hearing stage) and right-of-way
plans for hardship acquisitions. Without the NHS funds, the
increased funding for the primary system in FY 1992-93 from FY
1991-92 would be $1,976,000, or 12 percent.
Based on the project allocations for FY 1992-93, $11,431,000 or 58
percent of the total primary fund allocation ($19,732,000) is
allocated to projects in Albemarle County. In FY 1991-92, Albe-
marle County projects accounted for 31 percent of the total
Culpeper District primary system allocation ($4,115,000 of a total
$13,278,000).
For the five common years of this year's and last year's six year
plans (1992-93 through 1996-97) there is a 15 percent increase in
total funds for the Culpeper District ($109,146,000 in FY 1992-93
Plan from $95,200,000 in FY 1991-92 Plan). The five-year total
for the FY 1992-93 Plan assumes that $12,000,000 in NHS funds will
be available to the District. Without NHS funds, the increase in
total funds for the district is two percent.
PROJECTS
There are 61 six-year program projects listed for the District in
FY 1992-93: two interstate projects, 11 urban system projects,
and 48 primary system projects. Of the 48 primary projects, 14
are projects in Albemarle County (with eight being district-wide
projects). This compares with 45 projects listed for the Culpeper
District in FY 1991-92: three interstate pro~ects, nine urban
system projects, and 33 projects for the primary system. Of these
33 primary system projects, eight were projects in Albemarle
County. Seven were district-wide projects such as hazardous
obstacle elimination, installation of signage and guardrails, and
the like.
Attachment A (on file) provides a comparison of the primary and
urban system projects in the FY 1991-92 and FY 1992-93 Plans,
including their total cost, funds allocated, and estimated con-
struction time for primary and urban projects in Albemarle and
Charlottesville.
There are five new projects listed and one major change to the
timing for consuruction of an existing project in the Plan.
McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Parkway. Charlottesville - The
portion of the project in the City (funded in the urban
system) is shown for right-of-way acquisition beginning in
FY 1995-96 and construction projected for mid year of FY
1996-97. Previously, right-of-way acquisition and construc-
tion was projected beyond the six-year scope of the FY 1991-
92 plan. VDOT had previously estimated that construction
would begin in FY 1999-2000. The County's Six Year Second-
ary plan reflects this construction date (January, 1999) for
its portion of the Parkway from the City Corporate limits to
Rio Road. The financial plan for the County Secondary Plan
should be reviewed and modified this year to permit both
sections to be constructed on the same schedule. However,
in order to move funding up to construct the Parkway in
conjunction with the City's time table other projects cur-
rently scheduled for construction may be delayed.
The scope of this project is now listed from the Route 250
Bypass to North Corporate limits of the City. This reflects
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7) M.B. 41, Pg. 294
the City recommendation for the limits of the project.
Route 250 Bypass to Preston Avenue has been removed.
NEW PROJECTS
Route 29, Close Crossover - This crossover is located south
of the North Fork Rivanna River across from Fabrics Unlimit-
ed. This crossover was recommended to be closed in the
'Route 29 Corridor Study' and is ranked seventh of thirteen
on the priority list of crossover closings endorsed by the
Board of Supervisors in 1991.
Route 29, Construct Left Turn Lane - This project will add a
southbound left turn lane at the crossover serving the Cedar
Hill Mobile Home Park. This crossover is 0.2 mile south of
the above-noted crossover closing. Construction of a left
turn lane will better accommodate the additional traffic
generated with the closure of the crossover to the north.
Route 29 Interchanges at Rio, Hydraulic and Greenbrier -
Total project cost $17,700,000 ($6,000,000 for preliminary
engineering and $14,600,000 for right-of-way acquisition)
over six years for preliminary engineering of interchanges
and right-of-way acquisition. Preliminary engineering is
scheduled to begin in FY 1992-93.
Route 29, Alignment ImprovemenEs Between Warrenton and
Charlottesville - This project provides for functional
planning and engineering to determine type and method of
improvements for the Route 29 Corridor. Since reconstruc-
tion of Route 29 from Charlottesville to Airport Road is
already in the final engineering and development stage, this
project would likely include the five miles of Route 29 from
Airport Road to Greene County. This project is scheduled to
begin in FY 1992-93.
Route 20, at 1-64 Interchange and Entrance to Blue Ridge
Hospital This project, as described in the plan, includes
an extension of the acceleration lane onto southbound Route
20 from the 1-64 east bound off-ramp, restricting left turns
at the Blue Ridge Hospital entrance crossover and adding a
southbound left turn lane at the crossover serving PVCC and
the Visitors Center. The left turn lane and reconstruction
of the crossover to restrict left turns have recently been
completed using other funding sources. The acceleration
lane remains to be done. This project is anticipated to be
constructed in FY 1996-97. It is Mr. Roosevelt's desire
that the additional funds be used to relocate Route 317, the
Blue Ridge Hospital entrance road, to the crossover to the
south which serves PVCC.
Albemarle Connector to UVA (North Grounds) This project is
to undertake preliminary engineering for the connector road
between Route 250 Bypass/Route 29 Bypass connector to the
North Grounds. Engineering is to be undertaken in FY 1992-
93."
Mr. Roosevelt announced that Board members have a copy of the proposed
budget for secondary road improvements for FY 1992-93. He said the hearing
today is a step in the process covered by the Code of Virginia, under Section
33.1-70.01, which indicates that at least once each calendar year, representa-
tives of the Highway Department shall meet with the Board of Supervisors for
the purpose of preparing a budget for the expenditure of improvement funds for
the next fiscal year. He stated that representatives of the Highway Depart-
ment shall furnish the Supervisors with an updated estimate of funds, and
representatives of the Highway Department and the Supervisors shall jointly
prepare a list of projects to be carried out in that fiscal year, taken from
the Six Year Plan, in order of priority. This was done at the Board's day
meeting mn June, when he presented this year's allocation, which is
$3,116,257. He commented that a tentative budget was agreed upon. He went on
to say that the Code stipulates that such a list of priorities shall be
presented at a public hearing, and comments of citizens shall be obtained and
considered. Following the hearing, the Board, with the concurrence of the
Highway Department's representative, shall adopt an official priority program
for the ensuing year. The Highway Department shall include such listed
projects in its secondary road budget for the coming year. He is prepared to
give details concerning the budget, if it is the Board's desire, or the Board
can go directly to the public comments.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out the differences between this budget and the
first year of the Six Year Plan, which was adopted during the spring of this
year. He added that the total allocation for this year varies from that
assumed at the time the Six Year Plan was developed by $263.00 out of a $3.0
million allocation. There ms slightly more money that needs to go to unpaved
roads, than was assumed when the Six Year Plan was developed. He has changed
the allocations approximately $6,000 for unpaved roads and reduced the
allocation for other projects by approximately $7,200. Other than that, Mr.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
M.B. 41, Pg. 295
Roosevelt stated that the budget follows almost completely the first year of
the Six Year Plan which was adopted in April.
Mr. Bain called attention to the improvement of the intersection of
Route 708. He wondered if this allocation just remains as it is, until the
improvement takes place. Mr. Roosevelt replied that this is part of an
ongoing allocation for Route 708. He said the plan adopted in the spring
anticipated $192,000, but the allocation in this budget is shown at $186,000.
The plan also anticipated another allocation of $51,000 next year. He said
all of the money is not allocated to this project which is needed, but if the
Board and the Highway Department officials decide at a later time to drop this
project, it is a simple procedure to transfer the money to other projects. He
went on to say that with the Barracks Road and Pifth Street - Old Lynchburg
Road projects going to construction later this year, there will be plenty of
places to put the money.
There were no further questions from the Board, so Mr. Bowerman opened
the public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bain then moved approval of the following budget for Secondary Road
Improvements for FY 1992-93. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall Martin and
Perkins. '
NAYS: None.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET 1992-93
COUNTY WIDE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY SERVICES $ 20,000
COUNTY WIDE PIPE INSTALLATION 25,000
COUNTY WIDE SURVEY AND PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 20,000
COUNTY WIDE FERTILIZER AND SEEDING 5,000
COUNTY WIDE DISTRICT DESIGN SUPPORT 30,000
ROUTE 625 I~ATTON FERRY 10,000
ROUTE 664 FROM RT 665 TO RT 663 S - PLANT MIX 17,000
ROUTE 729 FROM 0.8 MI N RT 1120 TO RT 53 - PLANT MIX 93,000
ROUTE 800 FROM RT 6 TO NELSON COUNTY LINE - PLANT MIX 71,000
ROUTE 810 FROM RT 674 W TO RT 672 W - PLANT MIX 49,000
SUBTOTAL $ 340,000
ROUTE 631 FROM 0.3 MI E RT 29 TO RT 650 $ 215,000
002-128,C503
ROUTE 708 FROM 0.14 MI E RT 631 TO 0.07 MI W RI 631 185,101
002-241 ,C501
ROUTE 654 FROM RI 1406 TO RT 656 200,000
002'242,C501
ROUTE 631 FROM 1.34 MI S RT 64 TO 0.14 MI S RI 64 1,487,367
002-224, C502
ROUTE 866 FROM RT 743 TO RT 1455 10,277
002-236,C501
SUBTOTAL $2,097,745
ROUTE 682 RAILROAD CROSSING CSX RAILROAD GATES & LIGHTS $ 100,000
002-S33,M501
ROUTE 682 FROM RT 250 TO 1.7 MI S RT 787 578,512
O02-P33,N501
SUBTOTAL $ 678,512
July(pagel,9) 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B, 41, Pg. 296
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Letter dated May 26, 1992, from
Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation,
enclosing a copy of the "Tentative 1992-93 Construction Allocations and Six-
Year Improvement Pro~ram for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway
Systems, as well as Public Transit, Ports, and Airports (deferred from June
10, 1992).
Mr. Cilimberg noted that last month the Board had requested some details
on the primary, interstate and urban system plan as provided by the Virginia
Department of Transportation. He said that Mr. Benish has provided a memo
which shows some of the basic dollar and project comparisons between last
year's primary plan and this year's primary plan, and Mr. Cilimberg discussed
this memo in detail.
Mr. Bain inquired about the Route 20 improvement at the ramp headin~
south from Interstate 64. He'asked when this improvement would be made. Mr.
Roosevelt answered that work has been scheduled for 1996-97 to extend the
acceleration lane at the Interstate 64 ramp heading south on Route 20. Mr.
Bain asked if funds could be found to move this improvement forward. Mr.
Roosevelt replied that he had been surprised to even see this improvement in
the Six Year Plan. He thinks that to get the improvement included in the
1996-97 schedule is all that can be hoped for, at this time.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that the creek along Route 20 is goin~ to be a
problem for this improvement. Mr. Roosevelt concurred. He said that he has
some concerns as to whether the amount of money shown in that Six Year Plan
estimate is enough to take care of extending the acceleration lane and
widening the shoulder into that creek area. He noted that this has been
considered as a safety improvement project three or four times over the last
five years, and each time the estimate of the cost is extremely high. Mr.
Marshall noted that he uses the ramp from Interstate 64 to Route 20 four or
five times a week, and it is a dangerous place. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he
is hopeful that the modifications that were made to the crossover at Blue
Ridge Hospital will relieve the situation. (Mr. St. John left at 9:40 a.m.)
Mr. Marshall wondered if a stop sign at the Interstate 64 ramp and Route
20 would not be better than a yield sign. He noted that a yield sign to most
people only means that they need to slow down. He pointed out that cars need
to stop at that point. Mr. Roosevelt remarked that there is a sign at the
ramp which indicates that there is no acceleration lane there. Mr. Bain
suggested that this improvement be left as it is, until accident information
indicaEes that there are a lot of accidents occurrin~ in that area.
Mr. Marshall commented that, even with the Blue Ridge Hospital crossover
improvement, a lot of people still stay in the right lane and do not go over
into the left lane. He really thinks that there needs to be a stop sign at
the Interstate 64 and Route 20 ramp.
Mr. Martin then mentioned the Route 29 crossover closings. He said that
he realizes this was planned quite a few years a~o, and there was a lot of
public comment and a lot of input before these decisions were made, but he
thinks that the closin~ of all of the crossovers on Route 29 at the Forest
Lakes and Hollymead area is 9oing to make the people in that area feel as
though they live in a city, as opposed to the County. He said that to get
anywhere, people will have to go to a stoplight to turn around. He also
believes that it will be an injustice to the small business people who have
been out in that area all along. He does not see why the closin~ of these
crossovers is such a high priority.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that one of the comments which he hears quite
often from people in discussions about the Western Bypass and Route 29
corridor improvements is that by the time that work is done, 20 or 30 years
from now, it will be of no value, because the area from the South Fork of the
Rivanna north on Route 29 is ~oing to be just as congested as it is from the
South Fork south along Route 29. He said these people are saying that the
Department of Transportation and County officials need to do somethin~ about
this, but he pointed out that these officials are in the limits of their pow-
ers in tryin9 to do something about the situation He hopes to concentrate
heavy traffic generators at a few points along that section of Route 29,
rather than having an entrance every 100 feet, as the section between Rio and
Hydraulic Roads has developed. He went on to say that the only way this can
be done is that, as money becomes available, some of the crossovers are taken
away at the points where development could occur. He commented that if the
section of Route 29 north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River is saved,
then the major developments of the land have to be concentrated on each side
at two or three locations. He said this has been done at the Forest Lakes and
Hollymead entrances. He is hopeful that there will only be three major
intersections between Airport Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna. He
noted that, as the intersections become con~ested, for a relatively low cost,
improvements can be made at these locations, rather than having to widen all
of Route 29 north of the South Fork to eight lanes. (Mr. St. John returned at
9:45 a.m.)
Mr. Martin stated that he understands what Mr. Roosevelt is trying to
accomplish, and he is not disagreeing with the rationale. He is not arguing,
but, to some extent, he is making a complaint. He is trying to say that it is
making it more and more difficult for the people who live there to do minor
things. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he believes the alternative would be
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B Pg.297
(Page 10) ·
that 20 years from now the section of Route 29 north of the South Fork will
look like what the section of Rio Road to Hydraulic Road looks today. He
noted that no progress comes without pain.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned the scheduling of the City's and County's
sections of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and the fact that negotiations need to
be done.
Mrs. Humphris nexu called attention to the intersection of the Meadow
Creek Parkway with the Bypass. She asked if there is an interchange or an
intersection planned there. Mr. Cilimberg replied thaE there were two
differenE approaches which involved both an interchange and an intersection.
He does not believe that any final plans have been approved.
Mrs. Humphris then remarked that in the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Transportation Study (CATS) Plan, there is a major interchange shown at
Hydraulic Road and Route 29 and the Route 250 bypass. She said this inter-
change does not show, however, anywhere in the urban plan. She asked if there
was any information as to when this interchange would be developed. Mro
Cilimberg answered that the Transportation Improvement Program, which the MPO
has been examining, does not show any of the City's projects. Mrs. Humphris
wondered if this interchange has been overlooked. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that he cannot answer this question. He said that there is an MPO Technical
Committee meeting next week, and he will bring up this matter.
Mrs. Humphris noted that she has asked about this interchange several
times. She said the intersection ms a very important part of the CATS
program, but she has never heard it officially mentioned, since the Board has
been trying to coordinate everything into the three phases.
Mrs. Humphris next asked questions about the connector road into the
north grounds of the University. She pointed out that she had read a discus-
sion in which she had been involved, in the minutes of a Board of Supervisors
November, 1991 meeting. She said the discussion ms the same today as it was
in 1991, and she pointed out that the minutes indicated that the City, County,
University and VDoT have all agreed that there should be a connector road into
the north grounds of the Universmty. She recalled that, when this was first
jointly approved by the City, County and University, she wrote a letter to
President Casteen and all of the members of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board suggesting that it would be helpful, before blanket approval, that there
be some idea of where such a road would be built, and what the impact would be
on any community, most particularly, the Canterbury Hills community. She
never received a reply from any official to whom she sent the letter, and this
is very disappointing. In the document involving the Primary Systems Improve-
ment Programs, the last item on the second page describes this connecuor road
as the proposed Route 29 Bypass Alternative 10 Route 250 Bypass, North
Grounds, UVa Campus road. She added that this is different from the earlier
description of the road. She wondered if there was a reason why this descrip-
tion has been changed from the way it was written before, noting that it is an
Alternative 10 Route 250 Bypass road. She is concerned about where this
connector road is going to be located. She went on to say that this road is
in the plan, and it has been universally approved by all of the concerned
parties. She asked if there was anybody in this room who has had a discus-
sion, or has any knowledge as to where this road will be located relating to
the Canterbury Hills neighborhood and the Bypass. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that he has not seen anything except what was shown in the very conceptual
lines which were developed during the discussion of the bypass by the City,
County and University committee members. He suggested that, perhaps, Mr.
Roosevelt could enlighten Mrs. Humphris about the connector road to the UVa
grounds.
Mrs. Humphris pointed out that, obviously, there could nou be an inter-
change so close to the one at Barracks Road, and she noted that the UVa
grounds interchange would be between the two interchanges at Barracks Road and
Route 250. She has some serious concerns about this. She remarked that it
seems as though the Board keeps moving forward, but the Supervisors have no
idea what they are approving. She asked Mr. Roosevelt if he can tell her the
beginning point of this road.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that the purpose of the $50,000 allocation is to
do some study of the connector road into the north grounds of UVa to find out
where it will be located and what it ms supposed to do. He said that every-
body has universally approved the concept, but he has not seen plans, detailed
or otherwise, on any type of a connection. He did nou even know that there
was a plan which showed how it would outlet into the north grounds. He
reiterated that the $50,000 is to investigate various alternatives and take
this first step to try to develop the concept of how this connection is going
to be made. He noted that everybody agreed five years ago that an investiga-
tion needed to be done on the Route 29 corridor, and $3.0 million was needed
to consider the various alternatives. He believes that this is a similar
situation. He said that everybody has agreed that there needs to be a
connector road into the north grounds of the University of Virginia, and now
$50,000 is needed to start looking at some alternatives. Me sees this as a
logical step in the process.
Mrs. Humphris said that she appreciated Mr. Roosevelt's commenus, but
she wanued Mr. Roosevelt to understand her concerns. She stated that she
wants to make sure that lines are not put on a map that are impossible to
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
M.B. 41, Pg. 298
remove, but which might be unacceptable. She is a proponent of not sacrific-
ing the neighborhoods to roads. She does not think that this should be done,
and she hopes that the $50,000 does not buy an intrusion on the Canterbury
Hills neighborhood. Mr. Roosevelt answered thaE as alternatives are consid-
ered, it may be found that there are none which are acceptable to the local
government. Mrs. Humphris asked that staff to keep abreast of the situation,
and let the Supervisors know what is happening with the UVa connector road.
Next, Mrs. Humphris inquired about the interchanges at Rio Road,
Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road. She wondered how the sequencing of the
Rio, Hydraulic and Greenbrier interchanges fits into the schedule shown on
Page 47 in the document on primary roads. She mentioned a memo from Tom
Farley to J. W. Jenkins, dated April 6, 1992, in which Mr. Farley states that
the current schedule for plan development of Phase Two will start in 1994 for
the Hydraulic Road interchange, 1996 for the Greenbrier Road interchange and
1998 for the Rio Road interchange. She asked 'if this statement matches the
timeframe as is shown on Page 47 of the document on primary roads. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that Mr. Farley might not have been aware in April of how
the National Highway System funds will affect the total program. He said
no one was aware of this at that time. He mentioned that the funds available
in the primary program have increased because of this particular funding
decision of the Federal government, as well as some other funding availabili-
ty. He stated that nothing has been investigated any further relating to the
interchanges. He remarked that the preliminary engineering shown in 1993-94
does not specify a particular project. He added that the plan shows funding
going out, but it does not show it under any particular activity, such as
preliminary engineering or rights-of-way construction. He said it also shows
that there would be a balance of approximately $7.0 million at the end of the
six year period. He assumes this amount of money would be for the actual con-
struction. Mr. Bain commented that the allocation has nothing to do with
construction. He said that the funds are all for rights-of-way acquisition
during 1997-98.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the planning and engineering for the interchanges
are going to be integrated into the widening of Route 29, so that there will
not be a lot of expensive changes when the interchanges are done. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that this is pointed out at every field review meeting.
Mr. Bain stated that it looks as though the planning for the Route 29 inter-
changes will not take place at the same time as the Route 29 changes, given
the information that the Board has now. Mr. Cilimberg answered that VDoT
officials' responses have been that there are priorities to get the sections
of Route 29 built, but he said the staff keeps pointing out the need to get
the interchange designs done. Mr. Cilimberg then stated that he wonders why
the County should have to pay for damages now and for the property later. He
went on to say the staff can ask VDoT officials if they anticipate now, under
the funding for preliminary engineering as it is shown, if it will at least be
known how the interchanges are going to be designed, at the time construction
is begun, even if the rights-of-way are not going to be acquired at that time.
He noted that the plan does not currently show rights-of-way acquisition until
1996-97, and this is beyond any of this particular segment of the project
which starts next year. '
Mrs. Humphris stated that, speaking as a taxpayer, since it is known
that the interchanges have to be built, and since it would save a huge amount
of money to plan for them at this time, she thinks it would be unconscionable
for the planning not to be done, now. She said this is not wisely spending
the funds. Mr. Roosevelt replied that VDoT officials are in the process of
buying the rights-of-way from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road. He said this does
not include purchasing the rights-of-way for the ultimate interchanges. He
stated that just from his connection with the design of the Rio Road inter-
change and his knowledge of the Greenbrier Drive and Hydraulic Road locations,
when those interchanges are constructed, there is going to have to be major
changes in the grade of Route 29. He added that to include the design a~d
purchase of rights-of-way for these interchanges will substantially delay the
reconstruction of Route 29.
Mr. Roosevelt did not want what he was about to say to be misinter-
preted, so he asked for an opportunity to explain it. He said there is a
phrase that he uses probably more often than he should, which is, "if some-
thing is worth doing, it is worth doing poorly." He said this is the case
here. He wenE on to say it is known that Route 29 needs to be designed for
these interchanges, and the land needs to be purchased, and the interchanges
need to be built, but the problem is that it will take close to the year 2000
to get all the money and plans together. He said it is already ten years past
the time when the existing Route 29 should have been widened to accommodate
the traffic which is already there. He added that it is not logical to wait
for everything to come together in order to get on with this project. He em-
that it means doing the project poorly and not doing a complete job,
in order to get a facility that will take care of the traffic, which is there
now. He thinks, however, it has to be done. He went on to say that the $17.0
million for the interchanges is not going to touch the construction costs for
the interchanges. He said this money, as he understands it, is to allow some
design work for these interchange areas to know what properties are going to
be affected, and then as property owners come forward and say they cannot
market or develop their property and that they have a hardship case, the
rights-of-way can be purchased on a hardship basis. This is all that the
$17.0 million is going to do. He said this money is not going to buy all of
the rights-of-way that are needed, and it is not going to build any inter-
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B.41, Pg.299
(page 12 )
changes. He added that it is just an attempt to respond to what VDoT repre-
sentatives have heard from this Board and citizens in this area, which is that
planning and preparing need to be done for the hardship cases in the inter-
change areas, such as is being done for the Western Bypass area.
Mrs. Humphris asked how much money would be spent for hardship cases,
and how much would be spent for preliminary engineering of the Western Bypass.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that he cannot answer that, because he does not have
this information in his mind. He said, however, that the $17.0 million should
not be considered as money for the development of detailed plans of the
interchanges, and as a first allocation in an ongoing preliminary engineering
process. He added that this money is to furnish plans zn enough detail to
respond to the hardship cases. He stated that the land around the interchange
areas is some of the most expensive land in Albemarle County. He went on to
say that compared to the estimates of costs on the Western Bypass, while that
land is dear to the people who own it~ most of it is undeveloped. He comment-
ed that the land around Rio Road where businesses, such as shopping center
areas, the bank building, Hardees and the tire dealership, is very expensive
land. He said that if the $17.0 million has to be paid for hardship cases, it
will be gone very quickly. He stated that this money is not meant to be for
fast or forward moving preliminary engineering on these interchange areas. He
remarked that it is money that will respond to the concerns over the hardship
nature of the property in that area, as the allocations being made to the
Western Bypass are to respond to hardship cases along that corridor.
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is significant money beyond the amount
needed to respond to the hardship cases already in the Alternative 10 Bypass
budget for preliminary engineering. Mr. Roosevelt answered negatively. Mrs.
Humphris then inquired if Mr. Roosevelt is saying that most of this money is
to respond to the hardship cases. Mr. Roosevelt answered, "yes."
Mrs. Humphris' next question regarding the Western Bypass dealt with the
$50,000 that is allocated for the 1992-93 Environmental Impact Study. She
asked if this is the final Environmental Impact Study. Mr. Roosevelt replied
that he is under the impression that this $50,000 is to pay bills that
occurred because of the study that has already been completed. He does not
know if any County staff member has talked to a Culpeper or Richmond official
about this, but this is his impression. He does not believe the final
Environmental Impact Study takes place until the actual design is developed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he wanted to put into perspective the fact that
the interchanges are definitely something that is acceptable to the local
government. He wenu on to say that the agreement with the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and the City and the University spoke to the interchanges
as a priority in Phase Two, and they have not been funded until this document.
He thinks that the inclusion of almost $18.0 million for preliminary engineer-
ing and rights-of-way acquisition is a significant indication that the
Department of Transportation officials do intend to build these interchanges
prior to the construction of Alternate 10. He does not want this to get lost
in this discussion.
Mr. Bain concurred. He said, in addition, the fact that the City
officials have moved their funds forward for the City construction of Meadow
Creek Parkway is also significant, and it is a sign that the County needs to
move forward with its portion of Meadow Creek Parkway, when the Six Year Plan
is revised. Mr. Bain commented that he assumes the funds included cover all
three of the interchanges. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes." Mr. Martin
remarked that he thinks it is significant that Mr. Roosevelt has worked hard
to help include the $17.0 million funding amount for the interchanges. He
thinks it is also significant that Meadow Creek Parkway has moved forward on
the list of priorities in the City, and he is confident that the County is
definitely willing to do its part.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Highway Matters: Discussion - Request from Harold
E. Young, Jr., re: Route 20 North near Foxport Farm.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board is in receipt of a request from
Harold E. Young, Jr., regarding a dangerous curve close to his Foxport Farm on
Route 20. He said the Board also has a response from Mr. Roosevelt in
writing. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if he wanted to comment on this matter. Mr.
Roosevelt remarked he will request that this location be reviewed as a safety
improvemen~ project. He had received, almost at the same time that he got Mr.
Young's request, a similar request from VDoT's Traffic Engineer in Culpeper,
who handles the safety improvement project process for the district. Mr.
Roosevelt wen~ on to say that he is requesting recommendations by July 20 of
locations which should be reviewed for traffic accident data. He is going to
include this location as one of those that he is going to recommend, along
with a dozen others in the primary road system. He stated that while funds
are not available for construction improvements, and the process to obtain
those funds is rather slow, VDoT officials are in the process of reviewing
these requests.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that Mr. Roosevelt has received a letter from the
Owens', and he asked if Mr. Roosevelt has made any decisions, since the public
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B 41, Pg. 300
(Page 13 )
hearing, about the scope of the project to which Mr. Owens' letter referred.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that there is a ten day period after the public hearing
for receiving comments, and the public hearing was held this past Monday. Mr.
Roosevelt has scheduled a time with a VDoT representative, who handles prelim-
inary engineering, to look at the site on Thursday, and Mr. Roosevelt will,
hopefully, make a recommendation to this Board for consideration at the August
Board meeting.
Mr. Perkins, next, remarked that Mr. Roosevelt had received a letter
from Henry Chiles, owner of Crown Orchards, about Route 693 and the possibili-
ty of cutting back some of the brush, etc., at that location. Mr. Roosevelt
responded that he has spoken to Mr. Chiles, since receiving that letter. Mr.
Roosevelt told him that he did not feel it was worthwhile, at this time, to
look at improvement needs along that road, since any improvement needs would
have to be worked into the Six Year Plan. He indicated to Mr. Chiles,
however, that he would ask V DoT's Maintenance Manager to meet with Mr. Chiles
to review the curves and decide what trimming needs to be done in hopes that
something of a maintenance nature might help to open up the sight distance.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he had sent a copy of his response (Mr. Roosevelt's)
to this Board and the County's Planning staff, so that Mr. Chiles' original
request could be considered the next time changes in the Six Year Plan are
examined.
Mr. Perkins then mentioned that he and Sergeant Ronnie Parham had gone
out to look at the railroad underpass at Route 240 in Crozet. Mr. Perkins
stated that he and the Sergeant feel there is a real safety hazard there.
There is a sidewalk at the railroad underpass which is almost the same level
as the highway. He thinks that the sidewalk needs to be built up and,
perhaps, a handrail installed. He noted that a lot of elderly people, who
live at Wyndham, use this sidewalk. The day he and Sergeant Parham visited
the site, it had rained, and the ground was wet. He said there was a lot of
gravel, dirt and debris which made it unsafe for anybody to walk along the
sidewalk. He added that if it had been freezing weather, there would have
been ice there rather than the water. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he would
consider the matter to see if the sidewalk area could be built up, so that the
water would hOE stay on the sidewalks. He could not promise that anything
would be done. He does not believe a handrail is feasible at that site.
Mr. Martin mentioned that he had gotten several phone calls concerning
the T2, T3 and T4 Meadow Creek Parkway extensions backing up into the Holly-
mead and Forest Lakes neighborhoods. He has made a general commenu to the
public and the people who live in those communities that, at this stage, only
a proposal is being made. He indicated to the public that there is plenty of
time for public comment and public input, and the people will have a strong
voice in what is evenuually done. His personal opinion is that the majority
of people will probably be in favor of this concept, which does not mean that
it will happen. On the other hand, Mr. Martin noted that if a majority of the
people who live in those communities are against this concept, then he would
say that it will most likely not happen. He reiterated that there is plenty
of time for public input between now and the actual time that the project
moves forward.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt to consider an acceleration lane at the
blinking light at Brownsville at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route
240. Mr. Bain is unsure, however, if this can be done in the existing
right-of-way. He said that an acceleration lane would facilitate traffic
movement at that intersection, without worsening safety conditions. He
mentioned that he knows nothing can be done about the terrain on the south
side of this intersection, but the north side can be graded.
Mr. Roosevelt re-introduced his assistant, Angela Tucker, to the Board
members. He had brought her to a Board meeting when she started working with
VDoT approximately two years ago. He mentioned that his last assistant, Jeff
Echols, was recently promoted to a Resident Engineer's position in Salem, so
Mr. Roosevelt's office is back to a one assistant residency. Mr. Roosevelt
has revised his organization slightly, and Ms. Tucker is now handling all of
the field operations. He also wanted to let the Board know that his vacation
is scheduled for the first week in August, so Ms. Tucker will represent VDoT
at the August meeting.
(Mr. Perkins left at 10:23 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Section 2.1-2(c), of the
Code of Albemarle, to charge an application fee for withdrawal of land from an
agricultural and forestal district. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June
16 and June 23, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg reminded Board members that, at last month's Board
meeting, there was a recommendation to amend Section 2.1-2 of Chapter 2.1,
Agricultural/Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, to include a fee
for withdrawal from districts. He said the fee was advertised at $150.00.
He
noted that the Board asked staff to consider the actual costs which have been
estimated for processing agricultural/forestal districts. In reconsidering
this fee, the staff discovered that the estimated cost was approximately
$290.00. He said the Board decided at that time, with the staff's recommenda-
tion, to absorb part of the actual cost out of an interest for promoting
districts' creation as part of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
He noted that, with a $290.00 actual cost, and a $150.00 fee actually adopted,
there is approximately a 50 percent subsidy. He stated that withdrawal from
the districts is not considered in the Comprehensive Plan, and it is a differ-
ent matter altogether.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing, but no one came
forward to speak. Mr. Bowerman then closed the public hearing, and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mrs. Humphris asked if $290.00 should be approved, as opposed to
$300.00, if this Board wants to cover the costs. Mr. Cilimberg answered that,
considering there might be somewhat less total cost involved for staff work
for withdrawal from the agricultural/forestal districts, he would suggest
$250.o0.
Mr. Bain then offered motion to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, in Section 2.1-2, of the
Code of Albemarle. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 2.1, "AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS"
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED that Chapter 2.1, "Agricultural and Forestal
Districts" of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2.1-2, be amended
and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1-2. Same--Application.
(a) The director of planning and community development
shall cause to be prepared application forms conforming to the
sample form set forth in Section 15.1-1509E of the Code of Virgin-
ia and shall thereafter mamntain in his office for use by eligible
landowners a reasonable number of copies of such forms.
(b) Each application for the creation of or addition to an
agricultural and forestal district shall consist of the completed
application form as set forth hereinabove, together with two (2)
required maps, and shall be submitted to the governing body at the
department of planning and community development.
(c) Each application for creation of an agricultural and
forestal district shall be accompanied by a fee of two hundred
fifty dollars and no cents ($250.00). No fee shall be charged for
adding parcels to an agricultural and forestal district, or for
reviewing an existing agricultural and forestal district.
(d) Each application for withdrawal from an agricultural
and forestal district, other than a by-right withdrawal as allowed
under Section 15.1-1511 B.l(v), F., or 15.1-1513D., of the Code of
Virginia shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty dollars and no
cents ($50.00).
Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Article I, Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-
2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors, to set the compensation of the
Board of Supervisors for FY 1993 as follows: $9,095.00 for each board member,
plus a stipend of $1,800.00 for the chairman and a stipend of $35.00 for the
vice-chairman for each meeting chaired. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 16 and June 23, 1992.)
Mr. Tucker informed the Board members that a public hearing is necessary
whenever the board's salary is adjusted. He said the staff has recommended
and budgeted an inflation increase for the Board members' salaries of 3.1
percent. He stated that this amounts to $275.00 more per year for each
supervisor and will change each Board member's salary from $8,820.00 to
$9,095.00.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked for public comment
regarding the Supervisors' salaries. No one wished to make comments, so Mr.
Bowerman closed the public hearing. (Mr. Perkins returned at 10:28 p.m.)
Mr. Bain then offered a motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration"
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
M.B. 41, Pg. 302
of the Code of Albemarle Setting the Compensation of the Board of Supervisors
for Fiscal Year 1993.
Mr. Martin suggested that the increase in compensation not be given to
the Supervisors. He related this situation to the earlier conversation
involving volunteers, and he said that when he volunteered to be on the School
Board, he had no expectation of getting any kind of pay. He was so surprised
when he received a check in the mail that he called the central office of the
school system and asked for an explanation. He suggested that the Supervisors
turn down the monthly payments and hold them for a few years.
Mrs. Humphris remarked that she does not serve as a supervisor for a
paycheck. In all fairness to Board members past, present and in the future,
however, Mrs. Humphris noted that there are many.occasions in which a person
who chooses to become elected to this Board actually has to give up as much as
one-quarter of his or her salary, because of requirements Of a job, if that
person is an employed person, such as someone at the University. She pointed
out that, in the past, there was a member of this Board who only received
three-quarters of his salary from his regular job, because of responsibilities
that he had with this Board. She commented that this is quite a sacrifice
when children are being sent to college. She stated that the proposed
increase is not necessarily for each Board member, individually. She added
that the increase is to keep things fair for other members of the Board whose
circumstances are not similar to the current Supervisors. She said the
Supervisors need not to think of themselves, but of other Board members, and
what happens if this compensation falls behind. She went on to say that it
needs to be understood that this is a piece of work, and it is not a volunteer
activity. She noted that it takes a great amount of time and dedication, and
she thinks that the minimal amount of $275.00 a year increase for each Board
member is certainly justified. She said it is only fair that the people who
choose to be Board members are recompensed.
Mr. Martin stated that he is not trying to make a big issue of this
matter. He believes that he falls into the category of the Board members to
which Mrs. Humphris referred, because he works for the State, and he has given
up at least two weeks of vacation because of his position on this Board. He,
personally, feels that the Supervisors should not accept the 3.1 percent
increase.
Mr. Marshall commented that he will support Mr. Martin's suggestion,
because he feels the same way. Mr. Marshall went on to say that it costs him,
personally, a great deal of money to serve on this Board. He knew this when
he ran for office. Considering the present economic conditions, he does not
feel tham it is justifiable to vote for an increase for the Supervisors.
Mr. Perkins remarked that he was the only incumbent who campamgned for a
supervisor's position last year, and he received a great deal of criticism
because he voted to increase the Supervisors' compensation for the last fiscal
period. He is unsure how he will vote on this matter for the 1993 fiscal
year, but he thinks that if there are not yearly increases, and the compensa-
tion falls behind for four or five years, it will really attract the public's
attention, if the need arises to upgrade it. He would rather see small
increases each year, instead of putting off the increases, and then falling
behind to the point that something has to be done. He recalled that Mr. Rick
Bowie said, a few years ago, if the Board members' compensation had kept up
with inflation and other County increases, the Board members would be receiv-
ing $14,000.00 a year. He reiterated that the Board members' compensation is
a matter of which the public ~s aware, and maybe even overreacts. He empha-
sized, again, that if this matter is not handled every year with small
increases, then it will be harder for the public to accept.
Mrs. Humphris concurred. She stated that when increases are not
approved each year, it will make it harder for future Supervisors who may have
to vote on the matter during a time when funds are scarce. She thinks the
current Supervmsors have to be fair to everybody and every circumstance which
might be represented on this Board. Mr. Bain commented that the money is not
important in relation to what the Supervisors are accomplishing, and he
believes the public certainly recognzzes that Board members are not servmng on
this Board to put money in their pockets. He mentioned that in Northern
Virginia, the Board members' salaries are $35,000 and $40,000, and almost all
of these people are full-time Supervisors with three or four staff members.
He certainly does not wanu Albemarle County to get to that point, but it is
important that the Supervisors be recognized. He agrees with Mr. Perkins that
this compensation needs to be ongoing, even though it does not amount to a lot
of money for the Supervisors. He pointed out that it will be a lot easier to
plan for this compensation on an annual basis, if the compensation keeps pace
with inflation, which is what the staff and Board have always strived to do.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he thinks it is important to keep the
compensation such that someone, who might not be in the financial condition as
some of the current Board members, would not have an economic disincentive to
be on the Board because of the time requirement. He also thinks it is
important to keep the salary as a stipend and not as a full-time wage. He
said that if the stipend is not increased every year in a modest amount, a
situation might develop where there will be four or five years which pass,
and a significant increase will be necessary. He added that it will become
very difficult, at that point, to increase the stipend. He thinks it is
important to have a reasonable level of compensation for this Board in order
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
M.B. 41, Pg. 303
tO recognize those people who have an economic disincentive to take the time
to run for a supervisor's position. He does no5 want the situation to get to
the point where only wealthy people who do not have to work for a living or,
otherwise, have a good living, are the only people who can run for the Board
of Supervisors. Mrs. Humphris reminded the Board members that the amoun5 of
increase for each Board member is only $22.92 a month.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion, which carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A/9]D REENACT
ARTICLE I, CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION',
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
SETTING THE COMPENSATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
BE IT ORDAINED that Article I, Chapter 2, "Administration"
of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, be amended and reen-
acted to read as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as
follows: Nine thousand ninety-five dollars and no cents ($9,095.-
00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her
regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of
thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired;
provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the
chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred
dollars ($1,800.00).
(Note: Mr. St. John left at 10:30 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Public hearing on a request from A. Murray White-
hill to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to include Tax Map 58, Parcel 75, for water service only. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1994.)
Mr. Bowerman explained that Mr. A. Murray Whitehill, III, has made a
request for Mrs. R. Douglas Whitehill, to amend the service area boundaries of
the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 58, Parcel 75, for
water service only. Mr. Cilimberg reminded board members that last month the
Supervisors had received this request. He said the staff report summarizes
the situation, and he noted that the request results because of the problems
experienced with the quantity of water in this particular area.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the hardship for this applicant has been con-
firmed. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the documentation relating to hardship
is shown on Attachment C. He pointed out that the staff' has not confirmed a
hardship, but he noted that the staff never confirms hardships in cases such
as this one. He said this ms, however, Mr. Whitehill's position, and Mr.
Whitehill may be able to speak to the problems he has been experiencing. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the dwelling unit, over time, has been occupied by
one person. He went on to say, however, that when the dwelling is occupied by
more than one person, water quantity problems are experienced. Mrs. Humphris
commented that she wanted to be sure that hardship was involved so that the
Board could be fair to every applicant. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board
might want to request Mr. Whitehill to provide this documentation so there
will be a clear picture of the problems that are being experienced.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. No one wished to
make comments, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mr. Bain asked how long the house has been located on this parcel. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that the well serving this particular residence was
established in the early 1950's, and he is assuming the house was built in the
1950's, also. He asked that Mr. Whitehill discuss this further, if Mr. Bain
wants more clarification.
Mr. Bain then asked Mr. Whitehill when the structures on the property
were constructed. Mr. Whitehill replied that the structures were built in the
early to mid 1950's. (Note: Mr. St. John returned at 10:41 a.m.)
Mr. Bain then asked if there have been any new strucuures put on this
property. Mr. Whitehill answered,"no." He and his wife built a house on
another parcel, and they have a well. He added that the well does not have
enough water to handle his place and the other house. Mr. Bain commented that
he brought up this matter because of a request that the Board will consider
later.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.304
(Page 17)
Mr. Bain then remarked that because of the fact that these units have
been on the property for that period of time, he will make a motion for
approval of th~request from A. Murray Whitehill to amend the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to include Tax Map 58,
Parcel 75, for water service only, to existing structures. Mrs. Humphris
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carrmed by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(Note: At 10:41 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:55 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Children & Youth Commission Teen Center.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board is in receipt of a request from the
Children and Youth Commission asking for the County's support in organizing a
teen center at the Park Street YMCA. He strongly supports the concept of a
teen center. He added that because of his involvement with the McIntire Trust
Associates and its guaranteeing of the debt for the current YMCA, he feels
uncomfortable hearing this matter. He turned the meeting over to Mr. Bain, at
this time, and excused himself.
Mr. Tucker explained that the staff has given the Board a brief state-
ment from the Children and Youth commission in which the Commission requests
direction from the Board, and support and assistance in the potential use of a
teen center for both City and County youth. He said the request is basically
asking for participation and staff support from the Parks and Recreation
Department in working out the organizational arrangements. A report will be
coming back to this Board, hopefully, in August, so that arrangements for the
teen center can begin in September. Mr. Tucker went on to say that he
supports the County staff's involvement in the project. He noted that Mr.
John Dawson is present at this meeting, along with other members of the Chil-
dren and Youth Commission. He said that Mr. Dawson wanted to make a few
comments.
Mr. Dawson remarked that Kay Rabe, and Ruth Ann Brow-n, who was recently
appointed to the Commission are both present, and any of them would be happy
to answer questions. He said the last time he appeared before this Board, the
Commission was mn the middle of developing a smx year plan for children and
youth. An extensive survey has been done, and the largest gap has been
identified as the need for a teen center. Three years ago the Task Force
report indicated there was a need for a teen center, and this new research
confirms this need.
To gmve the Board some background, approximately three months ago, a
group of people met and asked what could be done to get the teen center
started. At the meeting, a Finance Committee, a Site Selection Committee and
a Program Committee were formed. The Program Committee divided into several
parts, which involved a teen group, to provide feedback as to what teens in
the area would like; a parent group, indicating what parents would like to
have for their teens; and agency directors, such as police, and professionals
in the field, giving their feelings on the matter. The Finance Committee met
and felt that probably $4,000 could be raised from the general public and
there would be Federal and State funds for drug abuse and delinquency preven-
tion. He noted that planning for the Center would have to be further along
before this type of funding could be sought. The Site Selection Committee met
a number of times and looked at various sites around the City and County. It
was hoped that a site could be found where the youth would feel comfortable to
come, both from the City and County. The Site Committee recommended that a
logo be developed and non just one site be considered. For instance, the
Greenwood Community Center could use the teen center's logo, and scheduled
activities could be held there, as well as in other locations such as Scotts-
ville and the Walker swimming pool in the City. The Site Committee thought it
would be better to spread the activities around, and then have one central
location which would be more of an ongoing central hub of activities where
teens could congregate and socialize. After considering all the sites that
were available, and the costs of renovations and improvements, the Park Street
site was decided upon. This site is currently occupied by the YMCA, but it
appears to be the best site to get the program started, it is available and it
seems to be the most reasonable, as far as cost is concerned. He noted that
some programming could begin as early as November of this year. Mr. Dawson
stated that he will come back to the Board and City Council with the starting
cost of the pro]ect. He added that somebody needs to be in charge of it. The
Children and Youth Commission is not allowed, by the State, to be in direct
service. He said that the Commission could identify needs and push things mn
that direction, but the Commission is not supposed to start up programs and
run them.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she thinks the teen center is a marvelous
idea and is long overdue. She mentioned that whatever the membership turns
out to be for the teen center, she feels strongly that it needs to involve the
family -- parents and children. She believes there has to be a meaningful
contribution made by the teen participants and family members or it is not
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.305
(Page 18)
going to work. She is concerned that if the teen center is just given to the
teens, it will only work for a short period of time.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Dawson is suggesting that the Parks and Recreation
Departments in the County and City administer the programs and work with the
supervision. Mr. Dawson replied that this is correct.
At this time, Mr. Martin made motion to support the concept of a joint
City/County Teen Center at the Park Street YMCA location, as recommended by
the Children and Youth Commission, and requested the Albemarle County Parks
and Recreation Department to work out the arrangements in conjunction with the
City Parks and Recreation Department.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was~called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman.
(Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:06 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 12. General Obligation Bond Committee - Sally Thomas.
Mr. Tucker introduced Ms. Sally Thomas, who was present at the meeting
to speak to the Supervisors about the General Obligation Bond. Mr. Tucker
stated that he has provided the Board members with some information that Ms.
Thomas gave to him regarding the General Obligation Bond, which will be on the
November ballot. He then asked Ms. Thomas to make her comments.
Ms. Thomas stated that she is the Director of Governmental and Community
Relations at the University of Virginia. She noted that some people at this
meeting were remarking that the General Obligation Bond Bill item was the most
obscure item on the whole agenda, so she said she would try to make it less
obscure. She noted that John Casteen, President of the University of Virgin-
ia, is currently in Europe, but she wanted to deliver a short message for him.
She commented that there will be some items appearing on the November ballot
which are crucially important to this community, and the University officials
would like to have some local support from the Supervisors. She said the
level of support can be as simple as the individual Supervisors learning
about, and being able to, answer questions asked by their constituents
concerning the General Obligation Bond Bill. She went on to say that a higher
level of support would be a willingness by the Supervisors to let the Univer-
sity, parks and recreation, and mental health people put some factual informa-
tion into the County employees' newsletter. She stated that another level of
support would be to appoint someone to work with the local campaign committee
on the General Obligation Bonds, or pass a resolution as a Board.
She handed out a fact sheet which gives a brief description of the
impact of these bonds, and she said can give the Supervisors as much informa-
tion as they would like. She explained that these bonds will bring in $36.0
million zn bonds, but the University will add over $26.0 million to that,
making a $62.0 million total for construction projects during the next few
years in this community. She said this gives a boost to the economy by
creating jobs, orders for suppliers and support businesses, as well as
providing office, classroom and research space at the University of Virginia.
She pointed out that the Supervzsors may be asked about negative impact. She
said that most of the buildings are on the Grounds of the University of
Virgznia, and the work will take place insmde of buildings rather than build-
mng out. She stated that the one building, which is not on the immediate
University grounds, is near the University's storage space where Old Ivy Road
and the Route 250 Bypass and Route 29 intersect. This building is a storage
building for library books. She noted that it is not a new library, but it is
a storage building where books can be accessed when people come to the
reference desk at the other libraries.
As far as growth is concerned, Ms. Thomas stated this bond will be
taking care of the University's present students rather than providing room
for other students. She said if there is concern about whether this will
facilitate growth at the University of Virginia or if there is worry about the
number of students increasing, then a person should particularly be in favor
of this bond bill. She stated that if the other znstitutions of higher
education around this State do not receive the $400.0 million in this bond
bill, there will be even more pressure from Richmond to bring more students
into the University of Virginia, because the University of Virginia is not
nearly as impacted as most colleges are around the State, in terms of student
space, at this time. She pointed out that this will take money out of the
State's operating budget, which is bad, if it is thought that these projects
are never going to be built. She added that if the State is ever going to be
concerned about its parks and recreation spaces, its mental hospitals, which
some now do not even meet safety standards, or its higher education, then the
bond bill is the most intelligent way to use State money to build those
buildings, with an obvious investment in the future. By 1997, Ms. Thomas
indicated that there will not be any debt left in the State for General
Obligation Bonds, which is similar to a family not having a mortgage. She
said that it makes a lot of sense not to have a mortgage when a person is
nearing retirement, but it does not make a lot of sense when a family is young
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41Pg. 306~
(Page 19) ~
and growing. According to the number of students who are now in high school
and will be coming to college, this is a young and growing State. She
emphasized that she hoped the Supervisors would be interested in participating
at some level, because this bond will be a major issue on the November ballot.
Mrs. Humphris noted that the property in the area where Mrs. Thomas had
indicated the library storage building will be located is scheduled to be
taken for a section of the Alternative 10 Bypass. She asked if these plans
are being coordinated with VDoT. Ms. Thomas answered, "yes." She said her
understanding is that VDoT already knows of these plans, and the section of
the Alternative 10 Bypass to whick Mrs. Humphris referred will not be built at
that location.
Mrs. Humphris stated that at this,Board's last knowledge of the Alterna-
tive 10 Bypass location, the road was going to take the printing facility.
Mr. Tucker commented that he is unsure if theAlternative 10 Bypass Will
actually take the printing facility, but it will be located close to it. Ms.
Thomas stated that she will check into the road location further. She added
that because this is not a building that will need public access, except for
an occasional truck, it would not destroy other uses for the property.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the engineering plans for the bypass are
not firm, and she wanted to make sure that there was not going to be a ma]or
investment put in a place that would be taken away for the road. Mr. Marshall
remarked that he would personally like to get with someone who could instruct
him more about this bond. He wholeheartedly supports the University, he
thinks the University is the lifeblood of this community and he believes that
the $62.0 million will impact favorably upon the area. He wants to do what he
can to see that this money is forthcoming.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request for "Water Only" Service to B. H. Word
Property on Georgetown Road.
The following staff report dated June 25, 1992, was received:
"The subject property is currently designated for water only to
existing structures (house, tool sheds). The applicant, Benjamin
H. Word, Jr., proposes to subdivide the parcel and build a second
house. Dr. Word has received a variance from the minimum lot size
requirement for the new parcel. The subdivision is on hold
awaiting a decision regarding the provision of water. A new
building site exists with a primary and secondary drain field, but
the existing well would have to be discontinued due to its loca-
tion next to the proposed drain fields. Another well site is
available on the parcel, but would require running a water line
from the well under the Virginia Power high tension lines to the
house. In lieu of this, Dr. Word requests public water for the
new house. Public water is available to the existing house on
this property. This property was designated for water only
(unlimited service) prior to down-zoning to Rural Area and subse-
quent jurisdictional area changes in 1980.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property is located in the Rural Areas
as designated by the Comprehensive Plan and within the South Fork
Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. Regarding provision of public
utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in
objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances
public utilities should be made available (p. 146) :
OBJECTIVE: Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban
Area and Communities.
STRATEGIES
Follow the boundarias of the designated Growth Areas in
delineating jurisdictional areas.
Only allow changes in jurisdictional areas outside of desig-
nated Growth Area boundaries in cases where the property is:
(1) adjacent to existing lines; and (2) public health or
safety is endangered.
There are no identified quality or quantity problems with water on
this property. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that 'such
utilities are not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these
services can increase development pressures' (p. 146).
RECOMMENDATION: This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive
Plan objective and applicable strategies for provision of public
water and sewer service. Public utility capacities should be
reserved to support development of designated growth areas.
Allowance for expanded water service to this property would be
inconsistent with past actions by the Board to limit utility
service outside the designated growth areas, particularly in a
water supply watershed. Staff recommends that expanded public
water service non be made available to this property.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 4! Pg.307
(Page 20) ~
Should the Board choose to approve the applicant's request,
service should be limited to one additional dwelling on Tax Map
60A, Parcel 9-4."
Dr. Word stated that he purchased this property in 1953, and he noted
the map will show that he is completely surrounded by development. At the
time of his purchase of this property, there was one street, West Park Drive,
with four houses on each side of it. He feels as though he has helped with
the development of that area because there is a water line which runs across
the southwestern side of the red line on the map, which he allowed the County
to install, so that the other houses could be supplied with water. He stated
that some of the other houses did not have a good supply of water, and he also
believes that some of the water supplies were unhealthy because surface water
was getting into the wells. He noted that there is a well on his property,
but he cannot use it, because it is too close to the designated drain fields,
and to the site where the house will be built. He stated that because of
termite treatments, etc., the well cannot be close to the house. He commented
that his well is excellent, in fact, Dr. Word stated that he offered to use
this well to supply the water for houses on Old Forge Road. The well was
drilled deep, and it had a fantastic water supply. He said that Mr. Daley
Craig, the builder, decided to drill three more wells for the water supply for
the area to which Dr. Word referred. Dr. Word informed the Board that he has
water from the water line which crosses his property to the existing house,
but he emphasized that he would like to have water to the proposed house. He
is not sure what the problems might be, and he thinks there is always some
risk in that area for obtaining water. He noted that north of this area has
been notorious for low water supply through the years, and he mentioned that
water had to be brought to the property where Albemarle High School was built,
because there was not enough water in that area. He added that he can drill a
well, but the cost will be in a competitive price range or higher than the
cost for obtainzng County water. He has adequate drain field locations, and
he reminded Board members that only one house is involved with this request.
Mr. Marshall asked if the houses on both sides and in back of Dr. Word
have County water. Dr. Word answered that everything shown in blue on the map
has County water, and he added that the small lots south of that property now
have County water. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the water only service, plus the
water and sewer service on the map. He explained that the yellow color on the
map depicts water going to existing structures only, and this includes an
adjacent parcel as well as some scattered parcels.
Mr. Bain asked when the residents in the Terrell Subdivision were
permitted to have water service. Mr. Tucker responded that the Terrell
Subdivision received water service approximately six years ago. Dr. Word said
in 1980 the property shown in red on the map, which is his property, was
rezoned to Rural Area. He had planned to put a suburban doctor's office mn
that area, but the rezoning eliminated this possibility. At that time, Dr.
Word noted that unlimited water was available to that lot. He did not realize
until recently that when the property was rezoned, the water availability was
cut off.
Mr. Marshall asked if Dr. Word had 9zven the County an easement across
his property for a water line to be installed. Dr. Word answered, "yes." Mr.
Marshall asked the location of the water line. Dr. Word replied that the
water lines are on the southwest side of this property. He does not believe a
formal easement has been arranged with the County, but he said that he allowed
the County to put in the water line.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County
Service Authority, if he has a formal easement for this particular water line.
Mr. Brent replied that he cannot be sure, without searching the records. He
added that if there is a water line crossing Dr. Word's property, there must
be some sort of an easement. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cilimberg to give the
Supervisors some more background. She wonders what happened in 1980 when the
County acted to remove this area from the growth area, and why the jurisdic-
tional areas are not extended there.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that for this particular area, as well as others,
when the 1980 Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and properties were down zoned
to rural areas, the designation for jurisdictional areas was changed in accor-
dance with which properties currently had public water and/or sewer and those
properties which did not and were not developed. He said this Ks why there is
such a combination of designations for that particular area. He added that,
in this case, service was reduced from a full service to service to existing
structures only, after 1980, based on the fact that the property was zoned
Rural Area, and was not intended for further development. Mrs. Humphris next
asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain why the Board made this change. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that the zoning change to Rural Area in this area was reflective of
the Rivanna reservoir watershed and the boundaries of the watershed. He noted
that there is a growth area boundary and an urban zoning boundary running
along that watershed boundary. He pointed out an area on the map which he
says contains certain zoning categories, and there were others which were not
developed, which were down zoned so that they could not be further developed
in an urban zoning category. He said the idea was to keep additional develop-
ment at a minimum in the water supply watershed. He stated that this was the
purpose of the Rural Area zoning at that time.
July 1~ 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 41, Pg. 308
Mr. Marshall remarked that, in this particular case, this lot has
already been subdivided, and Dr. Word could build a house on the property.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the lot has not subdivided. Mr. Marshall stated
that the property can be subdivided, and Dr. Word has this right. Mr.
Cilimberg agreed that Dr. Word now has gotten a variance so that the property
can be subdivided. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Dr. Word would have to provide a
well location for that house. Mr. Marshall commented that it is not as though
this Board can prevent a house from being built there. He reiterated that Dr.
Word has a right to build a house on this property. He said it is just a
question of whether or non the County will provide water to that house or
whether a well will have to be dug. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that this is true,
as long as Dr. Word meets all of the other provisions. He mentioned that Dr.
Word has noted that he now has adequate drain field locations and a building
site. He said there has not been confirmation that there is a sufficient well
site, but Dr. Word believes that he can put a well in a certain location on
the property.
Mr. Bain asked that the Terrell Subdivision situation be explained to
the Board, and the fact that this subdivision has water and was developed
since 1980. Mr. Tucker explained that the Terrell Subdivision was being
rezoned or divided approximately the time that the amendment to the Comprehen-
sive Plan in 1980 was being reviewed. He said the actual development did not
occur until after that time, because there was a lawsuit involved. He said it
was during the 1980 time period that the County received the preliminary plat.
He stated that a rezoning may have been involved, but the actual final plat
and approval did not occur until some time after 1980. He believes that it
was during this time period that the Board made the determination to provide
this area with water service only.
Mrs. Humphris stated that after she met with Dr. Word on the site, she
asked Ms. Sprinkle, of the Planning staff, if she would do some research and
let her know if an exception to the rule had ever~been made in a similar
situation, where the waner was adjacent to the property, and where there was
not a public health or safety issue. Mrs. Humphris said that Ms. Sprinkle
looked at all of these issues, including the Terrell Subdivision, which Ms.
Humphris specifically asked about. Mrs. Humphris remarked that Ms. Sprinkle
told her there was not any exceptions in the records that she could find where
the Board had ever allowed expansion of water service into the rural area
where there was potential for a well site, particularly in the waner supply
watershed area. Mrs. Humphris emphasized that Ms. Sprinkle did non note the
Terrell Subdivision as something that had been excepted, since 1980. Mr.
Tucker agreed. He reiterated that he believes the Terrell Subdivision actions
were going on at approximately the same time as the 1980 Comprehensive Plan
review.
Mr. Marshall stated that he realizes that if this is done,it will mean
the Board will be making an exception, but he thinks that there are several
factors involved. He said three things have happened which lead him to
believe that an exception should be made. One, Mr. Marshall stated that Dr.
Word has the right to build a house, anyway. Two, Mr. Marshall pointed out
that Dr. Word donated land to Albemarle County. Three, Mr. Marshall noted
that the County had down zoned Dr. Word's property. He said it is not
customary for the County to compensate people when their property is down
zoned, but it was a significant loss to Dr. Word at that time. He does not
think that Dr. Word's request is unreasonable, considering the three facts to
which he has lust referred.
Mr. Bain stated that he is in favor of going to public hearing with this
issue, but he wants certain questions answered. He would like to know where
the easement is located that crosses Dr. Word's property. He said the survey
does not show it, and easements are supposed to show on the plats. He also
wants definitive information on when the Terrell Subdivision was approved.
Mrs. Humphris said the staff needs to examine past records to see if
there have been any exceptions, such as this, or, if this request is approved,
will it set a precedent in such a way that it would cause a major problem in
the future.
At this time Mrs. Humphris made a motion to go to public hearing with
Dr. Word's request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority's service
areas to provide "water service only" to include a new single-family dwelling
on Tax Map 60A, Parcel 9-4. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Marshall asked that the public hearing be held on August 12, 1992,
so that he would have a chance to look at the property. He also noted that he
would non be present at the August 5, 1992 meeting. Board members were
agreeable to the August 12, 1992 date for the public hearing.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was going to support the motion, but he
agrees with Mr. Bain, in terms of the answers that he would like to have
before the public hearing.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall Martin and
Perkins. '
NAYS: None.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg 309
(Page 22) ·
Agenda Item No. 14. VACO Presentation, Ellen Davenport.
Mr. Tucker informed Board members that Ellen Davenport is on the staff
of VACo. He understands Ms. Davenport and other VACo staff members are trying
to attend at least one meeting in every County to make a brief presentation on
VACo's redistricting plan. This will give the Supervisors the opportunity to
ask questions and make comments.
Ms. Davenport discussed a memo she handed out to the Board from VACo.
She noted VACo's recent and future activities which would be of interest to
the Supervisors, and thanked the Supervisors for the opportunity to meeE with
them at this meeting. Mrs. Humphris remarked that one of the recent VACo
publications showed a reorganization of the regions. She noticed that
Albemarle County had been put in a region in which Albemarle County officials
do not communicate often with the other county officials in that particular
region, and the counties do not have much in common. She wondered how this
came about, who decides in which region a county will be placed and why
Albemarle County officials did not know about this before it happened.
Ms. Davenport answered that she believes the redistricting has not yet
been finalized. She said the VACo Board men a few months ago, and every ten
years VACo has to redistrict, based on the census. She went on to say that
there are regions based on one man, one vote, and the Board was presented with
a series of options, as far as restructuring different counties into various
regions. She added that the VACo Board members voted on one option, but she
believes they will be voting on the regions again in August. She suggested
that the Albemarle County Supervisors write to VACo, if they have a problem
with the region in which Albemarle County was placed. Mr. Bain concurred with
Mrs. Humphris that he would like to follow up on this matter. He added that
he is also interested in how representatives from the different regions are
selected because he does not think this is handled in the proper manner, and
he is not interested in this continuing. He emphasized that he would like for
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to make comments to VACo regarding
these concerns.
Mrs. Humphris recalled that at the last VACo meeting, the incumbent
representative for the region where Albemarle County was then placed, was
defeated, so, therefore, there was a vacancy. She said that she and Mr. Bain
made a point of getting over to the VACo meeting early so that they could be
sure to find out when the organizational meeting for Albemarle County's region
was held and to participate in the election of the region's new represen-
tative. She added that she and Mr. Bain searched everywhere in the hotel for
the meeting, and were continually told that there was not going to be any such
meeting. Yet, she said that someone was elected as the Chairman of that
region before she and Mr. Bain left the VACo meeting. She went on to say that
this left her with a bad feeling, and she did not understand what happened.
She noted that this was just her third VACo meeting, but she felt as though
she was beginning to get familiar with the situation, and she reiterated that
this experience was not pleasing, at all.
Ms. Davenport replied that it was unfortunate this happened. She does
not recall who was representing Albemarle County's region, and she does not
know if this was a sudden vacancy or whether VACo officials had already known
about it for a few months. She stated that the procedure which VACo follows
when there is a vacancy in a particular region is to send a letter to every
county administrator saying that there is going to be a vacancy, and usually
boards of supervisors are encouraged to get with the other members of the
region and decide on one name. She said, however, that sometimes different
county officials like to propose someone from their own county, and others do
not necessarily agree. She noted that the meeting place and time of the
Nominations Committee is usually shown in VACo's program, and she is sorry
that Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain were told that the meeting was not going to
take place.
Mr. Bowerman commenEed that he can confirm what Mrs. Humphris said,
because he was also at that particular VACo meeting. He said the person who
represented the region was defeated in November, and the other person was
elected ten days to two weeks after that. He added that clearly the person
had to be replaced, but Albemarle County officials had no knowledge of the
process.
Mr. Bowerman stated that in the lobby of the hotel there were notes
saying that certain districts were meeting in certain places. He said
Albemarle County officials kept looking for their region's meeting, and never
found any information on it.
Ms. Davenport responded that the regional caucuses were taking place in
different parts of the hotel. Mr. Marshall stated that if the Supervisors are
going to belong to VACo, there should be better cooperation. Mrs. Humphris
commented that Albemarle County Supervisors are out of contact with the remap-
ping, and she thinks they ought to be involved in some way. She said it
renders the Supervisors ineffective if they are in a region with counties with
which Albemarle County has nothing in common. She recalled that the new
proposed districts go from Albemarle County straight south to the border.
Mr. Bain mentioned that Appomattox was one of the counties in the
proposed district with Albemarle County. He said that Albemarl~ County does a
lot with the Planning District, and this puts Albemarle Counuy away from a big
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
M.B. 41, Pg. 310
portion of the Planning District. He asked the staff to examine this situa-
tion before the next Local GovernmenE Officials Conference (LGOC) meeting in
July.
Ms. Davenport stated that she needs to check on this matter, because the
redistricting may involve the total membership voting on it in November. She
said she would get back to Mr. Tucker with the information. Mr. Bowerman
thanked Ms. Davenport for attending the Supervisors' meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Authorize Chairman to Sign Contract for Construc-
tion of Lickinghole Creek.
Mr. Tucker called attention to the June 26 1992 memo which he sene to
Board members informing them that bids had been received by the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority for the Lickinghole Creek Runoff Control Basin. He
mentioned that there were a couple of bids below the budqeted amount for
construction of the dam, and the low bidder will be selected, which will save
approximately $32,000. He then requested that the Board authorize the
Chairman to sign the contract with the lowest bidder, along with the Chairman
of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign a contract with the selected low
bidder for the Lickinghole Creek Runoff Control Basin.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 16. ARB Underground Utilities, Route 29 North.
The following memorandum dated June 26, 1992, from Ms. Marcia Joseph,
Design Planner, Department of Zoning, entitled "Undergrounding the power lines
on Route 29 North" was received:
"Background: The Board of Supervisors was presented information
concerning proposed improvements to the Route 29 North corridor in
April, 1992. Contained within the improvements endorsed by the
Architectural Review Board were replanting areas disturbed by the
construction activity, and replacing the overhead power lines
underground. Staff had received some rough estimates for the cost
differential to place the lines underground. Because these
numbers were somewhat vague, the Board suggested that staff pursue
this issue and obtain estimates that would be more reliable.
Discussion: The Virginia Department of Transportation held a
meeting for the representatives for all the utilities affected by
the construction activity that will occur as a result of the road
improvements. At this meeting Virginia Power was asked to provide
an estimate of the cost for undergrounding the power lines. The
memo outlining the discussions at this meeting is attached (on
file).
This information was related to the ARB who in turn suggested that
staff contact Virginia Power to receive a written response con-
cerning the estimated cost. The letter to Virginia Power is
attached (on file). The response from Virginia Power is also
attached (on file). To provide the County with a more reasonable
estimate, Virginia Power requires that the engineering fees
necessary to prepare the estimate are paid for by the County. The
cost for providing this service is $6,000.
The estimate could be completed within sixty (60) days from the
time the County contracts with Virginia Power to provide this
service. However, this is dependant upon the availabiliUy of
manpower when and if the County decides to obtain the services of
Virginia Power.
The accuracy of the estimate can be within twenty-five (25)
percent of the actual cost of construction. This is dependant
upon hidden factors. These can include finding rock while exca-
vating or finding some utility lines that have not been identified
in plan form. The estimate will hOE include the cost for under-
grounding the Cable TV lines which currently share the power poles
with the Virginia Power lines.
The ARB has requested that the county have Virginia Power compute
the estimate and use this number to determine if ISTEA enhancement
funds could be used for this project.
Staff requests guidance from the County Executive in determining
whether this item should be pursued."
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg311
(Page 24)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks it is important to find out the
actual cost of moving these utilities underground. Mrs. Humphris asked if
there is $6,000 available for this study. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff
will try to find the $6,000 for this analysis. Mrs. Humphris asked if under-
grounding the cable T.V. lines could be a part of the study. Mr. Tucker
responded that the staff would have to see how the study of the cable T.V.
lines can be incorporated in the Virginia Power analysis. He suspects that if
there is a major underground utilities movement of Virginia Power, all of the
other lines will follow. He stated that there may have to be an addition to
the study to determine the cost for moving the cable T.V. lines underground.
Mr. Bain wondered what are the time limits for the definitive costs
study. Ms. Joseph answered that Virginia Power officials had indicated it
would take approximately 60 days to do the definitive estimate.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Tucker~needed authorization from this Board
for the study. Mr. Tucker replied that he would like for the Supervisors to
authorize the staff to move forward with the definitive cost analysis. He
plans to use the money that is currently in the Capital Improvements Program.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered motion to adopt an appropriation
authorizing the expenditure of $6,000 from the Capital Improvements Program
budget to pursue the necessary engineering assessment by Virginia Power to
refine the cost estimate of putting the utility lines underground along Route
29 North. Mr. Bain seconded the motion and commented that he does not like to
spend money on studies, but he thinks this analysis is important.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1992/93
NUMBER: 920012
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
FUNDING FOR 29 NORTH UTILITIES STUDY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900081040950094
REVENUE
UTILITIES STUDY-29 NORTH
TOTAL
$6,000.00
6,000.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100 CIP FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
Agenda Item No. 17. Gypsy Moth Cost-Sharing Program.
The following staff report was received:
"Since 1988, Albemarle County has been involved in a state and
federal funded program of integrated pest management to combat the
detrimental effects of the gypsy moth. For 1993, the funding for
administering the program and conducting the aerial spraying have
been reduced by the grant sources which will create the need for
individual landowners to contribute an estimated $8.00 to $10.00
per acre in order to participate.
A concentrated public education program is gearing up to make
citizens aware of the new cost share program and its importance to
a coordinated pest management program.
Mr. Steven Meeks, Gypsy Moth Program Manager, will be available to
make a brief presentation regarding the 1993 program for the
Board's information. No action is required unless the Board
chooses to alter the proposal which assumes a landowner cost share
and is budgeted as such in the 1992-93 operating budget.
Mr. Meeks reported that since May 1, 1992, which is the time when gypsy
moths began to hatch, he and his staff have received close to 1,000 inquiries.
Even though the cost sharing program is still in the beginning stages, he
already knows of 73 individuals who have recognized the seriousness of gypsy
moths and have volunteered to work with him in trying to implement this
program. He explained that the plan will continue to use the integrated pest
management approach which has-been used for the last four years, and he hopes
to continue to strengthen the educational program. Other counties such as,
Greene, Madison, Culpeper, Fauquier, Warren and Page, are also pursuing the
development of a landowner cost sharing program. Six weeks ago he called a
meeting of representatives of these counties, and four counties responded. He
said this meeting was called for the purpose of discussing the counties'
plans, so there could be some information sharing and perhaps an agreement
could be reached on shared approaches. He stated that each county zs plainly
different, and for many different reasons, each program has to be tailored to
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg312
(Page 25) ·
suit each county's needs. A consensus was reached on several items, most of
which are reflected in the information that has been given to the Supervisors.
He pointed out that one of the major differences between Albemarle County and
the other counties is the fact that Albemarle County has a fairly large urban
area, and Charlottesville has to be included. He said that representatives of
counties in Northern Virginia have indicated that, when necessary, the urban
areas would need to be treated witk helicopters or rotary crafts. He stated
that the Supervisors will also find in the information that he has given them
a map of Charlottesville which shows an outline of the boundary, where, if
there is a problem, it would need to be treated by a helicopter. He explained
that the main reason a helicopter would be used is that the treatmenE would be
more accurate because the urban area is more densely populated, and the lots
are smaller, which makes the accuracy of the treatment more important. He
added that it would also cut down on the amount of potential complaints
concerning low flying aircraft. He noted that he has not received any
complaints this year concerning the spraying operation. He is working through
representatives of the Charlottesville Department of Parks and Recreation, and
they have, more or less, agreed that if anything in the Charlottesville area
needs to be treated, they would support the use of a helicopter. He brought
this matter up because the cost of the spray application for a helicopter is
probably twice the amount of a spray application from a fixed wing aircraft.
He emphasized that instead of the treatment being in the $10.00 range men-
tioned, it would probably be $15.00 to $20.00 if a helicopter is used.
Everyone who has inquired about the program has been made fully aware of the
future of the potential costs, and so far, there have been no complaints or
concerns expressed about the costs involved.
Mr. Meeks added that he envisions having a spokesperson or someone to
coordinate the activities zn a given treatment area, which would be a minimum
of 25 acres. This spokesperson would work with the neighbors in coordinating
the activities. His staff would work closely with the spokesperson and the
neighborhood in providing additional educational material, such as brochures
and other control tactics, which could serve as supplements or alternatives to
aerial spraying. Most of the criteria will still be the same, such as minimum
requirements for spray blocks, and how it is determined as to which pesticide
will be used, or whether it should be used at all. The biggest difference is
that now the landowners will have more input into the program. He would be
glad to answer questions, and he indicated that he had included color photo-
graphs to give the Supervisors some visual conception of what could happen if
the gypsy moth is not controlled in an urban type setting. He indicated that
the spray program that the County has used for the past four years has been
very effective, although, there are a lot of variables which can come into
play, such as weather.
Mr. Marshall commented that this is the first year he has seen gypsy
moths on his property. He has primarily oaks on his land. He wondered if it
is necessary for him to become involved with the program this year, since the
oak trees do not suffer as much damage from gypsy moths as pine trees. Mr.
Meeks replied that Mr. Marshall do not have to worry about pines, but he
should be concerned about the oak trees. He explained that when a person has
a concern, he or she can contact his office. He said that someone from his
staff will do a survey of the property and will advise the landowner as to
what needs to be done. He noted that, in the past, his staff has done a lot
more random surveying, and this will still be done as much as possible. Now,
however, his staff will be responding more to the landowner's request for
surveying.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the cost sharing program, such as the one for
the urban area, would be available to owners of timberland. Mr. Meeks replied
that the cost sharing program is available to anybody. He went on to say that
the landowners are being asked to furnish 50 percent of the cost involved with
the operation, and the other 50 percent will still be coming from the Federal
government. He said that as long as the Federal government does not change
its criteria from what it is now, uninhabited land could be treated.
Mr. St. John stated that if one landowner owned enough land to qualify
for a spray block, that landowner could share in this program. Mr. Meeks
concurred. He said that the cost sharing program does not just apply to a
group of people. He said that groups of people are involved, when the
individual landowners own less than 25 acres. Mr. St. John asked if there
would be a brochure available which would describe the pesticides, and what
their effects are on food crops, etc. Mr. Meeks replied that this information
will be made available just as all of the other information is made available
to landowners. He said that once an area is identified as an area that would
benefit from aerial treatment, then the information would be provided on the
different types of pesticides. He gave the names of two pesticides, which he
said would be used, and he stated that he has this information available in
his office. He emphasized that information will be made available to individ-
ual landowners, if they become involved in the program.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Meeks for his presentation.
Agenda Item No. 18. FY' 92-93 Appropriations for SARA and A HIP.
The following staff report was received:
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41Pg.313
(Page 26) ~
"During the budget work sessions, $14,385 for the Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and $4650 for the Sexual
Assault Resou'rce Agency (SARA) were set aside in Board contingency
funds with the final appropriation of funds subject to Board
approval.
For AHIP, the $14,385 was to fully fund the Emergency Repair
Carpenter position if AHIP was unable to secure the same matching
funds that allowed half of the position to be funded by other
sources in FY 91-92 (Albemarle County currently funds half of the
position). To date, AHIP has not received a firm commitment of
funds for this position from any of their usual sources, although
they have been tentatively approved by United Way. However,
United Way funding is conditional upon a $1.3 million goal and
even if funded, would not be available until January, 1993.
Therefore, it is recommended that the Board release half of the
$14,385 or $7195 at this time in order to fund the Emergency
Repair Carpenter position from July 1, 1992, to December 31, 1992.
A decision on the remaining funds can be made in December based on
final United Way support.
For the Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SAR3~), $4650 was set aside
to fund the County's share of an additional staff position for
their Client Services Program contingent upon the City funding
their share. Based on the City's appropriation of $6830 to fund
their share of the position, it is recommended that the Board's
contingency fund of $4650 be released to SARA for FY 92-93.
Staff requests Board approval to appropriate $7195 to AHIP and
$4650 to SARA from FY 92-93 Board contingency funds."
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Martin, to
appropriate $7,195 to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program for partial
funding of the Emergency Repair Carpenter position, and $4,650 to the Sexual
Assault Resource Agency for the County's share of an additional staff position
for SARA's Client Services Program.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920007
FUND: GENERAL
P~POSE OF APPROPRIATION: ~DITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR dip AND
SARA
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100089000563100
1100059000561701
1100011010999999
AHIP
SARA
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$7,195.00
4,650.00
(11,845.00)
$o.oo
Agenda Item No. 19. Reappropriation: Transfer funds in CIP from
Berkmar Drive to Broadus Wood Project.
The following staff report was received:
"Attached is the Berkmar Drive project budget, dated June 9, 1992.
Based upon bids opened on June 2, 1992, funds have been identified
to cover all anticipated expenditures to complete this project.
The actual cost is less than the amount originally allocated for
several reasons: (1) The Berkmar/Rio Roads intersection was
downgraded and redesigned. This saved a substantial amount for
utilities relocation, property acquisition, and pavement cross
section construction; (2) Additional cost savings came from the
Engineering Department doing the right-of-way and easements
acquisition; and, (3) The benefit of a favorable bid climate. The
Broadus Wood CIP project is underfunded by $127,200 as the CIP did
not envision the need for a left turn lane on Route 663 as re-
quired by the Planning Commission.
This is to request that excess funds in the amount of $119,461 be
reallocated from the Berkmar Drive pro3ect to a separate and
specific line item within the Broadus Wood CIP project designated
for spot road improvements. The following justification is
provided:
The Broadus Wood Expansion project budget specifically does
not include the funds to construct a left turn land on Route
663.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
27) M.B. 41, Pg. 314
Bo
The Broadus Wood Expansion project is currently advertised
for bids to be opened on July 9, 1992. The estimated cost
to redesign, construct the left turn lane, and acquire the
necessary right-of-way is $127,200. As the 'Developer', the
County must meet the conditions of site plan approval for
this project. This request will reallocate funds for this
purpose.
The funds for Berkmar Drive are included in the Education
Bond issue due to the relation of this road with Agnor-Hur~
Elementary school. It would therefore be appropriate to
expend these funds similarly on road spot improvements
required to accomplish another road improvement related to
an education project.
Staff recommends that the Board reappropriate the funds per the
attached appropriation request #910058."
Mrs. Humphris wondered if therewas any concern about the remaining
deficit for the Broadus Wood project. Mr. Tucker responded that there could
be a problem with this deficit, and he noted that the bids for the left turn
lane will not be opened until July 9, 1992. He added that once the bids are
opened, and it is determined that the bid is close to the staff's estimate,
there will not be enough money appropriated for this project, and he may still
have to come back to the Board for an additional appropriation. He pointed
out that the appropriation today would at least allow the project to move
forward.
Mrs. Humphris then made a motion to approve the reappropriation of
$119,461.00 from the Berkmar Drive project to the Broadus Wood project to
provide funds to construct a left turn lane on Route 663. Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-92
NUMBER: 910058
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM BERKMAR DRIVE
PROJECT TO BROADUS WOOD PROJECT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900041020950036
1900060201800950
BERKMAR DRIVE
BROADUS WOOD - ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
TOTAL
($119,461.00)
119,461.00
$0.00
Agenda Item No. 20. Notice of Claim against the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors and Albemarle County Service Authority, re: Fred L. Mitchum,
Jr.
Mr. Tucker explained that a claim was sene to the Board of Supervisors,
but be noted that there was also a Notice of Claim against the Albemarle
County Service Authority. He said that Mr. St. John had asked that this be
placed on the agenda to let the Supervisors know that no action from this
Board needs to take place. Mr. Tucker added that, subsequently, he has
received a copy of a letter from the County Attorney's office, notifying the
attorney representing Mr. Mitchum, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors is not involved in this matter, and that the Service Authority is a
separate entity. Mr. Tucker said he just wanted to make the Supervisors aware
of the situation.
Mr. St. John recommended that the Supervisors, by resolution, deny this
claim. This is an invalid claim, and that is grounds for denying it.
Mr. Martin offered motion to deny the Notice of Claim against the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on the grounds that it is invalid. Mr.
Bain seconded the motion. He then asked Mr. St. John if the County Attorney's
office will have to do anything else, on behalf of the Supervisors, to show
that they were sued. Mr. St. John responded that only a claim has been made.
He said that this is a predicate to being sued, but he does not think that a
suit will be brought against this Board, since it is an invalid claim.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg.315
(Page 28)
Agenda Item No. 21. Set public hearing to amend Section 1-8 of County
Code re: Additional Court Costs.
The following staff report was received:
"New state legislation, effective July 1, allows localities to
assess civil cases in both Circuit and General District Courts.
This fee would be in addition to the two dollar local fee current-
ly assessed on all criminal and traffic cases, which was adopted
by County ordinance in July, 1990. The current fee brings in
approximately $14,000 per year to be used for the 'construction,
renovation, or maintenance of courthouse or jail and court-related
facilities and to defray increases in the cost of heating, cool-
ing, electricity and ordinary maintenance.'. It is anticipated
that the additional fee on all civil cases will bring in approxi-
mately $1500 from Circuit Court fees and $16,000 from General
District Court.
Staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to
amend and reenact Sec. 1-8 of the County Code and set a public
hearing date for August 5, 1992."
Mr. Martin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
Resolution of Intent to set a public hearing for August 5, 1992. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Code in Section 1-8, Additional court costs, to
assess a two dollar ($2.00) fee on all civil cases in both the
Circuit and General District Courts.
Agenda Item No. 22a. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:16 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Supervisors go into executive
session for the purpose of personnel matters, so that interviews for the
School Board's at-large position could be held, and for the disposition of the
Greenwood School property. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Supervisors discuss Agenda Item 24,
"Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board," before going into
executive session.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins invited Board members to ride in the Crozet Parade on
Saturday, July 4, beginning at 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Bain mentioned personal property taxes on vehicles. He said that
when vehicles are bought and sold, taxes are paid in proportion to the time
that the person owns the vehicle. He stated that there seems to be a problem
of people being assessed for vehicles that they have already sold, but he is
unsure if this is a local or state problem. He asked the staff to examine
the matter. Mr. Tucker replied that he knows there are problems, from time to
time, at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV). He said the County staff
relies on DMV's records. He went on to say, however, that if a car is traded
or sold outside of the state, DMV has no record of it. Mr. Bain agreed. He
said that a problem could arise when a person trades a vehicle to a dealer,
and the dealer sends the car to an auction, or simply holds the title. He
added that DMV would not be involved until the vehicle is sold. Mr. Tucker
noted that some of the problem lies with the individuals. He said that it
would be good if individuals could give the County staff some help in verify-
ing the vehicles that they own. He went on to say that a sales receipt or an
old County sticker would be useful to the County staff. He pointed out that
even when a car is sold, the previous owner can take the County sticker off of
the car. He said even if only a portion of the sticker can be salvaged, if it
has the number on it, the person can bring it into the County office, and get
a new sticker for the new car. He added that this would allow the Counuy
staff to keep good records. He stated that if this process is not followed,
the matter can get lost in the quagmire of problems at DMV and in the County.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.316
(page 29)
Mr. Bain mentioned that he believes some problems lie with the dealers.
He does not know, however, how this can be addressed. He asked, again, that
the staff try to seek out some of these problems and bring information back to
this Board. Mr. Tucker replied that the staff would try to get more defini-
tive answers on the situation. He said the staff would also try to find ways
to correct the problems.
Mr. Bowerman asked if personal property tax bills are due June 5, and
cover the period of time until June 30. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr.
Bowerman then wondered what would happen if a person bought a vehicle on June
10. Mr. Tucker responded the personal property taxes would fall within the
next six months proration period. Mr. Bowerman asked if this person would get
a credit for the last weeks of June. Mr. Tucker replied, "yes."
Mr. Bain commented that, administratively, this matter has been a
problem for the County.staff, as well as the public. Mr. Marshall inquired as
to what would happen if a person bought a vehicle on June 5. Mr. Tucker
explained that person would be paying taxes on the vehicle as of that day.
Next, Mr. Bowerman informed the Board that they have two interviews
scheduled for Wednesday, July 8, 1992, at 5:30 p.m. He added that there are
four students being recommended for the CACY Commission. He asked if the
Board want to also interview the students on July 8. Mr. Martin suggested
that the students be interviewed at 6:00 p.m., after the 5:30 interviews.
The other Board members were agreeable with Mr. Martin's suggestion.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that he had already contacted Board members about
the signs regarding road names, but he suggested that the Board members look
at these signs, if they did not get a chance to examine them on the way into
the County Building parking area.
At 12:28 p.m., Mr. Bowerman announced that the Board would go into
executive session.
Agenda Item No. 22b. Certify Executive Session. At 2:00 p.m., the
Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr.
Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following certificate of
executive session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive 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:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall,
Martin and Perkins.
None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 23b. Work Session: Scottsville Boundary Line Adjust-
ment.
Mr. Bowerman announced that the Scottsville boundary line adjustment
would not be discussed until the Supervisors' meeting on September 2.
Agenda Item No. 23c. Work Sesszon: Sign Ordinance. (Deleted from this
agenda since the public hearing had already been scheduled for July 8, 1992.)
Mr. Bowerman told the Supervisors that, since there would be a public
hearing on July 8, 1992 relating to the Sign Ordinance, there would be no
discussion on this matter at today's meeting.
July(pagel,30)1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. Pg. 317
Agenda Item No. 23a. Work Sessions: Open Space and Critical Resource
Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Supervisors should have a copy of a memo
which was provided for them last week. The memo covers two areas, one of
which is a response to the various letters received from people who have
commented about the Open Space Plan. The second area, according to Mr.
Cilimberg, is a reorganization of Part V in the Open Space Plan. He went on
to say that the staff has tried to bring this portion of the Open Space Plan
more in line with the typical approach used for all of the Comprehensive Plan
related documenEs, and to term most of the language which had earlier been
called recommendations as objectives and strategies, and then to have actual
recommendations to try to implement the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg then discussed the three strategies within the objectives
and strategies which would be Action Agenda items. For further consideration
there are two other items which are not a part of the Open Space Plan for any
decision to be made now, but they will await review during the next Comprehen-
sive Plan review. These items are growth area boundaries and density, and by
right development allowances in certain areas of the County. He hopes this
has not confused the issue, but instead, it should have allowed for a more
straightforward presentation which will be easier to relate to the current
Plan and will be easier to undertake as action items.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff's responses to citizens' remarks, have
already been incorporated into the document. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes,"
the remarks are incorporated into either the new Part V or elsewhere in the
document. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that Mr. Lindstrom sene him (Mr. Bowerman) a
letter which referred to the Blue Ridge Homebuilders. He wondered if there
were any comments in the letter of which the Board members should be aware.
He said the Supervisors do hOE have a copy of this letter. Ms. Scala provided
copies of Mr. Lindstrom's letter to the Board members. Mr. Cilimberg informed
the Board that the concerns expressed in Mr. Lindstrom's were addressed by the
staff. He went on to say that the staff's comments are not as elaborate as
Mr. Lindstrom's in how it deals with the use. Basically, Mr. Cilimberg stated
that the staff intends to qualify what the Open Space Plan is, how it relates
to the Comprehensive Plan, and that it carries weight given it by the overall
Comprehensive Plan. He believes that Mr. Lindstrom's comments are in that
same direction, with some additional wording about how this might be utilized
in advising people for voluntary compliance with the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Martin pointed out a difference between the staff's recommendation
and Mr. Lindstrom's comments. He said that the staff's recommended wording
considers the goals, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan and
any priorities as may be designated in the Comprehensive Plan. He said Mr.
Lindstrom's statement does not speak to anything other than open space and
critical resources. It is important that all of the priorities in the
Comprehensive Plan are considered, such as the housing issue, etc. He likes
Mr~ Lindstrom's statement which says that, "advice may also be given to any
applicant for a nondiscretionary loan use approval." Mr. Cilimberg replied
that this sentence could be incorporated into the document, if the Board so
chooses. He believes this was already addressed by staff.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is satisfied with the way the Plan is
currently written with the addition of Mr. Martin's suggested comments, since
it would not hurt anything to add this information. He next asked if Board
members had any specific items they wished to discuss, referring to the
analysis done by staff, in agreeing with or disagreeing with the staff's posi-
tion, as well as what has been incorporated into Part V. He thinks this is a
good document and thorough review of all of the written comments in trying to
accommodate the needs of the entire community in this Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Mr. Marshall commented that all of his questions have not been answered,
and he still has some reservations about certain portions of the amendment.
As he reads this amendment, it gives him the impression that it will be the
law. He said that when he is trying to think of the amendment as being a
guide for people to utilize, he keeps seein§ it as some means of putting
additional restrictions on landowners in Albemarle County. He is not sure
that average citizens can afford these additional restrictions. Mr. Bowerman
replied that there are no additional restrictions which have the force of law
contained in this document. Mr. Marshall said he understands this. He added
that when the document is read, it indicates that there are going to be very
restrictive ordinances for land use. Mr. Bowerman argued that there are
statemenEs in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the goals and objectives of
land use, which are also quite specific, if they were all implemented. He
said that if the public purpose to be served by these concerns are addressed
in this Open Space Plan are legitimate concerns that the County officials want
to address or may address sometime in the future, then he would suggest they
be incorporated. He added that this amendment does not have the force of a
Zoning Ordinance at this point, as does nothing else in the Comprehensive
Plan. He said the Supervisors take the Comprehensive Plan under advisement
when a special permit is reviewed, because the staff has to go through the
examination of how the permit applies to the Comprehensive Plan. He explained
that there is a set process for this examination which the staff must go
through. He said the Planning Commission and the Board have ample opportunity
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 4.B. 41, Pg. 318
(Page 31)
at the public hearing to consider those comments in light of the facts of that
particular application. Mr. Marshall stated that he understands this, and he
has discussed this with Mr. Bowerman, etc. He added that it has been the past
history of this Board and for Board members before him, and he assumes after
him, to interpret the Comprehensive Plan as being the guide that has to be
followed in most cases, and only a few exceptions have deviated from it. Mr.
Bowerman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is a guide that provides a
considerable amount of direction to planning activities in this community.
Mr. Bain explained that durin9 the last Comprehensive Plan review, the
Board talked specifically about the rural areas and what was going to be done
or tried there. He said that implementation was considered, as well as
general things. Voluntary clusters were a compromise, and it was something to
work towards that would furnish some protection, and encourage open space and
some preservation. It was felt that the people who have the property and want
to develop it in the rural areas,, could~evelop a cluster and provide some
benefits along with 100 to 200 acres, etc., that would not be touched. He
reiterated that this was a compromise, and he thinks that it has worked
somewha~ successfully. He is not totally happy with the situation, and he
does not think anybody on that Board after seeing a few results was happy
with it.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he sees the Board refining these regulations
more and more. He is concerned because for so many people a piece of land and
home is all the investment that they have, and he recalled that it was the
first investment that he made. Regardless of where it is, Mr. Marshall stated
that there will come a point in time when the people will have to sell their
home and land. He added that he does not want restrictions to be so restric-
tive for those individuals that it will literally wipe out all of their
investment, and he sees this document doing that to the small landowner. He
feels as though the small landowner is the one who will be hurt. He does non
care about land speculators, because they are gamblers, and they are doing
what they want to do. He noted that if the small landowner, who owns the
small farm in Southern Albemarle does not have the right to sell that piece of
property for the highest price that he can get for it, or the person making
the major wage of that family dies, etc., then this Board is putting a
tremendous burden on that individual. There are people in this room tonight
who own nothing but a house, and that house is being considered to be torn
down, as opposed to some open land adjacent to it. He does non agree with
that.
Mr. Perkins stated that he has some questions to ask, also. He added
that the discussion the last few minutes sounds as though the other Supervi-
sors are lecturing Mr. Marshall and trying to tell him what the Open Space
Plan is all about. He believes Mr. Marshall knows what the Plan is all about,
but the Supervisors have different perspectives about it. He then called
attention to Page Seven of the excerpts from letters regarding the Open Space
Plan, where it states that, "Mountains are only protected by critical slopes
provision .... " Mr. Perkins sazd he thinks there are other County ordinances
which protect mountains. He noted that Mr. St. John mentioned communities
which have mountaintop developments. He thinks these developments took place
before road requirements, etc., were in place. He remarked that this County
has provisions which require a better grade of road after a certain number of
houses are built. He added, however, that when steep mountain slopes are
involved, with expensive earth moving etc., the road costs can become prohibi-
tive quickly. He said the mountains, in a sense, protect themselves, because
they are mountains. He would like to hear some comments from Mrs. Garnett and
Mr. Bloch, who are in the audience, about some of the things they have written
in their letters concerning this Open Space Plan. He noted that Mr. Bloch had
written a letter representing the Farm Bureau, and the staff has answered all
of the letters that were received about the Open Space Plan.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had planned to ask Mr. Bloch, as well as
others in the audience, if they wished to speak. He said that Mr. Bloch had
written him a letter, and he asked Mr. Bloch if he had sent copies to the
other Board members. Mr. Bloch answered, "no." Mr. Bowerman stated that he
had singled one paragraph from Mr. Bloch's letter which he thinks is a
legitimate concern. He asked for the opportunity to read this paragraph, but
he emphasized that the concern expressed in this paragraph is not his intent
with the Open Space Plan. He then read from Mr. Bloch's letter which stated
that Mr. Bloch feared some of the regulations would effectively pre-empt the
value of placing voluntary easements on property and thereby rob the farmer of
significant estate and income tax breaks whose magnitude in many cases will
determine that farmer's very survival. Mr. Bowerman added that he thinks Mr.
Bloch is suggesting that, if open space and critical resource provisions are
imposed on land owners, and they are preempted from their right to make
voluntary gifts or deeds, then a valuable consideration has been taken away.
Mr. Bowerman went on to say that he does not think, by any stretch of the
imagination, this should be the effect of anything this County does. He
agrees that there are legitimate benefits that can be received through
existing tax structure and through the existing conservation easemenus to
which farmers can make themselves available. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that he
thinks this is an important point, and he agrees with it. He next asked Mr.
Bloch if he wanted to speak.
Mr. Bloch, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, stated that
the paragraph to which Mr. Bowerman referred, finished an earlier thought by
Mr. Marshall, when Mr. Marshall mentioned that land might have to be sold
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) ~4.B 4!
(page 32) '
after a death in the family. He added that land is all a farmer has. He said
that tractors and cattle come and go, but ~he main asset that a farmer has is
the land. He went on to say that estate taxes on 'a large place which has been
in a family for quite a while range up to 55 percent. A person has to be a
shrewd tax lawyer, or he has to be able to afford one, or the person will have
to sell. He added that an appraiser came out to his place last year, because
he was considering putt±ng in an easement. His farm is close to the Southwest
Mountains on Route 22. The appraiser said that the only significant benefit
that could be received from putting in an easement would be to restrict
building above a certain level where it could be seen. He mentioned that the
level is 700 feet, and at 700 feet a house cannot be seen from the road or
anywhere else on the farm. The appraiser gave him a figure of what that would
be. He then privately showed the supervisors the after-tax figure as it would
pertain to a situation, after the 50 percent bracket, and if the Open Space
Plan is approved, and development is restricted over 700 feet, and if the
ability to put in an easement is preempted. He said that there are a lot of
reasons why an easement cannot be put in. He added that this situation could
cost him the ability to keep the farm.
He then mentioned critical slopes. All of the Southwest Mountains are
wooded and historically, upon generation changes, the mountains have been
logged. He emphasized, though, that logging is done to pay the taxes. If any
enabling legislation comes along that would restrict the farmers' ability to
get the good timber off of the mountains, it will further restrict the
farmers' ability to survive. He said that clusters are not enough. The view
is what is valuable, but clusters can be put in the flat land where no one can
see the houses, and there is no view of the mountains. He had wanted to hear
what the appraiser had to say about the situation, because he had wanted to
get an objective view. The appraiser told him he would not get any benefits
unless he could cut out the view, and there are a lot of views that would be
affected by this plan. The plan is laudable, because farmers cannot exist
without open space. He said he farmers' land, unfortunately, is valued at
what a developer will pay for it, and the farmers can get all of the property
tax breaks with land use and agricultural/forestal districts. He said,
however, when the IRS gets involved, after the earth has been turned, it
always comes back to how the land can best be used, and the farmer has to have
control or he cannot stay in business.
Mrs. Jean O. Wilhelm stated that her husband is the President of the
Montvue Citizens Association. She thinks the County has had a fascinating
experience with ordinances and regulations, and every other possible imagin-
able thing that can happen to a person's personal property on which people
have lived for over 30 years. She paid attention to the comments made at the
Commission meeting, and she noticed that the people asked there be another
work session before the proposed Plan was brought to the Board of Supervisors.
She said he Planning Commission voted five to two to pass the Open Space Plan,
but they did not have another work session. She thinks this is a tremendous
injustice to every single one of the Board's constituents. She emphasized
that she has called a lot of people, and they have never heard of the Open
Space Plan. She said that maybe the citizens are not aware of it, but this
proposed Open Space Plan is so massive that the supervisors' constituency
should know about it. She remarked that she will take responsibility for not
being aware, but she pointed out that she did go down to the County office,
and somebody found a copy of the Open Space Plan. She sat there and read the
entire document.
She then called attention to some people who had made comments in
letters about the proposed Plan. She said there was one letter dated April
15, 1992, from the Republic Capital Corporation, and she also noticed a letter
from Mrs. Garnett. She then read a letter from all 36 homeowners in the
Montvue neighborhood in which it was indicated that few of the Montvue
residents have any idea of the magnitude and implications of the proposed Open
Spaces and Critical Resources Plan for the protection of Albemarle County's
undeveloped land, and they are concerned about the lack of protection for
small property owners, as well as many established subdivision residents. It
is her understanding that there is going to be a public hearing on July 15,
but it has been announced in the newspaper. She has not found anybody who
knows anything about this plan, except those people who have received Mr.
Lindstrom's Piedmont Environmental Council letter. She then continued reading
from the Montvue Citizens' letter that it is the obligation of the elected
representatives to engage in a full public discussion before voting on this
Plan. She said she would leave copies of this letter for the supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Wilhelm what she would suggest, as far as
notification to the public zs concerned. Mrs. Wilhelm responded by asking how
the public is notified. Mr. Perkins answered that notification of the public
meetings are put in the newspaper two weeks before the meetings. Mrs. Wilhelm
responded that she does not read the legal notices. She does not think that
many of the County citizens look through the legal notices. She does not
think this is a normal place to put notices of this type. She thinks it would
be appropriate to have an ad or announcement in the newspaper and on the radio
or television stating what is happening and asking people to go down to the
County office building and look at the plans and map. She thinks that before
the July 15, 1992 meeting, the supervisors need to make some effort to spend
some money on an ad to inform the citizens that this is something that affects
everybody, because, as she pointed out, it does affect all of the County's
citizens. She is non politically sophisticated when it comes to this type of
thing.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B 4!Pg.320
(Page 33) ' ~
Mrs. Humphris told Mrs. Wilhelm that she understands her frustration.
She had gone to the first public meeting on the Meadow Creek Parkway last
week. She listened to the comments of the citizens, and she was amazed at the
number of people who made comments such as, "How dare the County officials let
the citizens buy houses in subdivisions, such as Forest Lakes, and then decide
they are going to build the Meadow Creek Parkway in that vicinity." The sheer
frustration is knowing that the Meadow Creek Parkway has been in the plans for
15 years, but nobody paid attention until their. homes were affected. She said
that throughout all of the publicity of Meadow Creek Parkway all of these
years, it did not get the people's attention. She commented that this really
does shine the light on Albemarle County's problem of not getting people's
attention, not only with the Open Space Plan, but in every thing that is done
in County government. She mentioned a communication to the supervisors from
the Farm Bureau, and she said that she assumes the Farm Bureau officials
apprised their membership. She then noted that representatives from the Citi-
zens for Albemarle have participated in the work sessions, and have let their
membership know about the matter. She added that the Piedmont Environmental
Council is involved, and its membership has been informed. She went on to say
that the Ivy Creek Foundation's newsletter had a big headline about partici-
pating in this issue. She thinks County governmenE officials rely on inter-
ested and affected membership organizations to do their jobs for them, and
that they probably do not take as much responsibility for such matters as they
should. She is unsure, however, if this would produce more people coming to
meetings. It is hard to get people to attend meetings, unless they feel their
property is immediately and directly affected.
Mrs. Wilhelm stated that the Open Space Plan will affect every homeowner
in Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris agreed, but she said it is hard to get the
homeowners to understand that. Mrs. Wilhelm responded that she understands
this, because she is sure that the parents of the children she sees in the
schools, are both working. She does not think that these people will be
reached, but these people will be dramatically affected by this proposed Plan.
Mrs. Garnett spoke next and recalled that Mr. Bain had said at the last
work session she attended that, "We have done all we can do. Let the people
read the paper, and they will get their information there." She commented
that the Daily Progress does not inform the people of this County very well.
She said the press is interested in controversy, and in which supervisor makes
an argumentative statement. Mrs. Garnett went on to say that as far as
informing the public, it has been approximately 10 or 12 years since the
Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors informed the public. She
added that mosn people have the impression that the supervisors and commis-
sioners love Room Seven, but they do not really want the people in Room Seven.
She said the impression is that the supervisors and commissioners want to move
on, and do it, and they want the public to be quiet. This ms the attitude
that people think the supervisors have. The legal ads in the back of the
Daily Progress are very difficult to read. Sometimes an ad will start on one
page but it will not be continued to the page that is indicated. She stated
that the supervisors need a public agent who will tell the Daily Progress
staff what to put in the newspaper. She agrees with Mrs. Wilhelm, that this
proposed Plan involves every homeowner in Albemarle County, and it will affect
them some way within the next 30 years. She added that most homeowners do not
know what is happening, or they would be attending this meeting. She stated
that it is difficult for the people to follow in the Daily Progress what the
supervisors are doing.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he has a difficult time following the
supervisors' actions, and he is a member of this Board. Mrs. Wilhelm comment-
ed that the organizations to which Mrs. Humphris referred, except for the Farm
Bureau, probably involve the same people. She said that a large group of
people are not being covered through these organizations' newsletters.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he doubts the same people are involved with the
Blue Ridge Homebuilders as are associated with the Piedmont Environmental
Council. He said that Mrs. Wilhelm's point is well taken that there ms a
group of concerned activists on both sides of an issue who are well informed
about what the County is doing or not doing. He added that he did not try to
confront Mrs. Wilhelm by asking the question that he did. He ms genuinely
concerned, as is this Board, on communicating what the County is doing to and
with the public. He said there has been a large degree of frustration on the
supervisors' part when there are numerous public meetings, and articles are
being written about what the County supervisors are doing and the connrover-
sies that take place. He stated that, yet, there is still non a large
participation at any of the supervisors' meetings. He thinks that unless
people are directly affected, they do not care at that point in time. He
said, though, that five years later, if they are affected, they do care, and
then they ask why they were not informed. It is a continuous problem of
government when this is done, and he does not think there is a perfect answer,
and thousands of dollars could be spent on newspaper ads. He emphasized that
the supervisors cannot tell the Daily Progress what to print, unless they are
paying for it. He commented that this can be done, and if he thought there
was a substantial difference in what could be communicated to the public, he
thinks that this would be done. He believes, however, that it is the supervi-
sors' sense that it really does not make any difference. He added that work
sessions are held. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan took three years to
develop the last time, and the Planning Commission had over 100 meetings. He
said that the Board of Supervisors worked on the Comprehensive Plan for nine
months. He added that a person could not have been in this community and not
(Page 34) °
have known that this was being done. He remarked, though, that people still
do not know about the Meadow Creek Parkway. He added that the County offi-
cials will do their best to keep the public informed, but he does not think
there is any perfect way to get people involved, who do not want to be in-
volved.
Mrs. Wilhelm suggested that the supervisors think about more publicity,
when they want to cover every corner of Albemarle County. She stated that
there is much in the Open Space Plan that she thinks is good, and she feels
the staff has done a tremendous amount of work. She is not belittling the
efforts of everybody, because she thinks it is a good piece of written
material. She recognizes, however, that there are pros and cons to some of
the things that are in the Open Space Plan. She reiterated that she had only
seen three comments from citizens in the~material_that she examined when she
looked through the Open Space Plan. Mr. Bowerman stated that the comments to
which Mrs. Wilhelm is referring were the main objections. Mrs. Wilhelm
responded that she thought that three objections represented remarkably few
people to be objecting to this issue.
Mr. Marshall commented that he is a hunter, and he loves to bird hunt.
He said that, consequently, he is a member of the National Rifle Association.
He added that when there is legislation pertaining to hand guns being banned,
it bothers him. He stated that it is not that he is opposed to hand guns
being banned, because he does not use them. He said, however, that he becomes
frightened that his shotgun will be taken away. He added that he uses this as
an analogy so that Mr. Cilimberg will understand his feelings about the open
space issue. He sees this Open Space Plan in the same manner as he sees hand
gun legislation, as an NRA member. He wants to make sure that his land is
not taken away from him or his wife after he is gone. He added that the land
is his major asset, as it is for many other people in this County. He
commented that whatever he has to do to make that clear, he will do. He
believes most of the people in this County want to know the same thing,
particularly those people who are working. He commented that maybe they are
like him and do not comprehend What is going on with some of these issues as
well as the other supervisors. He thinks that this matter needs to be made
clear to the citizens.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the supervisors are getting into philosophy.
He does not believe that anyone is trying to lecture Mr. Marshall. He added
that the fact that someone owns 100 acres of land that can be developed and
has an economic value to it, is as much the product of government, as it is
not the product of government. He went on to say that if there were not any
land use regulations at all, there could be a large factory or a nuisance use
which could locate next to a person's property which would significantly
detract from the value of that person's property in the terms of economic
benefit. The rules which are put into place have benefits and negatives, not
only to individual landowners, but to the community, as well. The supervisors
are attempting to balance the needs of the community and the individual
landowners and to know that value is being created and value is being taken
away through the political process. He added that this is an attempt to
balance all of these issues with the Open Space Plan. He commented that Mr.
Marshall says he wants to be able to get the economic value out of his land.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there are certain things which this County has
done to protect the value of that land as well as certain restrictions which
have been put on it. He said that, hopefully, there is a balance which allows
people to use their land in the way that they see fit and to get a good
economic return from it. He noted, too, that the people who are adjacent to
landowners are also protected from those people doing something illegal on
that land and destroying the other people's value. He stated that it is all a
balance. He said that Montvue has a situation which developed because of an
agricultural/forestal district and a road alignment which does not go through
the agricultural/forestal district. He added that Montvue's problem is
directly associated with a land use decision on the part of Albemarle County.
He understands the Montvue's citizens' points of view about that.
Mr. Marshall remarked that a business man looks at supply and demand.
He knows that more people are being born every day, but no more land is being
created. He noted that there will be a demand for land, whether it is in
Albemarle County or Carmel, California. He said that how the use of that land
is restricted directly affects the value of it.
Mr. Bowerman commented that zoning regulations, which are applied to
property by County officials, affect the value of land because it increases
the value of it. He said this is the political process, and it is part of the
system.
Mr. Marshall remarked that he does not want to penalize the people with
the least money, in trying to prohibit what the land speculators and develop-
ers are doing. He noted that these people cannot be here to speak for
themselves.
Mr. Bain concurred that this is what everyone on the Board is trying to
do. He went on to say that the supervisors try to weigh every decision at
every meeting, whether it is a land use decision, a budgetary decision, or a
school decision, etc. He believes that each supervisor takes the responsibil-
ity of the job seriously.
July(Pagel,35)1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B. 41, Pg. 322
Mr. Tucker suggested that for the July 15 meeting, the staff take a
random tract of 100 acres that have the various open space elements on it, and
try to find an analysis between what the use and the values are today, and
what they would be after the Open Space Plan is adopted. He added that there
will not be any change, because the Open Space Plan is a guide. He hopes to
show with a particular tract of land, what effect or difference one might see,
if the Open Space Plan is adopted. He said this would probably be helpful to
the Board, and he feels that it would be helpful to the public. He added
that he thinks there is a lot of real concern. He wonders if the staff could
alleviate some of thms concern with an example piece of property, and point
out what the problems might be.
Mr. Marshall suggested that the staff show three different pieces of
properties in three different areas. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff
could show the Board a piece of property in a growth area, a rural area and a
third location, which the staff can.identify, He told the Board that there
will be an effect, and the effect will be within a parcel where development
would be the most desirable to take place. He said there will not be an
effect on how many dwelling units or lots that can be created, because there
is nothing zn the Open Space Plan which calls for a reduction in that area.
Mrs. Humphris concurred that the example properties would be a tremendous
help.
Mr. Bain commented that approximately four years ago he had mentioned
that he would like to have an informational newsletter go out to the County
citizens on a monthly basis. He said that Mr. Tucker has already started the
process. He did not get the support that he needed to get this newsletter
started then, and maybe he will not now. He suggested, though, that this
matter be considered, as well as a way to get the newsletter distributed. He
said that this would be information for the public, and he thinks that it is
critical to get such a newsletter to the citizens.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is the manner of distribution of the FYI
Newsletter. Mr. Tucker replied that the FYI Newsletter is a pilot newsletter
that he is using with the supervisors and department heads, as well as the
media. He noted that the newsletter is also distributed to the Police
Department, and the Police Department makes parts of the FYI newsletter
available in its newsletter that is sent to the Neighborhood Watch groups. He
said he County's newsletter gets to a lot of the County's urban population,
but it does not have any distribution to the rural areas, as yet. He said the
newsletter has been done on a pzecemeal basis to see how effective it is, and
to see if there is a good response from the public. He remarked that he knows
the staff has gotten a lot of criticism when there have been discussions about
providing newsletters to citizens. The staff would be happy to look into the
matter to see what type of distribution of the newsletter can be provided. He
wanted to look at it in terms of asking if utility companies could help make
the newsletters available to the citizens. Mr. Bain suggested that the
newsletter could be put in the realtor's newspaper boxes in the County, and he
said that these boxes are in 500 places throughout the community.
Mr. Tucker stated that the newsletter could easily be distributed in the
urban area, and areas which are served by the Rivanna water and sewer system
through its billing system. He said there ms no way to get this newsletter to
everybody other than sending it out in the citizens' tax bills, and that is
not a good time to send information to people. He said the staff would study
the matter.
Mr. Blaine wondered if the supervisors would consider taking these
issues, and any amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, out to the neighbor-
hoods. He said City Council does this type of thing. He added that the
supervisors could get input from the citizens in the different neighborhoods
as to what they consider as important open space in their neighborhoods. He
went on to say that maybe these citizens would have some ideas and approaches
for preserving open space that the staff has not yet considered. He remarked
that when the issues are brought to the different communities, because it is
close to home and in their own neighborhoods, the citizens will pay attention
to it. He stated that he did have a chance to reflect on Mr. Lindstrom's
letter, and he thinks it relates to his (Mr. Blaine's) point. Mr. Blaine went
on to say that Mr. Lindstrom's letter indicates that considerations as to
economic and fiscal impacts in this process are not practical. Mr. Blaine
stated that he thinks this is what the Supervisors are hearing from the
people, because they are wondering how the Open Space Plan will impact them,
and if it will affect the value of their land. He added that this topic falls
under other priorities, and it may not be a heading in the Comprehensive Plan,
but he has seen this Board consider these issues. He inquired that if the
Open Space Plan is not going to be self-executing, what is the urgency of
adopting something today or on July 15, if the Supervisors are not satisfied
that they have the input from these neighborhoods. He noted that the Compre-
hensive Plan's overall amendment is required to be reviewed every five years,
and he suggested that maybe this process should start now. He stated that
there is nothing mn the law that prohibits the Supervisors from working on
this amendment more than every five years or in starting the process two and
one-half years early. He said the Supervisors could then be assured that no
one could criticize the Board that it has not given an opportunity for
everyone's input. He suggested that not only could the Supervisors focus on
the Open Space Plan, but affordable housing, infrastructure and transpor-
tation, etc., could also be considered for neighborhood meetings.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M,B Pg.323
(Page 36) ·
Mr. Bowerman the Planning Commission has taken the Comprehensive Plan to
neighborhoods around the County. He noted that there is an item under today's
Consent Agenda, entitled, "Growth Areas, NeighborhoOd Plans," which Mr.
Bowerman stated is an attempt to involve each neighborhood in the Comprehen-
sive Plan process. He said' this could be exEended to the communities and the
rural areas,and the entire County would be covered. Mr. Blaine mentioned that
taking meetings to individual neighborhoods requires a huge time commitment.
He added that these are high priority items.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he had regular monthly meetings in his
district for two of his three terms on the Board of Supervisors. He said the
meetings were advertised in the paper and on the radio. He added that so few
people attended those meetings, that he quit having them, except on special
issues. He stated that when he was on the Board, the_~Supervisors did not do
nearly as much as this Board has done to involve the public. He remarked that
this Board has really tried to involve the.~-public~with the Sign Ordinance and
the Open Space Ordinance. He has seen this Board involving the public
extensively, and he believes the staff will agree. He remarked that it is
difficult to get people involved in something that has to do with government,
unless they feel that they are being harmed or might be harmed. He noted that
it was not the agricultural/forestal district which harmed the Montvue proper-
ty. He said that it was the Virginia Department of Transportation's misuse of
the agricultural/forestal district. He wenn on to say that VDoT officials
have not even asked the Board of Supervisors to defend the agricultural/
forestal district. It is a ridiculous ploy by VDoT, and he said that anybody
who has followed VDoT's antics during the last ten years will agree that this
is true. He pointed out that there is a large group of people who support
most of what this Board does. He brought out the fact that when this Board is
doing something that the people like, they do not come to the meetings. He
said that it takes tremendous effort to get just a few people to these
meetings. He stated that decisions cannon be made based on who is or who is
not in a room. He added that people have to listen and try to become educated
by what they hear, but they have to make their own decisions. The Board
members know it is not true when they are told by someone in the public that
they are doing things in a vacuum. He said the people who feel that they are
being harmed, or have not paid attention and learn at the last minute about a
problem, are always going to be upset. The people who support something and
think things are going along in the right direction are not going to come to a
meeting, but they are going to be upset when they learn that a few people who
are opposed to something came out and changed the Board's thinking on the
matter.
He agreed with Mr. Tucker that no matter what the Board does, someone is
unhappy. He said that if the Supervisors want to try the newsletter, that is
fine. He added that the reason the Supervisors were elected was because
sooner or later they are going to have to make decisions. He said the
Supervisors will never have all 68,000 people in the County knowing everything
the Board is doing. He pointed out that the important thing about this Open
Space proposal is the balance. He said the Supervisors want to promote
economic development and growth in the community, and they want the community
to retain the qualities that it has. He went on to say that he knows the
Chairman is concerned about the consensus for the Open Space Plan. Mr.
Lindstrom said he thinks there is a real opportunity for consensus among those
individuals and groups which are active in this community, if they see a
balanced approach. If these people see only one part of the equation, such as
promoting development and growth, but there is a fear about telling people
what to do so that the Supervisors are not willing to take steps to protect
rural areas, then he thinks it will be a continuing battle. He said it is a
tough issue, and he remarked that this is the sixth or seventh meeting on this
issue that the Supervisors have held.
Mr. Perkins called attention to Page 16 of Part V relative to the
section on, "Mountains." He read the objective which states, "Recognize the
value of Albemarle's mountains and pursue additional protection measures." He
believes this is important, if these protection measures are things with which
the people in Albemarle County can live. He next mentioned Number One, under
"Short Term Strategy," relative to mountains, where it spoke of developing
regulations. He asked what regulations are being considered. He read
portions of the strategy to the Supervisors, and he said he thinks it is
speaking of man's activities. He pointed out that a man's activities can be
bad or good. He noted than the impact the gypsy moth had on this County last
year, will have this year and during the next five or ten years will be more
significant than all of man's activities for the last 200 years. He said
nothing can be done about this, and not even spraying will stop it. He
recalled that this County had an ice storm approximately every 10 or 15 years.
He said the trees on Afton Mountain, and in other parts of the County, were
completely torn up after one of the ice storms. He is unsure to what this
section of Part V is aimed, but he wonders if it relates to clear cutting,
because it creates a place which can be seen on a mountain. He pointed out
that clear cutting is temporary. He is suspect of what is being said in this
section and what it will lead to. He commented, too, that he thinks this is
what Mr. Marshall has been saying. Mr. Perkins went on to say that he is
concerned about who will be sitting on this Board, and how they will review
this issue. He is concerned that other Board members may feel as though they
have to put more and more restrictions on the type of activities which go on
in this County, particularly related to farming and forestry. He stated that
things can be done with forestry which are temporary, because Mother Nature
does a good job. He added that with man's help, Mother Nature does a better
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
M.B. 41, Pg. 324
job of healing up the wounds that are created, and in many cases developing
something better than what was there originally. He has concerns because it
seems that so much of the proposal is aimed at the mountains.
Next, Mr. Perkins called attention to Page 17 where there was a short
term strategy aimed at preserving or establishing trees or vegetative buffers
in specific areas. He wondered if this strategy relates to planting trees,
because he said there has been some discussion of preservation and conserva-
tion. He stated that if trees are planted, the stand of trees will not be
there forever. He noted the stand of Loblolly pines at Albemarle High School
and the fact that some of them were taken for a parking lot. He added that
these pines were reaching old age, and they were not going to be there
forever. He said this is also true with hardwood trees. He asked that if
trees are established in certain areas, will these areas be managed. He
wondered, too, if vegetative buffers are used, what type of vegetation is
being considered. He asked if hay fields are considered, will the person who
owns that land be allowed to cut the hay off of it. He also inquired if
people would be able to harvest timber off of their property in these buffer
areas. He thinks that all of this has to be defined before the buffers are
established. He asked who owns the buffers, and if the buffers are considered
as open space. He wondered if the landowner owns a buffer area, will the
landowner be restricted as to what he can do with it and will there be tax
breaks for such areas. He thinks the buffers are important and a good
concept, and it will certainly make a much more attractive community. He
believes, however, that the matter needs to be better defined.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the areas to which Mr. Perkins referred are
covered in growth area information and they are identified, with green lines,
on maps of the growth areas. He said these areas were identified so that when
the staff reviewed plans, the staff can try to give preservation to existing
wooded areas or include plantings as part of those plans, which will be
required through the landscaping and tree canopy provisions. He added that
the buffer areas have not been identified in the rural areas. He reiterated
that the buffer areas relate to growth areas, and they are to provide a buffer
between dissimilar uses.
Mr. Perkins called attention to Route 29 South and the North Garden
village area. He noted that some of this land is now in trees, and some of it
is in pasture fields and hay fields. He said this is an attractive area now,
and he wondered how to preserve this area and keep it attractive. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the intention is that the establishment of these
buffers would occur during the development process of the growth areas.
Mr. Martin said tha5 nothing happens, as far as buffers are concerned,
until someone wants to develop the property. Mr. Cilimberg concurred. He
said that perhaps the intention could be added to clarify the situation.
Next, Mr. Perkins asked about the last page of Part V, under the section
entitled, "For Further Consideration During the nexE review of the Comprehen-
sive Plan." He mentioned Number One under this section relating to a reduc-
tion in permitted density or by-right allowances in order to further protect
specific open space areas such as mountains, farmlands and forests. He can
guarantee that this is one thing that will be discussed during the next review
of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that this has probably been discussed
more than anything else, and the Board was split in its feelings about the
issue. He added that there were proposals that 40 acre lot sizes be created
rather than 21 acre lot sizes. His feelings are that the County has to keep
its currenu regulations, because if it does not, it will appear that what has
been given will be taken away. He said that one parcel is one thing, but when
the whole County is involved, that is something else. He agrees with Number
Two under this same section indicating a reconsideration of growth area
boundaries based on the Concept Map. His feelings are that there are enough
restrictions to regulate all of the County. He thinks the Supervisors need to
look for a way to make it easier for development to happen in the growth areas
rather than looking at more restrictions for other parts of the County.
Mr. Bowerman agreed that much of what Mr. Perkins has Said is correct,
and he thinks that it points out the fact that somehow, over the next few
years, some additional powers have to be received from the State to allow
density transfers and other management tools which allow people to receive
economic value for their land and which would let the community direct growth
where it chooses to direct it. He believes that without those powers, it will
be difficult to accomplish anything along these lines.
Mr. Perkins stated that the Supervisors need to look at their own
ordinances. He wondered how the County can make it easier for someone to put
a subdivision in the Crozet growth area, or any other growth area in the
County. He asked if street requirements could be lessened. He is unsure what
can be done.
Mr. Bain recalled the effort to change requirements for roads from
mountain standards to rolling standards. He said the County staff had
something to do with that, with help from this Board. He added that the State
was approached about this matter, and the requirements were changed. He said
this affected Redfields, and possibly Crozet Crossing and some of the other
subdivisions, so it is hOE as though the Supervisors have put more regulations
on subdivisions, etc. This Board has made some efforts toward some of these
things. He stated that this Board may have a ways to go, and he is not saying
July(Pagel,38)1992 (Regular Day Meeting) 4.B. Pg. 325
that it does not, but he does not think that this Board has been one-sided.
He asked how many counties in the State have private roads. He noted that
Albemarle County has had them for fourteen or fifteen years. There are
benefits and detriments involved with the matter, but the Supervisors have
tried to help with the problem.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the Comprehensive Plan is clear that the
growth areas need to be supported. He added that one of the things that the
staff hears is that infrastructure provisions are very important. He said
this costs a lot of money, but it is important, when the developers are
looking at where infrastructure is available. Mr. Martin concurred that
infrastructure is probably the biggest potential inducement that the County
could have. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the roads need to be built in some of
the neighborhoods. Mr. Bain agreed. He mentioned that the connection between
Routes 250 and 240 has been shown in the Comprehensive Plan for some time. He
said this connection will cost a lot of money, and he wondered where the
Supervisors can find the money to build it. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that, at a
previous meeting, Mr. Marshall had mentioned the Avon Street/Route 20 connec-
tor road, which has been planned for some time. He said this is a type of
project that the State will probably not construct. Mr. Marshall stated that
the Avon Street/Route 20 connector road will have to be built, eventually.
Mr. Bowerman commented that if it is the Supervisors' intention, they
will go to public hearing on July 15 with this plan. Mr. Cilimberg commented
that Mr. Perkins made one reference to the buffer areas and development, and
how that is to be considered. He said the staff can add some language, if the
Board thinks that it is appropriate, to make it clearer. Mr. Bain stated that
he thinks this is a good idea. Mr. Martin suggested using the second portion
of Mr. Lindstrom's statement to the last page of Mr. Cilimberg's statement.
Mr. Bowerman concurred. Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris said that the word,
"advise," has been used twice in the language to which Mr. Martin referred,
and it should be changed to, "advice." Mr. Tucker remarked that, in addition,
the staff will have three different tracts of land available for the Board to
see with an analysis showing the property before and after the proposed Open
Space Plan is approved.
Mr. Bowerman said the July 15 meeting should be held in the auditorium.
He asked Mr. Tucker to have an Executive Summary available to summarize the
whole Open Space Plan so that the people can have a quick overview. He added
that if people feel concerned about the Open Space Plan they can get the full
document. '
Mr. Martin suggested that perhaps the staff could explain the three
scenarios rather than just showing what will change if the Open Space Plan is
approved.
Mr. Bain asked if the Supervisors would want to run a block ad a week
ahead of the July 15 meeting. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would be in favor
of more advertisement of the Open Space Plan public hearing, if there is any
potential that there could be wider dissemination of information by paying for
an ad, even if it was to run the Executive Summary in the newspaper. He noted
that this would cost a lot of money. He does not know what more the news
media could report, other than what has happened in this meeting, in terms of
a difference of opinions and the importance of the Open Space Plan. Mr.
Bowerman suggested that the Open Space Plan be placed as the first item on the
agenda and that it be publicized.
Agenda Item No. 23d. Work Session: Road Name and Street Address
Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman announced that there is an eight inch sign which can be
seen going south on McIntire Road at the first entrance into the parking lot,
and there is a six inch sign at the second entrance into the parking lot. He
said that both are 48 inch signs and have the name Thomas Jefferson Parkway on
them. He suggested that the other Supervisors take a look at them. He said he
could not read the six inch sign until he was very close to it. Mr. Tucker
pointed out that eight inch signs have been used in subdi~lsions for the past
six or seven years.
Mr. Bowerman noted that some recommendations had come from the Board's
first work session which were incorporated into the Road Name and Street
Address Ordinance. An option was considered of not having a road name sign
when there were three to five houses on a road. He believes the staff decided
against making this recommendation to the Board. He stated that this was one
of the things to which Mr. Martin had spoken.
Mr. Martin remarked that the staff had already recommended that a road
name sign be used where there were three or more houses on a road, and he
suggested that the number be moved to five houses. He said the staff comments
indicated that a lot of people had already ordered the signs. He said the
staff suggested that the residents be allowed the option of not having a road
sign for three to five houses. He stated that he, personally, thinks it makes
sense to raise the number to five. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens if two
people living along the same road want a sign, but three people do not. Mr.
Martin answered that he would think it would have to be a unanimous decision.
He said the rationale is that if there are more than three houses which do not
have a sign, it makes it more difficult for emergency vehicles to find them.
July 1~ 1992 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
M.B. 41, Pg. 326
He stated that if there are four dwellings on a road, and all four people
agree that they are willing to give up the extra time that it would take for
the rescue squad to find their places, then it is their decision. He added
that when people move into a rural area, they are making a decision, con-
sciously or unconsciously, to have reduced services.
Mrs. Humphris asked whose responsibility is it to see that the consensus
is reached one way or the other by the neighbors. She next asked what happens
when other people move into the neighborhood, and they do not wan~ emergency
vehicles to waste time trying to find them. She said this could be a real
problem, even if it only happened on one road, and she can foresee it happen-
lng on many. She added that in the beginning all parties might agree, but it
is still a problem in the reporting process for the staff. Mr. Martin pointed
out that he is only talking about the difference between three and five
houses, so there would not be a problem until the fifth house is involved. He
explained that with three people, ...the option is already there. He said there
would have to be four people located on a road before the option is extended,
so there would not be a problem until the fifth person moved there.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he does not think it makes any difference.
He said the houses are going to be in the same location, anyway. There is
either going to be a number on them which refers to the road that comes off of
the main road, or the houses will have a number displayed on the main road.
It is still going to be the same house in the same location. He reiterated
that he does not see what difference it will make as to which road the number
is located. He suggested that the regulation be changed to five houses, with
numbers displayed on the main road. He added that the other road, where the
houses are located, would not be named. The people should be just as easy to
find in this situation. Mr. Martin concurred. He said that it becomes a
problem when there are 10 or 15 numbers, and the emergency vehicle has to stop
and try to figure out which house needs the help. He thinks as long as there
are five or less houses involved, this plan should work.
Mr. Bain brought up the problem of a person moving into one of the five
houses and that person does not agree with the other four people on that road.
Mr. Martin stated that it would be a one time option. Mr. Bain asked if Mr.
Martin thought this could be put into a real estate contract. He does not
believe that it can be a one time option. Mr. Martin said the signs will go
up or not go up, and that is the end of it. Mr. St. John stated that Mr.
Martin is saying that the people who are living there now make the decision,
and the people who follow them will follow in the same pattern. He emphasized
that he is not talking about a new house. He said that an accomplished deci-
sion will have been made by the people who already live there, and a new
person will no~ have any right to expect that by moving there, the decision
can be reversed. Mr. Martin concurred.
Mr. Perkins remarked that this matter goes back to what was discussed a
few minutes ago about the public being informed and involved. He mentioned
the group of people who came to an open space meeting a couple of weeks ago,
and who did not get involved until the last minute. He thought these things
had been decided six or eight months ago. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff
thought that it was decided, too. He said that contractors have named every
one of those roads with three or more residences. He added that if several
hundred names are taken off of these roads, there will be big delays and
costs. Mr. Martin said he believes, however, that after the signs are put
into place, if the people who live on the road where there are five or less
houses, and they do not want the sign, then it would be at their expense to
take it down. He thinks this Board should follow the original plan and do
nothing different until after the signs are installed.
Mr. Tex Weaver stated that he would like to clarify what the Supervisors
are saying. He asked if the Board is interested in retaining the recommenda-
tion of installing a sign on a road with three or more dwellings until E911 is
implemented. He wondered if the Supervisors mean that then if a group of
individuals on a private road with five or less houses decide that they do not
want a sign, they have that option. He added that, if this is the case, the
County and Centel would have to go into their data bases and re-code those
addresses along that private road. He asked if this is what is intended.
Mr. Marshall commented that he thinks the main objection that people had
was the unsightliness of the signs all over the County. He said that after
seeing the signs today, he has changed his mind, because they are not as
offensive as they seemed when they were displayed in the meeting.
Mr. Bain commented that some of the VDoT signs will be taken down, which
will get rid of some of the sign clutter. Mr. Bowerman concurred.
At this time, Mr. Perkins made a motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to go
to public hearing with the Road Name and Street Address Ordinance as proposed
by the staff. '
Mr. Marshall asked if the statement will remain which pertains to the
fact that five or less residents on a road will have the option of not having
a road sign, providing that all residents on the road are in agreement. Mr.
Bowerman replied that this is not currently in the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that the Board is going to public hearing with the ordinance, as the
staff recommended.
July 1, 1992 (Regular Day Meeting) M.B.41, Pg.327
(Page 40)
Mr. Bowerman explained that the decision was to install a sign on roads
which have three or more houses located on them, and the signs will remain
there. He added that if there are two people living on a road and a third
house is built on that road, then the road is named and a sign will be in-
stalled, and the County pays for it. Mr. Weaver noEed that, as the ordinance
currently reads, the eight inch sign is the one to be installed.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the post office uses these road names as the
official mailing address, because it is both the address and the physical
location. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes.."
Mr. Cilimberg then distributed to the Supervisors some suggested changes
in Chapter Three of the manual for their consideration. He noted that this is
not part of the advertised ordinance. He said that the Engineering Department
staff has recommended these changes.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cilimberg is expecting the Board to vote on
these recommendations next week. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Supervisors
do not have to vote on the recommendations. He just distributing the recom-
mendations for the Board's consideration. Mr. Bowerman asked if these recom-
mendations will be included in the ordinance that this Board is expecting to
adopt. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "no." He said that the recommendations relate
to the manual.
Mr. Martin inquired if, after the public hearing, the Board would like
to entertain the idea that people who live on roads with three to five houses
could have the option of having a sign or not having it. He wondered if this
decision could be followed, so that a person moving into a house two or three
years from now would not have that option. Mr. St. John replied, "yes." He
said the situation to which Mr. Martin referred is the same as any other
street name in Charlottesville or Albemarle County. He added that a person
who moves in and does not like the street name, can make the effort to have
the street name changed, but there is no requirement by law that the person
has the right to accomplish that.
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn to July 8, 1992, at 5:30 P.M., Room 11.
At 4:16 p.m., Mr. Bain moved that the Board adjourn until July 8, 1992
at 5:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 11. Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Roll was
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Chairman