1991-12-11December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
194
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir-
ginia, was held on December 11, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
.Agenda. I~em No'...1.' .The meeting Was called to order at 9:07'A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda,Item No;'2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment Of Silence~
Agenda Item NO. 4.
Public. There were none.
Others Matters Not Listed on the 1Agenda from the
AgendaItem. No, .5. ConsentAgenda.. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
Seconded bk Mr.~Way, 'to approve items'.5.1 and 5.3 on the Consent .Agenda and to
accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Discussion
onindividual items is included withthose items in the minutes. (Note:: A
.separate Vote waS,taken on Item 5.2.) Roll was called and the motion carried
by the f0ilowing recorded vote:
AYES:~,.Messrs. Bain, Bowerman~. Bowie, Mrs...Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS:.~ None.
Item. 5.1. MemorandUm dated ,November'22, 1991,. from Mr. MelVin Breeden,
'Director of Finance, .addressed to Mr. Richard E. Huff, II, Deputy County
Executive, forwarding a request from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AHIp) that they be allowed to retain the surplus from Fiscal Year 1989-90 for
use ih.other projects.. Thefollowi~g letter dated October 16, 1991, from Ms.~
Theresa L, Tapscott, Executive~Director, .AHIP, addressed to. Mr. Breeden, was.
received:
"In my letter to you dated August I4, 1991, I requested the County
~ allow AHIP to carry over FY '89-90 surplus County funds of $13,840.06.
Several weeks later you phoned to request more information regarding
my request. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond t6 your
request, but the following is a history of the $13,840.06 cash
surplus.
During the period from. March1987 through September 1987, AHIP applied
for two separate grants to fund housing rehabilitation activities in
the County. The first was the Farmers Home Administration's Rural
Housing Preservation Grant (FmHA HPG) and, the second., the Department
of Health andHumanServices, Office of Community ServiceS.Discretion-
ary Grant~HHS OCS). In addition, the County applied for a~ Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) to fund housing rehabilitation activi-
ties. Luckily (but quite unexpectedly) AHIP was funded by both
programs, as well as the County being funded by CDBG.. .
AHIP pledged County operating support to each of the programs as
leverage. County operating suppo=t wasalso.used as match for the
CDBG application. However, because all three grant proposals were
funded, it was possible to substitute dollars from the FmHA HP and the
}IHS OCS Discretionary Grants for the County's operating support to
meet.the leveraging requir~ements for the CDBG.
Early in 1990 just as the County's 1987 CDBG was expiring,.the County
chose to apply~once again to that program for housing rehabilitation
funding. Unfortunately, the proposal was not funded. At that point,
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
195
it became obvious to me that AHIP's funding for rehabilitation
carpentry labor for the fiscal year to begin July 1, 1990, was going
to be a scarce commodity.
I closely examined the CDBG budget and determined that all match
requirements set forth in the application had not only been met, but
far exceeded. In addition, I determined sufficient funding was still
available from 1987 CDBG monies to fund AHIP's direct carpentry labor
for the balance of the fiscal year. It was at that point I decided to
conserve the balance of AHIP's funding for carpentry labor provided by
Albemarle County and instead apply for the remaining CDBG funding.
My rationale :was .that AHIP waS still performing work for CDBG project
families thus the use of that funding was appropriate. Also, looking
into the future, it was my hope that any County funds saved as a
result of my decision could. ~be carried forward for use during FY
'90-91 to continue to, fund carpentry staff already on board at~AHIP.~
I discussed this proposal with Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Execu-
tive, on several occasions.~ Mr. Jones made clear that he .did not
have .the authority to grant~AHIR permission.to carrythe surplus ~over.
However, he did view my decision as~reasonable and felt the ~Board Of
Supe~rvisors would approve the carry-over. Also, I felt therisk ~was
taking was. minimal in that LAHIP,s aUdit which identifies surpluses/
deficiencies is completed shortly after the conclusion of the,fiscal
year. My feeling was that I could obtain a. decision from the Board
before a considerable period of time had elapsed.
As fate would have.it, one set of unfortunate circumstances followed
another at AI{IP during~that time period. Computer difficulties early
in the fiscal year-made ~it impossible for the audit to take.plaCe. As
soon-as the~computer was~straightened out, AHIP's auditor became ill
and was unable to complete the audit in a timely fashion. AHIP did
not receive the completed audit until March.of 1991. It was at that
time that I began the process of formally requesting permission from
the County to carry the surplus over.
Again, I apologize for making this request nearly a year after .the
fact.~ I hope, ~however, the Board of Supervisors will favorably~con-
sider this request. Fiscal year 1990~91 was indeed unusual for.~AHIP
in ,that funding was available for material and. subcontract purchases,
but very little was available to fund~ the labor necessary to perform
the rehabilitation. The current year presents a much brighter picture
in that theCounty was. again funded fOrhousing~rehabilitation through
the CDBG program and~AHIP has secured on its own behalf another .FmHA
HPG."
By the above reco.rde&~vote, the Board authorized AHIP to. carry-o~erlFY
1989~9fl surplus County .funds. in the amount of $13,840.06. ~
Item 5~2. Memorandum dated December 6, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, entitled"Approval of Job Description for Community
Resources Coordinato=.V The following letter dated December 6, 1~91, from
Chief John Milier, Police Department, addressed to Mr~Richard~E. Huff,- II',
Deputy COunty Executive, wasreceived:
"I amrequesting, the authorization to .convert a police officer, posi-
tion to a newly created civilian..position~ of] Community Resource
Coordinator. This new position is. vital toour community, policing
initiatives that will begin in January, 1992. The conversion will
allow the department to continue to civilianize those administrative
positions where~sworn personnel are not needed. ~It will also allow
realigning the responsibilities of.an existing sergeant.
This request, if approved, will make it possible to transfer a police
sergeant froman administrator posit~ion to a supervisory position in
~our youth services unit. Because.~ Of~ our steadily growing youth
investigative workload and in'order to facilitate~the managing of .the
DARE Program, the PULSAR Program and the School Resource
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
196
Officer Program, it is necessary to combine them into one unit with
one supervisor responsible for the coordination and direction of these
related activities. The police sergeant we will be assigning is
trained and experienced in our youth programs.
The civilian Community Resource Coordinator will be directly involved
with the over 85 neighborhood watches and business associations in
identifying specific problems and concerns, and in coordinating
department programs and activities to address them. This position
will also be responsible for many other community-based programs and
activities, as well as creating and publishing a department newsletter
for the community.
The conversion of a police officer position to a civilian position is
important to meeting our department needs and will not require any
additional appropriation o£,fumds."
Mrs. Humphris .asked what was the value of, transferring a sworn officer
position to a civilian position.. Mr. Tucker said,the value would be the
ability to move that police officer who had been performing those specific
duties out into =the field. The new position allows a civilian to do work,
which is mostly publiC information and working with. neighborhood groups, that
does not necessarily need to be done by a police officer. Mrs. HumphriS asked
if fur~ding, was the same. Mr. Tucker replied "yes", funding is in the budget
for a police of£icer and the change would allow, that funding to beused for
the civilian.
Mrs. HumphriS asked, where'the funding would come from for the newsletter.
Mr. Tucker said this expense would be shared with the Crime P=evention Council
which currently provides a newsletter to the 85 neighborhood watch groups.
Mrs. Humph~is asked i~f Other County,information could be included.inthis
newsletter. Chief Miller saw no problem with including other county informa-
tion in. the'newsletter, Mrs. Humphris asked how the'neighborhoodS get the
newsletter.. Mr. Tucker,replied the. newsletter~is disseminated through
volunteers on the Crime Prevention, Council. Mrs. Humphris asked how. many
copies of, the newsletter are 4is.tributed. within the neighborhood. Mr. ,Tucker
said.itwas his ,understanding copies ,are Provided to Neighbor.hood Watch
captains. Mrs.. HUmphrislexpressed.concern, over the inability tOget pertinent
information on County, issues to..the, public. M~, Tucker thought it necessary
to get feedback: from .the public on this newsletter before investing funds,
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
approve the job description (on file) fo~ a Community Resources :Coordinator
and the. conversion of a police officer position to a civilian position. Roll
was calledand the,motion carried hy the following ,recorded vote
AYES: Messrs. Bain,'Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris,, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Way.
NAYS: None
Item 5.3. Memorandum dated December 6, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, ,entitled "Approval of Local_ ~irginia Cooperative
Extension Services ~irector.". The following letter da~ed November 26, 1991,
f~rom.Mr. Jesse N.,Judy, District Director, Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service, ,addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker,. Jr,.', County Executive, was
received:
"I am in the .process of appointing the unit.director for the Albemarle
County/City of Charlottesville Extension Office.
I asked all of the agents on the staff to respond to me in writing
indicating ,whether or not theY were interested in being considered for
the appointment. Mr. Charles Goodman is the only agent who in
interested. Charles also has the support of the other agents on the
staff.
I ,plan to appoint Charles as.,,the unit director of .the Albemarle
,County/City of Charlottesville ExtensionOffice. Please inform me if~
'this:.meets:,with the ~approval of the Board. of, Supervisors and your-
self."
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
197
By the above recorded vote, the Board confirmed the appointment of Mr.
Charles Goodman as the Director of the local Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service office.
Item 5.4. Letter dated November 26, 1991, from Mr. John G. Milliken,
Secretary of Transportation, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman, concern-
ing the County's letter re: Secretary Milliken's funding proposals, was
received for information as follows:
"Thank you for your recent letter and Albemarle County's position
regarding the proposals set forth in my recent speech to the Virginia
~Municipal League?
As I indicated, my purpose in advancing the proposals is to open a
dialogue with.local governments on tha .j~risdictional,~ pr~ogrammatic
and o=ganizational aspects of dealing with our~transportation problems
in the .Commonwealth. A number of jurisdictions have provided comment
and I look forward to receiving additional input at the hearings in
November.
Again,~'I appreciate your letter and look forward~to working with you
in providing the most effective transportation system fore.the Common-
wealth."
Item 5.5. Letter dated November. 26, 1991, from Mr. David R. Gehr~,
Assistant Commissioner Operations, Virginia Department of Transportation, re:
Changes in the Primary System on Route 240, was received for information as
follows:
"-Changes in the primary system made necessary by .the: relocation and
construction on Route 240, Project: 0240-002~102, PE-iO1, C-501~in
Albemarle County, were confirmed by ~the~ Commonwealth Transportation
Board on November 21, 1991 as shown on the attached (on file) sketch
and described as follows:
SECTION ABANDONEDAS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE1950~CODE
OF VIRGINIA:
Section 1
Old location of Route 240, east
of~the new location, from Station
53+00 'to Station 46+00
0.13 Mi."
Item 5.6. Letter dated December 3, 1991, from Mr. D. So Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing copy of
"Current Projects-Construction Schedule," was'.received.for information.
Item 5;7. Memorandum dated November 20, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Public Information Dissemination, was received for
information as follows:
"In an effort to identify a low cost, yet effective means to communi-
cate information about.County issues and concerns, County staff will
begin submitting~ inform~tion to be used in a mailing which goes to all
neighborhood watch, groups throughout the County. This newsletter,
published quarterly,~is sent to all Neighborhood Watch captains to be
distributed to their group and will reach approximately 6000 house-
halds each~issue. A section, will be reserved for news Of general
County interest and-will be useful for disseminating pertinent .facts
on current County issues. We .will monitor this effort,~and seek
feedback from newsletter recipients to determine if a coun.ty-wide
newsletter should be initiated.
Additionally, as part of _our Community Policing initiative, meetings
will, be held ineach police sector of the County on a quarterly.basis.
These meetings will be used by the Police Department to discuss any
issues of concern in each area of the CountY and can~also be adapted
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
198
to incorporate a speaker from the staff and/or the Board to communi-
cate information in a community meeting setting.
Any input the Board might have on either topics of interest or ways to
improve the effort would be greatly appreciated."
Mr. Bowerman suggested staff communicate with Virginia Power, Centel and
C&P Telephone to see if they are willing to allow the County to include
information flyers in their respective bills to County customers.
Item 5.8. Memorandum dated December 2, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
gr~,.County Executive, Concerning the public hearing which had been scheduled
on the vacation of Peyton Drive as a public right-of-way. (Moved to Item 7
under Highway Matters.)
Item 5.9. Memorandum dated December 2, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, re: Group Health Insurance Coverage was received £or
information.as follows:
"Dr. Paskel and I have recentl,y been discussing our .group health,
insurance coverage with Dr., Carole Hastings and Mr. Sam Rosenthal, our
insurance consultant. It is Mr.. Rosenthal'ts opinion and recommenda-
tion that the County consider obtaining competitive proposals from
both our current provider, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and other insurance
carriers, early next year. Mr~.~ Rosenthal also indicates that he has
assisted others recently in reducing theirs.group health premium While
increasing their benefits and for that reason is encouraging us to
consider competitively bidding our group health insurance coverage.
Unless you indicate otherwise, I will be requesting Dr. Hastings to
seek competitive, negotiable proposals in the near future. ShOuld you
have any questions concerning this matter,~ please do not hesitate to
contact me."
Item 5.10. Notice dated.November 19, 1991, from' the stake Corporation
Commission, re: Application of Wiltel of Virginia, Inc. £or a certificate of
public convenience and ~necessity to provide inte=-LATA inter-exchange tele-
phone, service in Virginia and to have. rates~determined competitively, was.
recei. Ved for information
Item 5.11., Copy of "Strategic Plan for.the Virginia Department of Agri-
culture and Consumer Services" from Dr. Clinton V. Turner, Commissioner,
Departmentof Agriculture and Consumer Services, was received fOr information.
Item 5.12. Copy of "Greenwood Chemical Site" report for December, 1991,
from the United States Environmental Protection Agency., was received for
information.
Item 5.13. Copy of Minutes of the Planning Commission for November 26,
1991, was received for information.
Item 5.14. Scottsville Annexation committee Update. The following .
memorandum dated December'4, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Executive, was received for information:
"Following several meetings between representatives of the Town of
Scottsville and the County, two potential options for a boundary
adjustment by the Town of Scottsville are under review and attached
(on file) for .information. to the Board.
Titled Option 4, this proposal represents a smaller land area and an
estimated loss to the County of $50,614 annually. It stops short of
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
199
picking up Stoney Point subdivision and some industrially-zoned land
on Route 726.
Option 5 provides a larger land area and would result in an annual
revenue loss of approximately $61,398. It would include the Stoney
Point residential area and industrial land to the north of this sub-
division. As you can see, the difference in the revenue loss is
largely attributable to the sales tax distribution based on school-
aged children.
Neither proposal includes significant undeveloped land in the Totier
Creek watershed as did earlier proposals. Both options include the
shopping center and surrounding area down to the Scottsville Volunteer
~Fire Department.
The Committee has asked Scottsville Town..Council~.to respond tol these
~two. options.. Once that input is received, both governing bodies will
be asked to authorize a public forum to be held in the area to seek
comments from those a~ffected. Following the public forum, if both
governing bodies agree~to~proceed further, a..formal public~ hearing
must. be held .by both governing bodies and~ a request made.for the
.Circuit Court to,enter an order~approving a boundary adjustment..~
A-larger map reflecting these two options as well as current zoning
designations is available in Room 11 on the Fourth floor of the County
Office Building if you should need additional~detail. Once the Town
of Scottsviile has responded, time. will. be~set aside on a.~future
agenda~to thoroughly discuss the issue, and options., In the interim,
if there should be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
or Rick Huff."
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF FIN~CE
ESTIMATE .OF REVENUE LOSS FOR SCOTTSVILLE ANNEXATION
OPTION 4
UTILITY TAX
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
BUSINESS LICENSES
SALES ~TAX
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE LICENSE
TOTAL
· BASIS COUNT RATE TAX
# RESIDENCES 66 4/MO $ 3,168
AVG~BILL~ 27 6,312
AVG BILL 1 4,080
GROSSRECEIPT 24 26,231
#STUDENTS 23 4,082
GROSS, RENTS 2,5.11
PER VEHICLE 188 22.50 4,230
$50,614
OPTION 5
UTILITY TAX
RESIDENTIAL.
.COMMERCIAL
BASIS COUNT RATE TAX
#..RESIDENCES 98 4/MO ~$4,704
AVG BILL 27 6,312
INDUSTRIAL
AVG BILL 1 4,.080
BUSINESS LICENSES
.SALES TAX
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY
VEHICLE LICENSE
TOTAL
GROSS RECEIPT 24 26,231
#.STUDENTS 67 11,890
GROSS RENTS 2,511
PER VEHICLE 252 22.50 5,670
$61,398
In addition, the following memorandum dated December 10, 1991, from Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was received for information:
"As~ many of you know, the Virginia Municipal League/Virginia Associ-
ation.of Counties (VML/VACO~Joint Annexation Task Force has~ been
attempting~ to reach agreement on future annexation procedures for
several years. Recent actions by both VACO and ~VML have created
interesting twists which are important to share on this issue.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
200
VACO's Executive Board failed, several months ago, to ratify the joint
agreement which had been developed and approved by VML. According to
VACO staff, there are approximately 12 counties actively opposing the
draft that was released. At VML's annual conference in November,
their Executive Committee placed a January 1, 1992, deadline on joint
agreement and if it cannot be reached, VML has voted to move ahead
with the version that they ratified in order to seek legislation in
the 1992 session of the General Assembly.
VAC0 representatives on the Joint Task Force met on December 9, 1991,
and agreed to submit several proposed changes to VML which may make
opposing counties more comfortable. The county representatives do not
planto be prepa=ed to.seek., legislation in the 1992 session and will
be~asking that the existing city moratorium continue.
The~i~GraYson CommiSsion, ~also studying annexation, has apparently~disr
banded and plans no further proposals. It~is clearly up to VACO. and
VML to resolve the unanswered issues. It~may also be important to
note that even under the VML/VACO agreement being contemplated,, no
legislation would be effective until 1995 following a Constitutional
Amendment referendum.
This information is provided to keep you aware of other actions being
contemplated regarding annexation. The VACO/VML draft, in its present
state,, clearly makes it easier for towns to annex and should, therer
fore, be closely monitored by staff for its potential impact."
Item 5.15. PropOsed Legislation fo~ Land Use Taxation, Local Agricul-
tural/Forestal Districts and Decal Fines. The following memorandum dated
December 4, 1991, from Mr. Robert W.-Tucker, Jr.., County Executive, was
received for information:
~'At~.the November., 13, 1991 meeting, the Board approved, submitting three
specific legislatiVe amendments ,to t~he 1992 General Assembly Session:
1) to allow, Albemarle County to eliminate land use value taxation in
designated growth areas; 2) to enable Albemarle County to authorize
local agricultural/forestal districts; and 3) to allow the Police
Depar~tment to ticket parked vehicles without a County decal.
The language in these three amendments was prepared by the County
Attorney. These amendments will also be included as part of the
legislative discussion on December 18.
(1) -Land-Use Taxation: Section~58.1-3231. !The local governing bOdy
pur~amt-~-~e~n-58~B~.~=~.may~provide in the.ordinance~that
property located in specified zoning districts or areas desig-
nated for growth by, the local Comprehensive Plan shall not be
eligible for special assessment as provided in this article.'
In this amendment 'pursuant to section.58.1~3237.1' refers to the code
section that now grants authority to enact provisions based on. zoning
classificatio, ns to only those counties adjacent to countieswith the
urban~ County Executive form of government, i.e., Loudoun and Prince
William. Deleting this section will, therefore, enable all counties,
including Albemarle, to have this authority.
(2) Local A8ricultural/Forestal Districts. Section 15.1-1513.3,
'Local Governing Body' shall mean the governing body of any
county .having the urban County EXecutive form of government and
any county(ies) with a ~poputation of no ~less than 85,000 andl no
more than 90,000 or less than 63,400 and n~o more than 73.,900.
(3) Count¥~DeCal'Ticketing - NEW CODE SECTION~LANGUAGE
46.2-1240. Parking on public property or in privately owned
parking areasopen to the public; enforcement. ~.No vehicles other
than those displaying license .Plates or 'decals as required by
Section 46.2r75Z shall Park in any parking spaces ,on public
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
201
property or in privately owned parking areas open to the public.
A summons or parking ticket for the offense may be issued by
law enforcement officers or uniformed law enforcement department
employees.
In any prosecution charging a violation of this section, proof that
the vehicle described in the summons or parking ticket, citation, or
warrant was parked in violation of this section, together with proof
that the defendant was at the time the registered owner of the
vehicle, as required by Chapter 6 of this title, shall constitute in
evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the
vehicle was the person who committed the violation."
Item 5.16. Memorandum dated December 5, 1991, from Mr. Clifford W.
Haury, Chairman, Albemarle County~School Board,. enti~led"School ~Board Action
on the ProPosedNew Middle_School, was received forinformation.
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board schedule a joint meeting with the School
Board for January, 1992, to discuss the new middle school. Board members
concurred
Agenda Item No.-6. Approval of Minutes: April 10, 1992.
Mr.~Way had read the minutesof April 10, 1,991, pages 15-26 (Item #10)
and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of April 10, 1991, page 54 (after
Article 27) to endand with two typos found them to be in order.
Motion~was Offered by Mr. ~ain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
minutes as read. Rollwas called and the motion was carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
1991:
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Work Session: Six,Yea= Road Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum dated November 19,
"Attachment #1 (on file), is the staff's recommended.priority list of
road-improvements. There are a total of 62 projects; 15 are unpaved
road improvement .projects. The total estimated cost for all projects
is $44,191,814. As d£scussed in the previous Planning~Commission work
session, the first 16 projects represent the same .order of priority as
approved in last year's Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Ail 16 have
received a significant allocation of funds and in somecases expendi?
ture.towards their development. Staff believes all of these projects
remain necessary.
Below.are additional notes concerning specific projects on the prior-
ity list.
o Priorities 1, (miscellaneous projects) and 3 (plant mix pro-
.jects), are ongoing, county-wide programs which are funded
annually.
o.~ Priority. 10., Commonwealth Drive Extension, was,~ previously
referred to.~as the Peyton Drive construction project.. The
project will extend Commonwealth Drive to Greenbrier Drive. and
will replace Peyton Drive.. This project is currently in .the
rightrof~way acquisition phaseof development..
Priorities 11 and 13, were previously one project (the widening
on Rio Road West from Route 29 to Hydraulic Road). This project
has been split into two projects so the section from Route 29 to
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
2O2
Berkmar Drive can be constructed in conjunction with improvements
to Route 29. The construction of the intersection of Berkmar
Drive Extended at Rio Road could also be timed with this project.
Priority 15 is Berkmar Drive Extended. The section between Rio
Road and the existing segment behind Rio Hills Shopping Center
will be constructed this Spring/Aummer. It is currently in the
right-of-way acquisition phase of development.
Priority 16 is for Tabor Street intersection improvements. The
original project proposal was to construct a new segment of Park
Road to improve access to Route 240. After public hearings on
this project~ ~the Board of Supervisors approved a two-phased
approach of improving access to the Park Road area. The first
phase is to improve the intersections of Tabor Street with Route
240 and Park~Road. The second phase is to extend Park Road,east
and south to Route 250 along the general alignment for the Route
240/250 connector zoad. The latter project is #29 on this list~.
Priority 18 is Georgetown Road (Route 656). This project is con~
Sidered a high priority due to existing~and future high traffic
volumes which exceed the capacity ,of the existing road. The
Board has tradi~tionally deferredlimprovemenns of this road due to
concerns about the potential impact of the project on the
existing neighborhoods.. Staff is recommending that initially the
road be' studied to identify necessary improvements and possible
alternatives. Emphasis will be placed on intersection improve~
ments rather~,thanmajor .reconstruction of the entire alignment.
o
Several bridge improvement projects included in. the previous
Six-Year~ plan' have been deleted in this year's plan. The suffi~
ciency ~ratings ~on these bridges have been're,evaluated, and they
are no longer considered critical projects. They are:
Route 743 at Advance Mills
Route 67near Flordon~(RRBridge)
Route 712at'Ammonett Branch
Route 637 at Ivy_Creek (in Ivy)
Route600 at Mechunk Creek
Route 627 at Bolinger Creek
Route 667 at Piney Creek
o Three new projects arc, included in this. list:
Priority~.30 is Route657 (Lembs Road) to improve sight distance
on the. curve just,,west of-Albemarle High SchOol.
P~iority 31 is the Route 810 intersection improvement~
Priority 61 is Route-615. Paving of a gravel road near the
~Louisa County line. Right-of-way has been dedicated for this
improvement.
Staff has discussed with the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion whethers'Airport Road (priority 22) could be broken into two
projects with improvements made to the intersection of Airport
Road (Route 649) and Route 606 first. It is unlikely that a new
intersection improvement could be constructed before the rest of
the Airport Road Improvement Project. Exit from the Airport is
located at this intersection. The ultimate relationship of.~the
Airport~'s entrance/exit and road network has not been determined.
It ~will be difficult to develop an intersection design until the
full AirPort,Road plans are finalized. This is not anticipated
within the next two years."
Mrs. Humphmis said the "previous funding" column for 1990-91 showed
$158,000 for the Route 708 project (shown on Attachment #1). Funding for that
column in this priority list shows ~$150,000. She asked what happened to the
other $8000. Mr. Rooseveltsaid he does not know where the $8000went, but
this could only mean that it was transferred to'cover a deficit in some,o~her
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
203
project. He will find out and let the Board know. Mrs. Humphris said
previous funding for Route 654 (Barracks Road improvement) was listed as
$1.128 million. Previous funding is now listed as $1,000,500. Mr. Bowie
suggested that the priority list include a column to show where funds are
transferred within the plan when funding for a project changes.
Mr. Roosevelt said normally VDoT does not transfer funds from projects
that are active or that are to be constructed in a year or two. Transfers are
usually made from completed projects which have a balance or from projects
that have been deferred or projects that are not going to be built for a
number of years. One example is the Meadow Creek Parkway. The allocation for
that project has been reduced from $1.5 million to $700,000. Projects with a
def£cit are funded-fromthese~type allocations instead of from future alloca-
tions.
Mrs. Humphris said she is still concerned about the amounts shown in the
"previous funding" column. Before she makes~a decision she wants to know that
all the figures being provided are accurate. Mrs. Humphris said she is
extremely concerned that the advertising date for the Meadow Creek Parkway has
again been moved and.this time from. July, 1997 to January, 1999.
Mr. Roosevelt said his,office receives ~monthlyreports from ,the District
Officeon the funding, allocations for all projects, He offered to provide the
Board with,a copy of the reportL The reports are used to preparethe fiscal
summary, sent to the County each year~, The;most up,to-date reports will show
what monies, have actually, been allocated.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem if funds are moved from one project to
another project on the County's list, but he is concerned if those funds are
given to other localities. He thinks the Board needs to know that. Mr.
Roosevelt said he could state categorically the money has not gone outside of
Albemarle County, It ,is illegal for the Department to transfer~ money from one
counties' secondary budget to another localities.' secondary budget.
, . Mrs. Humphris~indicated that she had a list of questions which she would
prepare and send to Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Roosevelt said attached to the Six Year Plan are two scenarios; ..
AttaChment 3A and 3B. Attachment 3A assumes, the County will receive no
revenue .sharing funds. Attachment3B assumes~the County will receive $500,000
in-revenue ~sharing funds per year and the County matches the $500,000. The
Plan includes $100,000 per year for County-wide items, i.e., new signs,
installing- entrance pipes, seeding and fertilizing, etc. Mr. Roosevelt said
no Rural Addition Funds are included in this six-year period. Inthe past,
the Board has included $80,000 per year for rural additiOns, but currently
there is more than $200,000 in that account. The Departmentand the County
have not been able to bring any rural addition projects to construction in
almost three years. The Plan includes $10,000 per year, for the Hatton Ferry.
The Plan includes $200,000 per year for new plant mix. ~The Plan.also includes
fundsto coverprojects that have deficits.,
Mr. Bain asked who determines which project will receive plant mix, how
the projects are determined and if the average,daily trips of vehicles have
anything~to do ~iththe determination. Mr. Roosevelt, responded that the
Department tries to, make sure that there are at-least 1000 cars a day using
the road before putting plant mix on~ it. County staff initially develops the
list Of projects.- The Department, working with County staff, suggests roads
for. plantmix
Mr. Rooseveltsaid in developing this financial,plan the advertisement
,date for the Meadow Creek Parkway was moved to January, ,1999~ The City of
Charlottesville's portion of MeadowCreek/McIntire was moved~to that date for
advertisement because the City is, unable to fund the project until that time,
Meadow Creek is listed, as priority #4 in the City's CIP and with the, costsof
the first three projects and the funds available to them they do not have the
funds available to fund the project until 1999.
Mr.~Bain asked ifthe,Department had acost estimate on that section. In
response, Mr, Roosevelt said he had the figure, but did not have it, with him.
Mr, Bain.then asked if the City's section was from the Route 250 Bypass to
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
2O4
the City line. Mr. Roosevelt responded "no", the City's portion runs from
Preston Avenue to the Route 250 intersection and on to Melbourne Road. Mr.
Bowie asked why the County could not start its' portion of the project prior
to the City. Mr. Bain said he had heard that the City was not going to build
their entire portion of the project. Mr. Roosevelt said the City has never
taken any official position on the project.
Mrs. Humphris commented that an official position was taken by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Board almost a year ago. It has
been rumored for some time that the City is not going to build the project
from Preston Avenue. VDot has been asked several times to change the descrip-
tion in the Six Year Plan by the MPO and the City to reflect the position that
theCity is not going~ to build the project from Preston Avenue to the Route
250~Bypass. There seems to be a lack of communication. Mr. Roosevelt said
VDoT is still waiting for a resolution from City Council from the location and
design public hearing~that was held,five years ago. The City needs to pass a
resolution adopting an official position. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Roosevelt
to explain the methods of communication. VDot~officials attend the meetings
of the MPO~Policy Board and are aware of the actions taken. Mr. Roosevelt
said-all City projects are handled through theUrban Division. The Urban
Division acts as the resident engineer for the City. The MPO's responsi-
bility, is to set the overall plans for this area and then it is the local
jurisdictions responsibility to set the priority. The Departmentdoes not ask
the MPO for a position or resolution on a specific project, but are asked~to
adopt plans'for the overall transportation network in the area itcovers,.
Mrs. Humphris said it appears to her that the plan adopted by the MPO
does not seem to~ get.~translated to the State Highway Department off,ice. She
wanted to know how all this planning could continue but not reflect the
overall plan. Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the City shouldbe
requested to adopt a resolution,taking an~official position. Mrs., ~umphris
felt the Board needed to get a clarification on the status o£ the MeadowCreek
Parkway~~ Mr. Bowls again asked why the COunty could not start building its'
portion of the project instead of~p~tting it off for two more years. ~ By, the
time the County's portion is bull,t, the City should be ready to starts. .... Mr.
Roosevett~said the~two sections need to be coordinated jointly and there needs
to be~joint cooperation. . ~
Mr. Roosevelt said the last, assumptionin the financial plan. was funding
for,gravel~ road improvements basedon allocating the minimums, required by law.
This has been the policy of the Board for a number of years.
Mr. Bowie suggested that if Board members have any questions, they submit
them~to the staff in writing. He also suggested that staff SchedUle a meeting
with the two newly-elected supervisors to providethem with an,overview of the
projects'in the 'Plan prior to the January work session.
Mr. Bain asked if another set of standards is being used for sufficiency
ratings for bridges,. Mr. Rooseveltsaid the standards used for. sufficiency
ratings have not changed. ,The basic,~£actors used ,to determine the~ sufficiency
of a bridge are: 1)~maintenance, Z) how well the bridge is functioning, 3)
weight limit, 4) volume of traffic that uses the bridge, and 5) the inconve-
nience that would occur if the bridge were not there and traffic had to,detour
in another direction~
Mr. Bain asked about the ,status of the Millington River Bridge (Route
671). Mr. Roosevelt said it is his understanding that no decision has been
made. Mrs. Humphris commented that she read in alocal newspaper that the
Virginia Outdoors Foundation has made its decision and the final,disposition
rests with an appea~l to the Governor~. Mr. Roosevelt said before the appeal
goesto the Governor, the Secretary' of Transportation and the Secretary of
Natural Resources attempt to resolve the situation; if that-cannot be done,
then a. decision zests with the Governor.
Mr. Way asked if, all the gravel road projects on the list would be .~
financed in this six-year period. Mr. Roosevelt responded "no". The:£irst
s~even projects on the ,list have made, it into the financial portion of the
Plan. Mr.~ Bain asked if Revenue Sharing money could be used for gravel road
projects. Mr. ,Tucker responded "yes" if that is what the Board wants to do.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
2O5
Mr. Way asked if any of the gravel roads had moved to a higher priority
on the list. Mr. Roosevelt said there have been two changes. The Route 760
project has been moved to priority #52 and Route 615 has been moved to
priority #61.
Mr. Perkins asked if Rural Addition Funds could be used for gravel roads.
Mr. Roosevelt responded "yes". Mr. Perkins asked if Federal funds could be
used for bridge projects, and, if so, how could they be applied to the
Millington Bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said the Federal government has money
available for bridge projects. The government has a category off-system
bridge fund and another category non-system bridge fund and the Millington
Bridge could be funded with the off-system bridge funds. However, that option
does ~ot rest with th~Depaintment~ The Department decided to use State funds
only;to build the bridge. Mr. Bowie suggested Mr. Roosevelt provide a status
report on the Millington Bridge project in January, 1993.
Not,Docketed. The Chairman welcomed the £ollowing students from
Albema~rle High School present for Youth-in-Government Day: Jensen
Montambault, Paloma del Castillo, Garrick Brown, Jenny Arbuckte, Gwynn Baber,
David~Kuhiman, Ulrika Zoeher .and Allison Sidwell.
(The Chairman called a recess at 10:18 A,M. The Board reconvened at
10:30, A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: City/County/University Resolution
re: Road Improvements. ..
Mr. Tucker provided the Board a.draft resolution concerning improvements
to the Route 29. North Corridor. The resolution is a joint proposal for
conside'ration by. the County of Albemarle, ~City of Charlottesville and Univer-
sity of Virginia. Theresolution is scheduled.for review hy City Council next
week and the University of Virginia Visitors of Visitors next month.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mrs. Tucker. to state for the record the reason the
last phase "concurrent with remainder of 1985 Charlottesville Area Transporta-
tion 'St'udy,~' is.suitable. Mr.~ ~ucker said the reason that statement is
suitable is because everyone has been going along with the idea that the
Charlottesville. . Area Transportation Study (CATS) improvements need to be done.
He thinks this is an opportunity to see that the remainder of the CATS
improvements are 'done,~ although not directly related to .the 29.North Corridor,
a~lotof improvements in the CATS Plan could be helpful in networking.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to autho.~
rize ,the Chairman to sign the following City/County/University resolution.
Roll' was called and the mOtion carried bythe following ~recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: .None.
WHEREAS, the Cityof Charlottesville, the County or-Albemarle and
,the Hnivers.ity of Virginia have reviewed the improvements proposed by
the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) for .the 29 North
Corridor; and
~WHEREAS~ the City, County and .University believe a unified and
cooperative implementation agreement with the CTB and the Virginia
Department of Transportation,,(VDoT) is necessary to provide for. these
improvements in an sxpeditious and efficient manner.;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City, County and Unive~r-
sity jointly support and request that the CTB and VDoT implement
improvements to the 29 North Corridor in the following, sequence:
o Widen Route 29 North as provided for in 1985 Charlottesville · Area Transportation Study;
o Design theNorth Grounds connector road facility;
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
2O6
Address each element of CTB Phase I recommendation of
November 15, 1990;
Construct the Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250 Bypass
to U. S. 29 North as soon as funding is available;
Construct grade-separated interchanges on U. S. 29 North at
Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Greenbrier Drive (Route 866) and
Rio Road (Route 631) with early acquisition of right-of-way
for these interchanges based upon hardship (same program
being used for early acquisition for Alternative 10, Western
alignment);
Construct an alternate controlled vehicle access for traffic
bound for University areas only, including the North Grounds
.from the Route 29/250 Bypass;
Complete remainder of CTB Phase II recommendation of
Novemhe~ 15., 1990;..an'd
Construct Alternative 10 after completion of the ~above and
when traffic on~.Route 29 is .unacceptable .and economic
conditions permit, concurrent with remainder of 1985
Charlottesville Area Transportation Study.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the 'Virginia Secretary of Transportation, the Commis-
sioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Charlot-
tesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning .Organization (MPO), request-
ing the MPO to amend the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study to
reflect this.resolution's priorities.
Agenda Item No. 7c. HighwayMatters: Report from County Attorney on
private condemnation laws in Virginia.
Mr. St. John said the law does not recognize the action taken by,he
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB)to date with respectto the location
or mapping of a proposed~ Route 29 North bypass to be"a taking" of property
without compensation. It would require an act or.the Legislature to give
relief to those people whose property is being affected by action of the CTB.
Mr. St. John saidthe following draft language, if enacted, would provide some
relief to the citizens:
"Sec. 33.1-18.1 Acquisition of Right of Way within three years of
location. ~Within three years of the location of any route by the
Board pursuant to Sec. 33.1-18, the Board shall, pursuant to Secs.
33.1-138 and 33.1-139, proceed to acquire all properties to constitute
rights of way for the route or routes so located.
With respect to routes located prior to the effective date of this
section, the Board. shall acquire the properties to constitute such
right of waywithin three years of the effective da%e of this section.
Compensation shall be the fair market value of such properties on the
date of location,by the.Board or on the date of acquisition, whichever
is greater.
Upon failure of the Board to comply with this section, owners of
properties~shall be entitled to bring, an action .in the Circuit Court
wherein their~respective p~operties lie, to injoin the Board immedi-
ately to institute proceedings for the acquisition of such properties
in accord with this section."
Mr. St. John said "Board" in the resolution refers to the CTB. "Locat-
ing'' means"estabiishi~n~"or "fixing!~ the route, or Location or boundaries.of
proposed roads. The_three-year time frame in the proposed :amendment is an
arbitrary number and holds no legal significance. Language in the proposed
amendmentdoes not need to be"fine-tuned" at this time because i£ the Board
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
207
is supportive, the local legislators would be requested to introduce a bill
and their Division of Legislative Services would prepare the appropriate lan-
guage.
Mr. Bain asked if property owners affected by the proposed bypass would
have any success in filing action in Circuit Court under current law. Mr. St.
John responded "no". Mr. Bain asked why the Highway Department offered
compensation to some landowners. Mr. St. John did not know; Code sections
33.1-138 and 33.1-139 gives the Department the authority to purchase
right-of-way in advance of the need by the Department. The Code does not
require the Department to purchase the right-of-way in this instance. Also,
the Department can acquire right-of-way in advance of the need for its' use
when in their judgement it is deemed to be in the public's interest and would
prevent increased costs at a later date.
Mr. Bowie suggested staff prepare a letter to be given to the legislators
on December 18, requesting their support of the County Attorney's recommended
language. The other Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Highway Matters: Memorandum dated December 2, 1991,
from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, concerning the public
hearing which had been scheduled on the vacation of Peyton Drive as a public
right-of-way.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum:
"After further reviewing the status of Commonwealth Drive and ?eyton
Drive with the County.Engineer and County Attorney, I am recommending
that the public hearing to vacate the right-of-way on Peyton Drive be
deferred until .the Spring of 1992. This recommendation will not delay
the construction of Commonwealth Drive nor the closing of Peyton Drive
to through traffic once the extension to Commonwealth Drive is in
service.
Postponing the public hearing will allow for:
Work to. be completed on Commonwealth Drive and Peyton Drive
scheduled for the Spring of 1992;
Development of a plat precisely locating the new property lines
and easements for adjoining properties; and
Reaching an agreement with adjoining property owners and
obtaining the necessary road maintenance agreements in
conjunction with the vacating of the right-of-way.
Staff will continue to coordinate this with adjacent property owners
as we move forward with the construction. A specific date for public
hearing will be recommended to you in March or April."
There was no other discussion on this item.
Agenda Item No. 7e~ Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt to look at the shortness of the decel lanes
near the Route 29 South/Route~692 intersection in North Garden.
Mr. Bowerman said on Monday, December 9, 1991, the School Board recom-
mended a letter be sent to theCommonwealth Transportation Board regarding
Alternate 10 and its' impact on Agnor-Hurt Elementary School. Mr. Bowerman
presented a footprint of the school and a drawing showing the alignment of
Alternate 10. The proposed alignment would impact the baseball field, some
undisturbed area and parking area. He requested the Board to support the
School Board's position and, also write a letter to SecrstaryMilliken
requesting that the Alternative 10 alignment be relocated so as not to impact
Agnor-Hurt.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
2O8
Mrs. Humphris supported Mr. Bowerman's request and asked that the letter
include reference to the cemetery which is in the middle of the southbound
lane of the proposed alignment.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, that staff
prepare a letter to Secretary Milliken, for the Chairman's signature, request-
ing that Alternative 10 not impact the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School property
and the cemetery located in the area. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Roosevelt for a copy of accident and statistical
data on the Hydraulic Road/Georgetown~ Road intersection.
Mr. Way informed Mr~ Roosevelt that it had been a pleasure working with
him for the past eight years and maybe during the next eight years they can
get the Main Street in S~ottsville totally closed for the Fourth of July
parade.
Mr.~ Bowie echoed Mr. Way's sentiments.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Sara Watson Preliminary Plat (Deferred from
November 13, 1991).
Mr. Tucker said the applicant has requested thisitem be deferred, to.
February 12, 1992~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, 'seconded by Mr. Way, to defer the Sara
Watson Preliminary, Plat Appeal, at the request Of .the applicant, to February
12, 1992~.i,Roll was calledand,the motion carried by the:following recorded
vote:.~
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Note: Since the mee~ting.was running aheadof schedule, the Board took ~p
Item,#11 at this time.
AgendaItem~.NO~. ll. Covenant Church of God, request to be included in
the service area~boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority on Tax
Map 46, Parcel 22D.
ThiS.request came to the.Board in thefollowin~ letter dated December 2,
1991, from Mr. W. Thomas Muncaster, Jr., addressed to Mrs. V. Wayne Cilimberg:
"I am writing in regard to the Covenant Church of God's (Tax Map 46 -
parcel 22D) request to be included in. the Albemarle County Service
Authority's jurisdictional area. As you stated in your February 8,
1991 staff report, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in
objectives and strategies as to where and under what circumstances
public utilities ,should be made,available: ....
OBJECTIVE:
STRATEGIES:
Provide public water and sewer services to the Urban
Area and communities.
Follow the boundaries of the designated Growth Areas in
delineating jurisdictional areas.
The-COmprehensive Plan's reasoning behindthat Strategy is~that such
utilities are not to be extended to the rural areas as these services
can increase~ development pressures. ~The development potential does
not ,exist in this case. The Flood Hazard Overlay maps clearly show
that there is no developable land between the Hollymead Growth Area
and the Rivanna River until 4000 feet~down Route 643 from Route 29.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
2O9
Everything else is in the flood plain. As a matter of fact, a
detailed flood study was done in this area and virtually everything is
in the floodway, which as you know, prohibits all fill under any
circumstance.
The total area bounded by Route 643, the South Fork Rivanna River,
Route 29 and Powell Creek, is approximately 200 acres. Of that total,
120 acres is floodway. There are just over 30 acres which are not
part of the church property, not in the flood plain and beyond setback
requirements. A significant portion of the 30 acres would be
unbuildable due to critical slopes and the alignment proposed for the
Meadow Creek Parkway.
The church property fronts on a road which is the southern boundary of
the Hollymead Growth Area and the back of the original tract abuts the
boundary fori.the Neighborhood 2 .Growth Area. .Why then is. this
properly not ~part of a growth area? The answer, is found in the
Comprehensive Plan which states: 'The area betwsen the southern
boundary of Route 643 and the South Fork of the Rivanna River to
remain in an open state as a buffer between the urban area and the
Community of Hollymead. This boundary iscritical as it preserves ~he
distinct identity of the community from the. urban area and prevents
continuous development from the City of Charlottesville up. Route 29
North to the North Fork of the Rivanna. This area is included in the
Rivanna River Greenway Corridor and provides an opportunity for
passive recreational uses.~'
Again, please look at the Ftood Hazard Overlay. You will find that
the~one hundred year, flood plain and floodway accomplish the stated
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, providing a.. buffer and .oppor-
tunity, for a greenway cOrridor~..
S,taff.~said that theywere aware ~of thelimited opport,unity~for g~owth
in this area and 'that was ~o, ne reason~ why this property was not
included in theHollymead GroWth Area. Yet, the ~Comprehensive Plan
says~,utilities are~ no,t to be extended to the rural areas as these
services can-increase development pressures.
This puts~ the church in a position.where it can't be included in, a
growth area ~and have utilities because there's not enough area to
develop, but at the same time, it can't have utilities if it isn't in
a growth area because too much may develop. How can it be both ways?
If there isn't enough developable land to be included in a growth
area, there can't be an increase in development pressure and, there-
~fore, Utilities should be allowed.
This request is consistent with the reasoning which supports the
.strategies .and objective of the Comprehensive Plan for provision of
public ~water and sewer service. Finally, according to the Rivanna
Wa, ret and .Sewer Authority, the sewer which the church would be con-
necting to (Powell Creek'Interceptor) was originally designed,to in~
clude~the church property andhas plenty of capacity. Thank you for
your consideration of this request."
Mr. Cilimberg. presented the following staff report:
"On_February 13, 1991, the Board heard a request from the Covenant
Church of God to include. Tax Map 46, Parcel 22, in the. service ~area
boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer
service. Attached is the February 8, 1991 (on file), staff report for
that request. The Board denied the request for a public ~hearing at
that meeting.
The ~Covenant, Church has resubmitted the~same request with supporting
justification. In summary, Mr, Muncaster~s reasoning on, behalf of the
church, is~ that the parcel to, he served is part of a very limited area
that could~beldeveloped between Hollymead and the urban area due to
the restrictions of flood plain and topography, He also argues that
the reason this parcel .is not included in the growth area is because
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
210
it is part of an area with very limited development potential.
Therefore, Mr. Muncaster feels that providing public water and sewer
to this parcel would not undermine the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan in this case.
Staff recommendation remains as presented in its February 8 staff
report. While development potential may be limited in this area, it
was purposefully not included in the growth area due to the decision
to retain the area between Route 643 and the South Fork Rivanna as a
buffer. Consistently, staff has recommended that any area not in the
growth area not be included in the service area, particularly because
public utility capacities should be reserved to support development of
d~esignated growthareas~"
At this time, the~Chairman ,allowed comments fromthe public..-~
Mr. Richard Carter ,said Covenant Church is before the Board requesting
that this matter be taken to public hearing. Some additional technical
information has become available since this request first came before the
Board. Mr. Carter said,,this property is in a unique location.-,It is in the
middle~ ofnot only a natural buffer, but ,an artificial buffer. The applicant
thinks, the natural buffer complies With the intent of the Comprehensive, Plan
and the public deserves a chance to ,be speak.
Pastor Harold Bare thanked,,the Board for allowing him the opportunit~ to
present,the church's, request,. The request is only to set a public hearing.
Shouldthe, Boar~grant.this request, it would not change the RA designation,
nor would it open the area up to shopping centers and factories. He asks the
Board to give the public an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Bowie noted that 13 telephone calls had been received requesting the
Board to schedule ~a public hearing ....
Mr, Bowerman said his position has not changed from that in February and
hehas no. problem with taking this request to, public hearing. This property
is'not in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed an~ he does not think
extending the service area boundaries to this property will set a precedent.
In addition, the, remainder of the property in the open space area is undevetop-
able because it is also in a flood plain.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Brent if he had, any comments to make concerning the
Service Authority?s ability to serve this property. Mr. J,. W., Brent, Execu-
tive~Director, Albemarle County, Service Authority, said,the Service Authority
Board has not considered this. request, therefore, he has no position to offer
at this t,ime. The Service Authority is capable of serving the property and
capacity is not an issue.
Mr. Way said he would support the request to schedule a public hearing on
the request
Mr.. Bain said he. opposed the~original specialuse permit for this
property partly for~ this, reason. Re does not think a distinction can be,made
from any other request from a church further east of the growth area where it~
would also be easy to extend utilities to the property.
Mrs.~ Humphris agreed, with Mr. Bain. Shethinks that this request should
bebasedon,.the Comprehensive Plan and~ the fact there is always somebody at
the end of the sewer line or the water line. The purpose of the service, area
boundries in theComprehensive Plan is to protect the rural areas and water~-
shed areas~ . ~
Motion was then offered by Mr.. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Way, to set a
public hearing for' January 22, 1992, on a request to include Tax Map 46,
Parcel 22D~.adjacent ,to the Hollymead Growth Area, in the service area
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer
service. Roll.was called and the motion carried by,the~,following recorded
vo~e: · · .
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Perkins and Way,
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
211
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation: Fiscal Year 1991 Audit Report.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:15 A.M.) Mr. Jack Farmer, Robinson,
Farmer, Cox Associates, said the audit report for the County is prepared in
accordance with three auditing standards: 1) generally accepted practices, 2)
government auditing standards and 3) specifications for cities, counties and
towns by the Commonwealth of Virginia. As part of the overall audit of the
financial statements, an opinion is issued on the financial statements, the
internal controls of the County, and compliance with federal and state laws
and regulations governing funds the County receives. Mr. Farmer then provided
an overview of the audit report explaining the various schedules and compo-
nents of the report.
Mrs. Perkins said the m~nagement letter recommends the County go to a
general fixed assets accounts system which would improve the County's ability
to borrowmoney.~at a better rate. He asked how much that would cost and if it
was worth the cost,
Mr. Melvin A~Breeden, Director of Finance, said fixed asset accounts
have been-discussed several times in the past. Quotes rangefrom $50,000 to,
$100,000 to employan outside firm to do an inventory of the equipment and put
historical values on properties. The problem is not so much in, doing the'.
physical inventory, but in implementing controls to maintain the system once
it is in place. The issue is the need to commit the necessary funds to
implement.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Agenda Item No. 16. Public-Hearing: An~ Ordinance to amend and reenact
Article II, Chapter. 15, of the "Equalization of Pay Ordinance"~to add theBOCA
Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals effective
July 1,-1992. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 26 and December~ 3,
1992.)
Mr. Tucker said the purpose, of this public hearing is to add.the BOCA
Code Board of Appeals .and-the Fire Prevention Code.Board of Appealsto the
County's "Equalization. of Pay" Ordinance. Herecommends adoption.of the
proposed ordinance with an effective date of July 1, 1992~ ..
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no one present to
speak on the proposed ordinance amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
following ordinance to amendand reenact Article II, Chapter 15, of the Code
of Albemarle, known as-"Equalization of Pay, of Certain Boards and Commis-
sions,'' to add the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Fire Prevention Code
Board of Appeals, effective July. I, 1992.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins andMr. Way.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RRRNACT
ARTICLE II, CHAPTER15, OF.THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, KNOWN AS
"EQUALIZATIONOF PAY OF CERTAIN~BOARDS ANDCOMMISSIONS"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board o£ Supervisors of.Albe~mrle County,
.¥irginia, that Article II, Chapter 15, SectionalS-2, of .the Code of
Albemarle, is~herebyamended and reenacted to read as~ follows:
Sec. 15,2. Enumerated.
Each member of the following boards and commissions duly appoint-
ed by the board of supervisors shall be paid thirtyrfive dollars
.($35,00) for each and every~regularly scheduled .meeting of ~the board
or commission actually attended, as set forth in the rules and
regulations of that board or commission: board of zoning appeals;
BOCA code board of appeals; equalization board; fire prevention code
board of appeals; and, land use tax advisory board..
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
212
AND FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective on
and after July i, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 9. STA.91-1. Public Hearing: Amendment to Chapter 18
of Albemarle Code to incorporate VDoT mountainous terrain and rolling terrain
standards. (Deferred from November 13, 1991.)
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:35 A.M.) Mr. Tucker present-
ed the following memorandum dated December 6, 1991:
"In considering the adoption of.VDoT's mountainous terrain and rolling
terrain standards for incorporation into the County's Subdivision
:Ordinance, the Board requested information on our ability to ensure
private road construction meets acceptable standards. As discussed
below, staff 'position, is .that current policies, procedures-and
practices are adequate to ensure private roads are constructed to
acceptable standards.
Background: The authority and standards for private roads as _outlined
. in the, Subdivision Ordinance,~specify:
Plans have to follow design standards given in the ordinance;
and
Roads shall be bonded to ensure construction and completion to
design standards; and
- A sworn affidavit that improvements conform to approved plans
and applicable sections of the ordinance.
Private road~ inspection procedures have changed, over the past three
years. Prior.to the addition of a full-time road inspector in 1988,
private road inspection was limited. Since 1988, the Engineering
Department inspects ~both private and public roads with~ the .,vast
majority of time being assigned to public roads. This is driven by.
the larger number of public road projects; 84 percent of sites/subdi-
visions with roads under bond are public road projects. The inspector
checks the private-road to ensure that it meets plan specifications by
checking the thickness of the aggregate base prior to any paving,
verifying the width of the road; verifying ~the road alignment and
verifying it meets, all other plan requirements.
Additionally, private roads are bonded. The purposeof bonding a road
isto ensure that funds are available to provide a road that meets the
required standards. While. some bonds werereleased with no recorded
inspeetion,~this..has not been a recent occurrence. Staff has recently
automated its bond program to improve our ability to manage this
significant administrative .process. Current practice~ requires all
roads to be inspected _and verified by the County Engineer prior to
bond release or.modification,
Alternatives: Staff is continuin§ to pursue improvements .... in-~ our
procedures and will be examining~ the following:
Increasing;frequency of p~.ivate road inspections;
Review of the requirements for developers to certify confor-
mance to plans and~standards;
Requiring a subdividerto provide a one year. performance bond
after final,,acceptan~e as is currently required by VDoT on~
roads-accepted into the state secondarysystem; ·
-'Review of the bonding process to provide improved management in
an effort to.attain earlier completion of roads; and
- Review the County's role in inspection of publicroads.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
213
In summary, County private road inspection procedures are adequate and
the adoption of the proposed VDoT mountainous and rolling terrain
standards are not expected to negatively impact staffs ability to
provide inspection services.
If staff resource issues are identified, they will be addressed in the
regular budget process."
Mrs. Humphris said in ~he past a concern of the Board has been the
County's inability to inspect private roads during their construction. She
asked what makes the situation any different now. Mr. Tucker said he thinks
the s~aff~s inspection. Of p~iv~teroads is adequate. One of the major
complaints seems to be too much inspection and requiring improvements that the
contractors feel are not necessary. The inspectors are trying to insure that
every~ching nas be~n met before signing .off on.the p~ojec, t andre.leasing
bond.
Mr. Perkins asked if any ,guidelines have been developed stating how much
should be collected by homeowner's associations for maintenance of roads. Mr.
Tucker'said that,.is normallyleft up to the private homeowners. Mr. Perkins
said he knows that is'no~, something the County could enforce, but it would
provide some guidance to let the homeowners know how much the maintenance cost
will be. Mr. St. John said that sounds like a good idea, but if a figure is
suggested and it turns out tobe less thanwhat is needed, then the homeowners
could come to the County and ask fom the. difference. It is possible to put in
the homeowners agreement, that the homeowners shall collect an amount each year
sufficient in their j~udgment to maint~ain the roads. Then the burden, is on
them' to decide how much to collect. Mrs, Humphris asked how to proceed if the
Board wanted to put-.something like that in place. Mr. Tucker said ~he sta£f
wonld~ needto give that some thought. ·
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 11:46 A.M. Mr. Perkins assumed the
Chair.) Mr. Bowerman referredi.to a sectiom in the staff,report whichques~
tioned whether all,owing private toads, in rural~areas had an effect on the
development. In staff~'~s'opinion, development is primarily driven'by market
forces and he wonderegwhat factors drive, up the ma~rket. Mr~ Cilimberg said
it.~is an accumulation of what a particular development offers such as~setting.
and environment that drives the market.
Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public present to speak on. the proposed ordinance, the public hearing was
closed. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 11:51 A.M.)
Mr. Bain felt it was necessary for the County ~to start req~uiring dewe~
lopers to post aperf,ormance bond~for one year after final acceptance of the
road. He also thinks it is important thatthe Board be made aware of any
problems inthe inspection of private, roads..
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded .by Mr. Perkins, to
adopt the.following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 18-36, Private
Roads, .Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land of the Code of Albemarle, to incorpo~
rate VDoT~ mountainous terrain and rolling terrain, standards as presented.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman,, Bowie, Mrs. HUmphris, Mr,. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None .....
(Mr. Bowerman prefaced his vote by saying that currently the request for
public roads vs. private roads is 84 percen~ to 16 percent.. He thinks that if
this pe~cen, tage starts to alters,dramatically towards private roads, the Board
need to be made aware of it. Mr. Cilimberg suggested thisinformation be
provided in the Depar~tment of Planning's Development Activity Report'.)
(The ordinance~as adopted is set out. in full below:)
AN. ORDINANCE ,
TO AMEND AND REENACT.
SECTION 18~36, PRIVATE ROADS, CHAPTER 18,
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
OF THE CODE OF ~L~EMARLE
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
214
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 18-36, Private Roads, Chapter 18, Subdivision
of Land, of the Code of Albemarle, is amended and reenacted as fol-
lows:
Sec. 18-36. Private roads.
Private roads are intended to be permitted as the exception to
construction and dedication of public roads in the subdivision
approval process. Granting of private road usage shall be discre-
tionary by the commission and shall be based on the circumstances and
requirements contained herein. Private roads are intended to promote
sensitivity toward .the natural characteristics of the site and to
encourage subdivision consistent and harmonious with surrounding de-
velopment. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein and per-
mitted in accordance with procedures-of section 18-36(h~, no waiver,
modification or variation of standards, and no exceptions~to the ap~
plication of these regulations shall be permitted.
(a) Any subdivision, any lot of which is served by a private
road shall be subject to approval by the commission in accordance with
this chapter. Any further subdivision of land involving additional
use of such road shall be deemed a subdivision subject to the provi-
sions of this chapter. In order to insure adequate capacity of such
road and equitable maintenance costs.to property .owners, except as the
commission may provide in a particular case, not more than one
dwelling unit shall~be located on any parcel served by such road.
(b) The commission may approve any subdivision served .byone or
more private roads under the following circumstances:
(1) For property zoned RA, Rural Areas, the subdivider, in
accordance with section 18-36(h) of this chapter, demonstrates to the
reasonable satisfaction of the commission that:
a. Approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly
demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of
the site or adjacent properties which would be occasioned by the con-
struction of public roads in the same alignments. For the purposes of
this provision,, in addition to such other factors as the commission
may ~consider, "significant degradation" shall mean an increase of
thirty (30%) percent in the total volume of grading for construction
of a public road as compared to a private road. As secondary consid-
erations, among other things, the commission may consider actual
volume differential as well as surface area ~differential and ~removal
of vegetative cover; and
b. No alternative public road alignment available to
the.subdivider on the adoption date of this section would alleviate
significant degradation of the environment; and
c. No more lots are proposed on such private roadthan
could be reatizedon a public road due to right-of-way dedication..
(2) For property zoned RA, Rural Areas, or..VR,~ Village
Residential, where such subdivision contains only two lots and such
private road serves only the lots insuch subdivision; and is the sole
and direct means of access to a road in the state .highway system; or
(3) Such .subdivision is intended for non-residential or
non-agricultural purposes; or
(4) Such 'subdivision is not located within a rural area of
the comprehensive plan and such subdivision shall be into lots and/or
units to be occupied exclusively by residential structures other than
singlerfamily detached dwellings including appurtenant recreational
uses and open space; or
(5) Such subdivision constitutes a "family. division" as
defined by section 18-56 of this chapter.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
215
(c) In addition to the provisions of subsection 18-36(b), the
commission may approve a subdivision served by one or more private
roads in any case in which the subdivider, in accordance with subsec-
tion 18-36(h) of this chapter, demonstrates to the reasonable satis-
faction of the commission that:
(1) For a specific, identifiable rmm~on, the general public
interest, as opposed to the proprietary interest of the subdivider,
would be better served by the construction of such roads than by the
construction of public roads. In the case of any such approval, the
commission may require such assurances from the subdivider in a form
acceptable to the county attorney as it may determine to be necessary
to protect the'public interest with respect to such roads.
(d) No subdivision shall be approved pursuant to subsection 18-
36(b) or subsection 18-36(c), unless and until the.:, commission shall
determine that:
(1) Any such private road. will. be adequate t~ carry the
traffic volume which may be reasonably expected to be generated by
such subdivision; and
(2) The comprehensive plan: doest.not provide .for a public
road in the approximate location~of such propOsed private road; and
(3) The fee of such road :is to be owned by the owners of
lots abutting the right-of-.waythereof or by.an association composed
of the owners of all lots in the su-bdivision, subject in either case
to any easement for the benefit of all lots served by such road; and
(4) Except where required by the commission ~.to serve a
specific public purpose, such private road shall not be designed to
serve through traffic nor to intersect th~ state .highway system in
more than one location; and
(5) Any such private road has been approved in accordance
with Section 30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT of the zoning ordi-
nance and other applicable law.
(e) Ail private roads approved pursuant to this section shall be
constructed' in accordance with the following:
(1) Private roads permitted, under subsections !8-36(b)(1)~
18-36(b)(2), and .18-36(b)(5) shall conform to the requirements of
Table A'. Private roads permitted under s,absections 18-36(b)(3) and
18-36(b)(4) shall conform to the requirements of Table B except that a
pavement structure design in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements shall be .required for
the most traffic-intensive uses to which such land may be lawfully
devoted for a private road approved subject to subsection 18~36(b)(3).
Except as otherwise expressly provided, private-roads sbmll
be designed to conform in all regards to current Virginia Department
of Transportation Subdivision Street Requirements. Private roads
subject to Table A shall be designed to conform to Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation mountainous terrmin classification. Private
roads subject to Table B shall be designed to conform to Virginia
Department of Transportation rolling terrain classification.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed- to preclude the
commission from authorizing the application of Virginia Department of
Transportation.mountainous terrain design standards.to a private road
subject to Table B, upon finding that for a specifi.c~ identifiable
reason, the general public interest as opposed to the proprietary
interest of the subdivider, would be better served.' In the case of
any such approval, the commission may require such assurances from the
subdivider ina form acceptable to the county attorney as .it may
determine to be necessary to protect the public, interest..
(2) Except as otherwise expressly.~provided, a pri~vate~oad
approved pursuant to Table A, serving fewer than six (6)lots shall
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
216
have a minimum right-of-way of thirty (30) feet and all other private
roads approved pursuant to Table A or Table B shall have right-of-way
width conforming to the appropriate Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation standard. Virginia Department of Transportation practice not-
withstanding, only those areas necessary to accommodate improvements
and to achieve required sight distance shall be required to be
cleared. Subsequent to construction ornamental plantings and other
improvements may be installed provided the same shall not conflict
with sight distance, drainage facilities or other requirements.
(3) Intersections of private roads shall have an approach
grade not exceeding four (4) percent for a distance of not less than
~forty (40) feet in all.directions. Intersections of private and pub-
lic roads shall have an approach grade not exceeding two (2) percent
for a distance of not less than forty (40) feet in all directions.
Approach grade distance shall be measured from the edge of~travel way
of the road being intersected.
(4) The developer shall submit to the county engineer a map
of the proposed subdivision having contour intervals of not greater
than twenty (20) feet showing the horizontal alignment together with
field-run profiles and typical cross-section of such roads. The
county engineer may waive requirements of the field-run profile in the
case of an existing road or where deemed appropriate due to topogra-
phy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this ordinance shall be effective
immediately.
December 11,
(Page 24)
1991
(Regular
Day Meeting)
217
Table A
Single-Family Detached Residential
(Also Agricultural)
NUMBER OF LOTS
SERVED BY ROAD WIDTH OF SURFACE MINIMUM
| SE~.~ENT* TRAVELWAY DEPTH OF BASE TREATMENT SIGHT DIST~
Family Division Only
(Any number of lots) See note ** See note *~_ See note ** See note **
2 Lots See note ** See note ** See note ** See note
3 - 5 Lots 14 Feet (In addition to 4 6" - #25 or #26
foot shoulders and ditch
requirements)
Not required (unless
slope exceeds 7%)***
I00 Feet
6 Lots or More
Shall be designed to VDOT MOUTAINOUS TERRAIN Standards.
*NUMBER OF LOTS SERVED shall mean the aggregate of all lots served by such road segment and all lots having access over
such segment to a public road. ROAD SEGMENT shall mean each portion of a private road between its intersection with other
private or public roads (see illus~ation).
**The' surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existing and/or proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and
vertical alignment to accommodate a tmvelway passable by ordinary passenger vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather
conditions, together with area adequate for maintenance of such tmvelway. Such certification may be accomplished by the
following wordiag on the plat: "This private road will provide reasonable access by motor vehicle as required by § 18-36 of the
Albe&arle County Code." This provision includes family divisions.
***If slope exceeds seven percent, 6" of#21 or #2lA and prime & double seal are required.
ILLUSTRATION TO ACCOMPANY NOTE ONE:
B
C
D
NUMBER OF LOTS SERVED:
Segment A = Lots on segment A
Segment C = Lots on Segments A, B, and C
Segment E = Lots on Segments A, B, C, D and E
PUBLIC ROAD
Note: Any lot with frontage on more than one road segment shall be counted on each road segment on which such lot fronts,
unless access is specifically restricted by notation on the final plat.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
218
Table B
Residential Uses Other Than Single-Family Detached Dwellings
(Also Commercial/Industrial)
1.Shall be designed to VDOT ROLLING TERRAIN Standards.
2.The Planning Commission may require c6ncret~ curb 'and gutter and sidewalks or other pedestrian ways in accordance with
Section 18-39(n).
3.The Planning Commission may require increased travelway to provide for on-street parking upon a determination that provisions
for off-street parking may be inadequate to reasonably preclude unauthorized on-street parking.
Agenda Item No. 15. Request for Exception to Payment Procedure for Ter-
minating Employees.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated November 26, 1991,
from Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources:
"For several years prior to November, 1989, local government employees
who terminated their employment were paid $25 per day for unused sick
leave up to a maximum of 100 days. With the completion of the work on
commonality of personnel practices, the Board of Supervisors elimi-
nated the payment for sick leave upon termination. In its' place,
the Board adopted a policy of paying $200 per year for each year of
continuous service, for up to 25 years, upon retirement.
In adopting the new retirement bonus, the Board provided that employ-
ees hired prior to November, 1989, could choose to be paid for sick
leave or the retirement bonus upon leaving employment. The option
chosen at that point was to be binding and was not to change despite
the circumstances governing the termination.
Recently, an employee was notified that employment with the County
would be terminated due to the results of an election. Since she
originally planned to retire, she had chosen the retirement option for
payment. This situation, plus the possibility of other employees
having their employment terminated through no fault of their own, has
led to a recommendation for an exception.
Recommendation: Shat the Board allow emplOyees who are being termi-
nated through no fault of their own to reexamine their original pay-
ment~option and to choose the option which best suits their needs at
the time they are terminated."
Motion was offered by Ms. Rumphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to allow
employees ~whose jobs are being terminated through no fault of their own to
reexamine their original payment option for unused sick leave, and.to choose
the option which best suits their needs at the time their employment is ter-
minated. Roll was called and the motion carried bythe following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain,~ BOwerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
219
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Agenda Item 17a. Appropriation: Education Department to appropriate
Additional State Revenues.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated November 15, 1991,
from Dr. Robert W. Paskel, School Division Superintendent:
"As you are aware, Governor Wilder was successful in restoring $15.0
million for public education for the 1991-92 fiscal year. Albemarle
County Schools' portion of the $15.0 million is $108,524. The Depart-
ment of Education has also stated sales tax revenue is currently lower
than projected and the average daily membership for the State as a
whole is higher than anticipated. Based on this information, Albe-
marle County could see a reduction in State revenue in the near
future.
At its November~ 11, 1991 meeting, the School Board, therefore, agreed
to accept this additional revenue and hold it in reserve as follows:
REVENUE: 2-2000-24000-240202, Basic School Aid, $108,524.00.
EXPENDITURE: 1-2410-61101-580000, School Board Reserve, $108,524.00.
It is requested the Board of Supervisors amend the Appropriation
Ordinance accordingly,"
Motion was offered by Mrs~ Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation accepting an additional $108,524
from State funding, to be held in reserve. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF BASIC SCHOOL AID
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION. AMOUNT
1241061101580000
SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE
TOTAL
$108,524.00
$108,524.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200024000240202
BASIC SCHOOL AID
TOTAL
$108,524.00
$108,524.00
AgendaItemNo.17b. Appropriation. Fire/Rescue Coordinator.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated November 12, 1991:
"Funds in the amount of $1800 were appropriated in the 1990-91 budget
for office furniture and equipment for the Fire/Rescue Coordinator.
Because the position was not filled until May 1990, and due to space
constraints, the funds were not spent in FY '91 and were not request-
ed to be carried over into FY '92. These funds, therefore, reverted
back to the General Fund.
Now that a suitable space has been found for the position, staff
recommends that $1300 be appropriated to the Fire/Rescue- Coordina-
tor's budget in order to purchase a chair, a typewriter, a calculator
and some shelves. Other office furniture and equipment have been
secured from other departments, in order to reduce the request."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following resolution of appropriation-to approve the request for $1300to
purchase office furniture and equipment in the Fire/Rescue Coordinator's
office.
December !1, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
220
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 91/92
FUND': GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PURCHASE OF OFFICE
FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRE/RESCUE
COORDINATOR OFFICE.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100032031800200
FURNITURE & FIXTURES
TOTAL
$1,300.00
$1,300.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$1,300.00
$1,300.00
Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:15 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins,
to adjourn into Executive Session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1, to
discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Bain was absent at this time.) At 2:16 p.m. the Board reconvened
into open session and motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adopt the following certification:
CERTIFICATIONOF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle CountyBoard 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 exec-
utive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii)
only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Bain.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
221
Agenda Item No. 14. Request: Traffic Unit Motorcycles.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated December 13, 1991,
from Chief John Miller, Police Department:
"During the first ten months of calendar year 1991, the County Police
Department investigated 1396 accidents, a 12.5 percent increase over
the same period of 1990. The Department issued 1417 traffic citations
during the first ten months of 1991, a 46.02 percent decrease over the
same period of 1990. Traffic related calls accounted for 20.3 percent
of the total calls for services during the first ten months of 1991.
This data demonstrates the large demands placed on the Patrol Division
for'traffic related calls. While traffic enforcement and the mainte-
nance of traffic flow will always be a primary function of the beat
officer, a specialized traffic unit will allow the Police Department
to accomplish this part of our mission more effectively.
While staffing levels do not allow for a full time traffic unit at
this time, a variety of benefits will be recognized by adding motorcy-
Cles to the Police Department's fleet. Some of the major benefits
include:
More Effective Police Response - In areas of high traffic, or in
an area where a traffic accident has occurred, maneuvering of
police cruisers is very difficult. The use of motorcycles will
allow officers to navigate in these areas much more easily,
improving our 'response time to traffic incidents, as well as
other emergency calls. Police motorcycles can also access areas
that are not accessible by cruiser; i~e., park trails, school
grounds, etc.
Enhance Traffic Enforcement Efforts - Police motorcycles make
~traffic law enforcement much easier for the officer. In areas of
high traffic volumes, a police officer may observe a traffic
violation but is unable to stop the violator due to safety
concerns. Due to the maneuverability of the police motorcycle,
the officer is able to enforce traffic laws more effectively.
Voluntary compliance of traffic laws increases with the presence
of police motorcycles. The motoring public recognizes that the
officer can very easily maneuver through traffic to apprehend
violators. With a conventional police vehicle some motorists
recognize the near impossibility of an officer effecting a
traffic stop during peak traffic times o.r in high volume traffic
areas.
Be
Community Relations The police motorcycle provides an excellent
opportunity for the officer to relate with the community. The
police motorcycle makes the officer more approachable by citi-
zens. He is open and highly visible. There are no barriers to
communication as found with a police cruiser. This increased
level of approachability allows for more positive community
contacts.
Special Events There are many special events that are more
effectively policed by an officer on a motorcycle. Examples
include policing large crowds (such as Foxfield) and providing
dignitary escorts.
The approximate cost for one fully equipped police motorcycle is
approximately $12,000. The cost to equip one officer with the helmet
and other safety equipment is approximately $700.
The police motorcycle will not replace the conventional police
cruiser. However, this mode of transportation makes an officer much
more effective in traffic enforcement effort, and is a valuable
resource for the. agency to have access to assist with addressing a
variety of law enforcement problems.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
222
With the Board of Supervisor's approval, two police motorcycles will
be added to the fleet to be operational by Spring, 1992. No addition-
al appropriation will be required in order to begin this worthwhile
program with our goal stated to add a total of six motorcycles over
the next three to four years."
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 2:19 P.M.) Chief Miller said the
request is not for a permanent motorcycle unit at this time. The Department
would like an opportunity to evaluate the use of the motorcycles by the
officers traffic-related activities. If that evaluation is satisfactory, he
would then come back to the Board for a permanent motorcycle unit.
Mr. Bowie thought it was a good idea.
Motion.was offered byMrs: Humphris, seconded by Mr., Bowerman, to approve
the addition of motorcycles to the County's traffic enforcement program as
outlined in the above memorandum from Chief Miller. Roll was called and~the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 23. SP-90-31. Little Keswick School. Public Hearing on
a request for extension of special use permit issued June 6, 1990, to allow
expansion of the School by utilizing the existing community building for East
Rivanna Fire Company. Property consists of 1.0 ac zoned RA located on E. side
of Route 731 approx.200 ft S of Rt 22. TMS0,Pll0A. Rivanna Dist. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg said on June 6, 1990, the Board approved a special use
permit for.~Little Keswick School to utilize the community building at the East
Rivanna. Fire Company. The permit expired on December 6, 1991. The East
Rivanna Fire Company is in the process of getting their site developed at
Glenmore and have been unable to vacate their current building; therefore,
Little Keswick School has not been able to utilize the building under that
permit. Little Keswick is requesting a one-year extension of their permit.
The staff recommends the permit be extended for another 18 months to allow
time for the transition to occur.
. Mr. BoWie opened the public hearing. Mr. Marc J. Columbus, Headmaster of
Little Keswick School, said the school is waiting for East Rivanna to complete
its' financial arrangements. There being no other public comments, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve an
extension of SP~90~31 for 18 months to June 6, 1993. Roll was called and the
motioncarried by.the following recordedvote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA,91,08. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend
and reenacn Section 35.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance entitled
"Fees." (Advertised inthe Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26,
1991.)
Mr. Tucker said most of the fees have been advertised for 100 percent
recovery. The Board may wish to phase in the fees. He recommends adoption of
the proposed ordinance as advertised.
Mr. BoWie opened the public hearing. There being no one from the public~
who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 35.0 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance entitled "Fees," to be effective April 1, 1992. Roll was
called andthe motion Carried by the following recorded vote:
223
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE
To amend and reenact
Section 35.0, Fees,
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
and reenacted in Section 35.0 entitled "Fees" as follows:
35.0 FRR. q
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made
to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of
supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such applica-
tion.
a. For a special use permit:
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
Mobile home $35.00.
Rural area divisions - $990.00.
Commercial use - $780.00.
Industrial use - $810.00.
Private club/recreational facility - $810.00.
Mobile home park or subdivision - $780.00.
Public utilities - $810.00.
Grade/fill.in the flood plain $690.00.
9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit
$85.00.
10.~ Extending special use permits - $55.00.
11. Home Occupation-Class A - $10.00;
Home Occupation-Class B - $350.00.
12. All other uses $780.00.
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $665.00.
c. Amendment to the zoning map:
2.
3.
5.
For planned developments - under 50 acres
$815.00.
For planned developments - 50 or more acres
$1,255.00.
For all other zoning map amendments under 50
acres - $815.00.
For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more
acres $1,255.00.
Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment
$175.00.
d. Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. Request for a variance - $95.00.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals
(including. appeals of zoning administrator's de-
cision) - $95.00, to be refunded if the decision
of the zoning administrator is overturned.
Preliminary site development plan:
1. Residential - $945.00, plus $10.00/unit.
2. Non-residential - $1,260.00, plus $10.00/1000
square feet.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
224
Final site development plan:
1. Approved administratively - $325.00.
2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of
preliminary site development plan - $900.00.
3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of
the preliminary site development plan - $630.00.
4. For site development plan waiver - $215.00.
5 For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor alterations to parking, circulation,
building size, location - $75.00.
b) Major- commission review $215.00.
6. Review of site development plan by the architec-
tural review board - $160.00.
7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of
supervisors - $190.00.
8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission
or board of supervisors - $150.00.
9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development
plan:
a) Rejected within ten days - $160.00.
b) Suspended after site.plan review - site plan
fee shall not be refunded. $50.00 fee shall
be required to reinstate project.
For relief from a condition of approval from commission
or landscape waiver by agent -.$140.00. .
Change in road or development ~name after submittal of
site development plan:
1. Road = $15.00.
2. Development $20.00.
Extending approval of site development plan - $35.00.
Granting request to defer action on site development
plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment:
1. To a specific date - $25.00.
2. Indefinitely - $60.00.
Bond inspection for site development plan, for each
inspection after the first bond estimate - $45.00.
Zoning clearance $25.00.
Accessory lodging permits - $25.00.
Official Letters:
Of determination - $60.00.
Of compliance with county ordinances- $60.00.
Stating number of development rights - $30.00.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
225
o. Sign Permits:
Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requir-
ing review by the architectural review board -
$25.00.
Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural
review board - $60.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be
charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section.
Failure .to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds
for the denial of any application. For any application
withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the
fee will-be refunded.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this ordinance .shall be effective on
and after April 1, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 20. STA-91-02. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend
and reenact Article 18-43, Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, of the Code of
Albemarle, entitled"Fees." (Advertised in theDaily Progress on November 19
and November 26, 1992.)
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. There being no comments from the
public, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 18-43, "Fees," Chapter 18,
Subdivision of Land, of the Code of Albemarle, to be effective April 1, 1992.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded, vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 18-43, Fees, Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land,
of the Code of Albemarle
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 18-43, Fees, Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land,
of the Code of Albemarle, be amended and reenacted, as follows:
Sec. 18-43. Fees.
(a) Preliminary plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the
time when the preliminary plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the
form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virgin-
ia," the amount thereof to be determined in accordance with the fol-
lowing schedule:
(1) For review by the commission:
a. One to nine lots, five hundred sixty-five dollars
($565.00).
b. Ten to nineteen lots, eight.hundred eighty dollars
($880.00).
c. Twenty or more lots, one thousand sixty dollars
($1,060.00)..
(2.) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether, or not a
preliminary plat for the same property has been filed previously,
shall be subject to the same requirements.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
226
(b) Final plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time the
final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a check
payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virginia," the amount thereof to
be determined in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) Commission approval:
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
a. One to nine lots, five hundred sixty-five dollars
($565.00).
b. Ten to nineteen tots, eight hundred eighty dollars
($880.00).
c. Twenty or more lots, one thousand sixty dollars
($1,060.00).
Administrative-approval, including family divisions:
seventy-five dollars ($75~00).
Exempt plat: Twenty dollars ($20.00).
Condominium plat: Eighty dollars ($80.00).
In addition to the foregoing, in the case of any plat
on which is shown any road to be dedicated to public use, or any pri-
vate road, the subdivider shall pay to the county a ~fee equal to-~the
cost of the inspection, of the construction of any such road. Such fee
shall be paid upon completion of all necessary inspections and shall
be deemed a part of the cost of construction of such road for the
purposes of section 18~19.
(c) Waiver request of subdivision requirement:
forty dollars ($140.00).
One hundred
(d) Relief from conditions by commission on plat: One hundred
forty dollars ($140.00).
(e) Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: One hundred ninety
dollars ($190.00).
(f)
($10.00).
Redating of plat,~approved and not recorded: Ten dollars
(g) Change in road or development name after submittal of plat:
(1) Change in road name: Fifteen dollars ($15.00).
(2) Change in development name: Twenty dollars ($20.00).
(h) Extending approval of plat: Thirty~five dollars ($35.00).
(i) Granting request to defer action on plat to:
(1) A specific date: Twenty-five dollars ($25.00).
(2) Indefinitely: Sixty dollars ($60.00).
(j) Bonding inspection for plat: Forty-five dollars ($45.00).
(k) Request to board of supervisors to vacate a plat: One hun-
dred thirty-five dollars ($135.00).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that~this ordinance shall be effective on
and after April 1, 1992.
Motion was then offered, by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following ordinance to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance in Section
4.15.4.1, Sign Permits, to be effective April 1, 1992. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
227
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in
Section 4.15.4.1, Sign Permits
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended and
reenacted in Section 4.15.4.1 entitled "Sign Permits" to read as fol-
lows:
4.15.4.1 SIGN PERMITS
No person shall erect or cause to be erected any sign, ex-
cept auction and temporary event signs, in excess of five
(5) square feet in area Unless and until a permit therefor
shall have been obtained from the zoning administrator.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that.this ordinance shall be effective on
and after April 1, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend andreenact
various sections and chapterS of the Codeof Albemarleto increase fees as
follows: _Section 2.1-2 relating to the application fee for an agricultural/
forestal district; Sec 7-4, erosion and sedimentation control, to increase the
fee for plan review; to amend Sec 9 of the Water ResoUrces Protection Ordi-
nance in subsection (c) and subsection (d) to require payment of a fee.
(Advertised in the.Daily Progresson November. 19 and November 26, 1991.)
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. There being no one present from the
public to speak, the publiC hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following ordinance to amend and reenact the following sections of the
Code of Albemarle related to fees, to be effective April 1, 1992: Section
2.1-2 of Chapter 2.1 Agricultural and Forestal.Districts, subsection (c);
Section 7-4 of Chapter 7, ErosiOn and Sedimentation Control, subsection (d);
and. Section 9 of the WaterResources Protection Ordinance in subsection (c)
and (d). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ORDINANCE
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Sections of.the Code of Albemarle
Related to Fees
BE IT RESOL%q~D by the Board of Supervisors of Albemmrle County,
Virginia, that Section 2,1,2 of Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal
Districts, of the Code of Albemarle, in subsection (c), is hereby
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
(c) Each application for creation of an agricultural and
fores~al district shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred fifty
dollars ($150.00). No fee shall be charged for adding parcels to an
agricultural and forestal district, or for reviewing an existing
agricultural and forestal.district.
BE IT FURT~[RRRF~OLVEDthat Section 7-4 of Chapter 7, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and
reenacted in subsection (d) to read as follows:
228
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3, the applicant shall pay to the county a fee of forty
dollars to cover the cost to the county to review and to act upon soil
erosion plans for residential or agricultural sites; and one hundred
dollars ($100.00) to review and act upon such plans for all other
sites. For each erosion control inspection necessitated by this plan,
a fee of thirty dollars ($30.00) shall be paid by the applicant. The
maximum fee chargeable under this section, inclusive of inspections,
shall not exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
BE IT ALSO RRSOLVRD that Section 9 of the Water Resources
Protection Ordinance be amended and reenacted in subsection (c) and
subsection (d) to read. as follows:
Sec. 9. Water Quality Impact Assessment.
(c) Minor Water Quality Impact Assessment:
A minor water.quality impact assessment shall be required
for any development which results in land disturbance of greater than
two thousand- five hundred (2500) square feet but less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet within resource protection areas and
requires any modification or reduction ofthe landward fifty (50) feet
of the one hundred (100)foot buffer area.~ A minor assessment must
demonstrate that the remaining buffer area and necessary best manage-
ment practicesi~will~ effectively achieve pollutant removal equivalent
to the one hundred (100) foot buffer. A request for a minor assess-
ment shall include a site drawing, accompanied by a fee of twenty
dollars ($20.00) in the form of cash or a check made payable to the
"County of Albemarle, Virginia~" to scale which shows the following:
(d) Major Water Quality Impact Assessment:
A major water quality impact assessment shall be required
for any development which results in ten thousand (10,000) square feet
of land disturbance or greater within .resource protection areas and
requires modification or reduction of the landward fifty (50) feet of
the. one hundred (100) foot buffer area. A request for a major water
quality impact assessment shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty
dollars ($50.00) in the form of cash or a check made payable to the
"County of Albemarle,.~Virginia,, and shall, include the elements listed
for a minor water quality impact assessment, and the ~ following
additional information:
AND FIIRT~ R~SOLVI~D that this ordinance shall be effective on
and after April 1, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: The Board will also consider
adopting a resolution setting .a fee for submission of a Comprehep~ive Plan
Amendment, a fee for requests to be included in service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority; and, requests for abandonmentof roads
which may or may not have been a part of the State Secondary System of
Highways. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 19 and November 26,
1991.)
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. There being no one present to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion ~was off~red~.~y,~Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution setting a fee for submission of Comprehensive Plan
amendment, a fee for requests to be included in service area boundaries of the
Albemarle County Service Authority; and requests for abandonment of roads,
which may or may not have been apart of the State Secondary System of
Highways. Roll was calledand the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
229
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that a fee is hereby established for Comprehensive Plan
amendments by amending and reenacting Paragraph No. 2 of the POLICY
FOR SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPRE}tR.~IVE PLAN OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, to read as follows:
2. Comprehensive Plan amendment applications may be filed at the
Department of Planning and Community Development on or before the
first Tuesday, respectively, of the months of March and September.
The application should be accompanied by cash or a check made payable
to the "County of .Albemarle, Virginia," in t~e amount of three hundred
and fifteen dollars ($315.00).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that fees are hereby established for items
as set out below:
Request.to amend service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include property for water and/or sewer service
$130.00; however, no fee shall be charged for emergency requests when
public safety is an issue.
Request to abandon roads which may or may not have been a part of
the State Secondary System .of Highways - $135.00.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that these fees shall be effective on and
after April 1, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 24. Discussion: Legislationre: Landfill Closures.
Mr. Tucker suggested the proposed resolution regarding the closure of old
landfills and a request that a separate legislative commission be established
to review the regulations be discussed~ with the legislators on December 18.
Mr. Bain felt the language in the proposed resolution was satisfactory.
Mr. Bowie also felt it was a good resolution and suggested that a cover letter
briefly outlining the proposal and requesting their support be transmitted to
the legislators.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution concerning landfill closures with same to be given to the
legislators on December 18, 1991, along with a cover letter briefly outlining
the proposal and requesting their support. Roll was called and the motion
carried bythe following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Waste
Management Regulations UR 672-20-10 requires all sanitary landfill
cells opened under existing permits after December 18, 1988 to be
closed under the new regulations; and
WM~,F2~B, while the Department of Waste Management's concern
relates to lechate generated in these cells entering and contaminating
the environment, and groundwater in particular; and
WHEREAS, requiring the placement of a cap atop these closed cells
is a costly procedure with no proven benefit; and
~t~N~F~S, owners of landfills are still responsible for ground-
water quality irrespective of a requirement to cap cells under the new
regulations; and
_. W~WRA~, the requirement to.monitor groundwater quality and take
mitigating action when deemed necessary is an appropriate action; and
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
230
W~EREAS, these actions should meet the intent of groundwater
quality and environmental protection without incurring a coptly
closure procedure; and
W]~RREAS, the current waste management regulations do not allow
for alternative monitoring and subsequent mitigation in lieu of a
costly closure process;
NOW T~RREFOR~ BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle strongly requests its legislators to urge the
General Assembly to create a separate legislative commission to review
the efficacy of the State's current solid waste regulations.
Agenda Item No. 25. Road Naming Status Report.
Mr. Tucker presented the following status report:
"In response to your request for a status report on road naming, the
Planning DePartment has received ten requests for road name .changes
submit-ted by the November deadline. These requests are being ~pro-
cess~d to verify the 50 percent or more signatures and to ensure the
proposed names are acceptable. Upon completion of this review, staff
will b~.able~0~admihistrativelY~approve these.requests except for two
proposals requiring further action as follows:
(1) A petition proposes a name that is already in use. This
will need to be revised; and
(2)
Two petitions have been. received .for the same road, one
petition wants to retain the name, Broadaxe Road, the other
proposes a change to Payne Mountain Road. Verification is
in progress.
The only other road name issue is a request_by the Board to review
options for recognizing .President James Monroe. Staff's recommen-
dation is to add a James Monroe Parkway as reflected in the following
report.
In summary, reviewing our past road naming practices and the new
policy, staff feels they need no further revisions. The process uses
reasonable criteria, in making decisions on road names that are
considered fair and equitable for the citizens of the County while
meeting the needs of providing emergency services. While the changes
for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway and the James Monroe Parkway were
considered unique and did not follow established procedure, staff
emphasizes the need to allow no further exceptions to your policy."
Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following staff report December 3, 1991:
"At the request of the Board of Supervisors, staff has reviewed
options for providing a road name designation for President Monroe.
While staff'recognizes that this is an exception to the procedures for
road name changes adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 11,
1991, staff recommends that no future exceptions to the adopted
procedures be made. Any, and all future requests, for road name
changes should adhere to the adopted procedures and, therefore, be
accompanied by a petition signed by a majority of the landowners along
such road. ~
Staff has consulted with Carolyn Holmes, Executive Director of Ash
Lawn-Highland, Dan Jordan, Director of Monticello, and George Howard,
E911 Road Naming Committee Member representing the Scottsville
Magisterial District, regarding, the potential road name change.
Outlined below are the requests/suggestions submitted bytheindivi-
duals mentioned above followed by staff recommendations:
Attachment B (on file) outlines a request for the designation of
James Monroe Parkway submitted by CarolynHolmes. The James
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
231
Monroe Parkway would begin at the intersection of Route 53 and
Route 795 (at Simeon) and continue south on Route 795 and Route
627 to its intersection with Route 20 (at Carters Bridge).
Carolyn Holmes agreed to limit the extent of the James Monroe Parkway
request to Route 795 from Route 53 (at Simeon) to Route 627 provided
that the Thomas Jefferson Parkway stopped at Route 795. In her
letter, Carolyn Holmes stated: 'Neither Mr. Jordan nor I have any
recommendations for the portion of Route 53 from the Parkway intersec-
tion (at Simeon) to the County line.'
The request made by Dan Jordan was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on September 11, 1991. The request was for the
designation of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway to begin at the
intersection of Route 53 and Route 20, continuing east on Route
53 toits intersection with. Route 795 (at. Simeon) at a minimum.
When the road names were adopted~by the Board of Supervisors in
September, Route 53 was adopted as Thomas Jefferson Parkway from
Route 20 to the County line.
Dan. Jordan was opposed to the Jefferson Monroe Parkway designation as
is suggested below.
Attachment C (on file) outlines the suggestions madeby George
Howard in an effort to provide a road name designation for
President Monroe. The suggestions include the following:
Designating a Jefferson-Monroe Parkway to begin at the
intersection of Route 53 and Route 20, continuing east on
Route 53 to its intersectionwith Route 795 then south on
Route 795 to its intersection with Route 627.
Some residents on Route 627, including GeorgeHoward, would
prefer to retain the adopted Carters Mountain Road designa-
tion rather than changing to James Monroe Parkway.
Renaming-Route 53 from its intersection with 795 (at Simeon)
to the County line from Thomas Jefferson Parkway to Buck
Island Road.
The E911 Road Naming Committee received five individual
requests from residents to name Route 53 from Route 795 to
the County line Buck Island Road.
Renaming Route 729 from its intersection with Route 53 to
its inte=section with Route 618 from Buck Island Road to
Milton Road. This would result in the continuation of
Milton Road south of Route 53. Route 729 north of Route 53
was previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
September as Milton Road.
Staff recommends the following changes based on the requests/
suggestions received:
Thomas Jefferson Parkway - Route 53 from Route 20 to Route
795 (at SimeOn);
James Monroe Parkway -Route 795 from Route 53 (at Simeon)
to Route 627;
Buck Island Road Route 53 from Route 795 (at Simeon) to
the County .line; and,
D. Milton Road - Route 729 from Route 53 to Route 618.
Mrs. Carolyn Holmes presented a survey which showed the people along the
section of Route 795 unanimously were in favor of the proposal. One landowner
thought Thomas Jefferson Parkway was an excellent name, but also thought there
should be a James Monroe Parkway. Two landowners preferred the continuation
of Carter's Mountain Road. Mrs. Holmes said Ash Lawn is concerned with its'
visibility on Route 20.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
232
Mr. Bowie said he would have no problem with changing the name to
Jefferson-Monroe Parkway.
Mrs. Humphris said this is an opportunity for the Board to let the public
know that Albemarle has two presidents' homes within a "stone's throw" of each
other. It seems common sense to her to name the road Jefferson-Monroe Park-
way. That is where the two men lived and where their historical homes are
located. She thinks this is a solution that will give due recognition to both
men. Mr. Perkins agreed.
Mr. Bain felt that Mr. Dan Jordan, from Monticello, might want to speak
to the Board, if the Board is considering taking action on renaming this road.
Mrs. Humphris saidall the parties involved have had a chance to make comments
and she feels the Board has all the necessary input it needs to make a deci-
sion on this question. Mr. Way agreed with Mrs. Humphris.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to rename
Route 53 from its intersection with Route 20 proceeding easterly until it
intersects Route 795Pand then continUing along Route 795 until it intersects
Route 620 as Jefferson-Monroe Parkway; name Route 627 from its intersection
with Route 795 over to Route 20 South at Carter's Bridge as CartersMoUntain
Road; rename Route 53 from its intersection with Route 795 easterly to the
Fluvanna County line as Buck Island Road; and rename Route 729 from its
intersection with Route53 in a southeasterly direction to its intersection
with Route 618 as Milton Road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
Mr. Way said he opposed the motion because of the process, not because he
objects to the names. When the Board first acted on the naming of this road,
Ash Lawnwas excluded from the process; now the Board is excluding Monticello.
He thinks input should be received from both'of them together.
Agenda Item No. 10. Comprehensive Plan, Yearly Status Report.
Mr. Cilimberg Presented the following, summary of findings and recommenda-
tions of the annual report of the Comprehensive Plan:
"SUMIt~RY AND FINDINGS: The following is a summary of significant new
information and findings from the analysis undertaken for this report:
Population Trends: The 1990 population for Albemarle County has
increased to 68,040 from 55,783 in 1980. The average annual growth
rate between 1980 and 1990 was 2.0 percent. The average annual growth
rate for the County between 1970 and 1980 was 4.8 percent.
There is a continuing decline in the percentage of households earning
less than $15,000 and a consistent increase in households earning more
than $40,000 a year (based on adjusted gross income~class). In 1988,
34 percent of the total popuiation made less than $15,000. Converse-
ly, the percentage making over $40,000 in 1988 was 27.9 percent. To
some extent, this reflects inflationary increases in income over the
decade, but, this trend may also indicate that individuals and
families with lower incomes are leaving as they can no longer afford
the cost of living in the County.
Median family income for Albemarle County in 1990 is 42,076, seven
percent above theState median income ($39,175). The County's median
income is highest in the region (Charlottesville~ $37,578, Greene-
$36,797, Fluvanna-$33,285 and Nelson-S30,045).
Housing Cost: Based on the 1990 preliminary census information, the
median value of owner-occupied housing in Albemarle is $111,200, 22
percent above the State median value ($91,000). The County median
value is the highestin theregion (Charlottesville-S85,600, Fluvanna-
$75,100, Greene-S73,.700, and Nelson-S53,100).
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
233
Economy: Retail trade, finance and service sectors of the economy are
showing the highest level of employment growth in the County, and are
growing faster than previous projections. Manufacturing and wholesale
trade have not shown significant growth. Current national projections
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that these trends will
likely continue through the 1990's. Listed below are the Bureau of
Labor Statistics' moderate national projections for major employment
sectors. These are annual growth rates for the period between 1990
and 2000:
Manufacturing -.1% Finance 1.3%
Transportation .8% Services 2.5%
Wholesale Trade 1.2% Retail Trade 1.5%
Construction 1.2%
Analysis of the local/regional economy may indicate different~trends.
Agricultural Trends: The number of farms in the County have decreased
from 830 in 1982 to 722 in 1987 according to the 1987 Census. of
Agriculture. This reflects a sharp decline from the trend established
over the previous 13 years (750 farms in 1974, 751 farms in 1978 and
830 farms in 1982). Land in farms continue a declining trend from
208,476 acres in 1978 to 201,465 acres in 1982, and 186,486 in 1987.
Total farm products sold also show a decline in 1987 from previous
years based on current dollar value and adjusted dollars. The total
products sold totalled $19,072,000 in 1987, compared to $21,892,000 in
1982 (in adjusted dollars, 1987 = $16,788,732; 1982 = $22,686,010).
Growth Management/Development Activity: According to building permit
activity for the last five years, the growth areas have captured an
average of over 55 percent of all new residential development in the
County. In 1989, the growth areas received over 73 percent of all new
residential development.
Hollymead has received a higher percentage of growth in the last two
years due primarily to development of Forest Lakes (23 percent of
total growth in 1989, and 12 percent in 1990). However, other
communities and villages are not capturing a significant portionof
newdevelopment.
The Rural Areas have received, on average, 45 percent of the residen-
tial development over the last five years. The high mark for both
total units and percentage of growth in the Rural Areas was 1987, with
427 new dwellings or 65 percent of the total for all new units in the
County. The three subsequent years have shown a decline in total
units from 395 in 1988 to 347 in 1989 and 335 units in 1990. The
percentage of total units was 59 percent in 1988, 27 percent in 1989
and 42 percent in 1990.
The basis for implementing the Growth Management Policy is the Land
Use Plan andits' goal to direct grow.th into designated growth areas.
The above information indicates that the trend is toward a somewhat
greater proportion of new development locating ~in the growth areas.
However, a significant portion of new development is continuing to
locate in the Rural Area.
Development in.the growth areas is occurring almost exclusively in the
Urban Area. and Hollymead. The other growth ~areas are not capturing a
significant amount of development.
Land Use InVentory: There has been a sig.nificant reduction in the
inventory of undeveloped land designated for high density residential
use. A total of 84 acres were developed between 1988~91. The
Agnor-Hurt School site, the Ridge Development and University Village
have utilized large areas.~of high density land in Neighborhoods 1, 5
and 7, respectively.
Approximately 240 acres of low density land was also developed during
this period, leaving a total of 3961 developable acres. A large
portion of low density land currently has limited development poten-
tial due to lack of road access or availability/proximity or,utilities
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
234
particularly in Crozet and Scottsville. Due to a relatively limited
amount of land available, land costs have risen rapidly in the urban
areas and Communities. This ultimately contributes to the increasing
cost of housing.
Based on the guidelines outlined in the Plan for designating non-
residential lands, the total available area designated for con~nercial
service use (neighborhood, community and regional service) now falls
below the anticipated minimum needed by the year 2010. By 2010 there
will be a need for 53 additional acres of commercial land not now
designated in the Plan. This assessment does not include considera-
tion of the commercial development potential of the office service and
office/regional~service designations. There are over 340 acres so
designated which can accommodate some portion of the anticipated
commercial demand. Office/employment center activities are intended
to be the primary uses in the office service, and office/regional
service designations. Commercial development is intended to be a
secondary or supporting use. There does not appear to be a need for
additional commercial lands in the short-term, particularly given
current economic conditions.
The current inventory of developable industrial land is still well in
excess of anticipated need. Over four times the anticipated land area
needed by 2010 is designated in the Land Use Plan.
Plan Implementation: There have been four major ordinance or code
changes which have implemented recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Rural Preservation Development Option of RA District Zoning
Regulations This ordinance provision implemented the recommenda-
tions of the Plan to provide a method of clustering small lots
while preserving large tracts of land which would be more
appropriate for rural uses.
Entrance Corridor Overlay District - This district was adopted to
protect the visual quality of major entrance roads into the
County. The roads designated as entrance corridor routes are:
Route 29, .Route 250, Route 29/250 Bypass, Route 29 Business,
1-64, Route 20 North, Route 22, Route 231, Route 6, Route 151,
Route 631 (from Route 708 to City limits), Route 53, Route 240,
Route 654 and Route 742.
The Non-Residential Service Areas - The Zoning Ordinance was
amended to permit non-residential 'service areas' as recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the amendment is to
permit the establishment .of mixed~use developments consisting of
commercial, industrial, residential and/or public land uses in a
manner consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
The Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance of'the County Code
This ordinance implemented the Plan's overall goal .to protect
the County's ,surface water resources and the specific objective
to review .and support the Chesapeake Bay protection initiatives.
It provides water quality protection measures along all rivers
and perennial streams.
ACTION AGENDA: Below is the prioritized list of activities recommend-
ed in the Plan to be undertaken and the status of these projects.
Public Facilities Plan - The Community Facilities Plan was
adopted in June, 1991, as an amendment to the Comprehensive. Plan.
Open Space and Critical Resources Plan A draft of this Plan is
complete and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Adoption is anticipated bythe winter of 1991.
o
Criteria Based Rating. System and Transportation Plan A criteria-
based rating system for evaluating and prioritizing road improve-
ment projects has been developed and used in reviewing the Six
Year Secondary Road Plan in 1990 and 1991.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
235
4. Water Resources Committee and Water Resources Protection Measures
The Committee has been established and has begun an evaluation
of various resource protection measures and other water resource
related issues. They have reviewed and made recommendations on
the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance, Runoff Control
Ordinance changes, and stormwater management issues.
Utilities Master Plan Work is underway on this plan. A staff
committee including representatives from the Albemarle County
Service Authority and Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has been
formed to assist in the development of this plan. A draft plan
is anticipated to be completed by Summer, 1992.
Urban Drainage Plan Update - There has been no work on this
project to date. There is a request in the Capital Improvements
Program (for FY 92.~93) to fund a County-wide drainage.study.
Agricultural/Forestal Resources Advisory Committee - There has
been no work on establishing this committee to date.
o
Housing Committee - The Committee was appointed in February,
1991. A draft report from the Committee for the development of a
housing strategy is anticipated by early 1992.
Historic Preservation Committee - There has been no work on
establishing this committee to date. An unofficial committee
consisting of members of Citizens for Albemarle is developing a
draft historic district ordinance to present to the County.
10. Social Data Base
date.
A social data base has not been developed to
11.
Urban Street Corridor Design Plans The Entrance Corridor
Overlay District has been adopted. An Architectural Review.Board
(ARB) has been established to enforce these provisions. The ARB
has developed interim design guidelines for the Entrance Corridor
routes.
12.
Criteria for qualifying Scenic Roads and Streams Proposed
criteria for qualifying scenic streams have been developed as
part of the Open Space Plan. There has been no work on scenic
roads criteria to date.
13.
Annual 'Status of the Plan' Report - This
since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
will be issued annually.
is the first report
Subsequent reports
RECOMMENDATIONS: The fOllowing~are recommendations for further action
to be undertaken:
The County should conduct a fiscal impact analysis to determine
how development and population trends and projections will affect
revenues and expenditures of the County. This analysis should be
conducted at two levels: (1) based on existing growth areas as
defined'in the Comprehensive Plan; and, (2) basedon expansion of
growth areas to accommodate additional land use needs as noted in
this report.
This analysis has been recommended for several years. The
analysis and ultimate development of a fiscal impact model is an
important step in the process for evaluating how the County will
support future growth in an effective manner. A fiscal impact
analysis should be considered a high priority and begin in FY
91-92.
The County should also establish a systematic annual review of
the County's fiscal condition as recommended in the Comprehensive
Plan. This ongoing assessment would provide a method to monitor
various financial indicators and identify any warning trends
which could adversely affect the County's financial condition.
This system should be established in FY 91-92.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
236
Upon completion of a fiscal impact analysis, the staff should
evaluate growth area expansion to accommodate land use needs.
Various locations for growth area expansion should be considered,
but particular emphasis should be given to re-evaluating the
Hollymead Community/Piney Mountain Village area for expansion
potential.
Based on a Board of Supervisors directive at the time of adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan, the Hollymead Community was evaluated
in 1989 for possible expansion. It was determined that expansion
of Hollymead was not appropriate at that time due to a number of
outstanding issues or additional planning work that needed to be
resolved or, completed:. These issues/activities include:
1. Development of a Community Facilities Plan;
2. Development of a County Open Space Plan;
3. Development of a fiscal impact model and analysis of.the
County to determine impact of growth on the County;
4. Resolution of the Route 29 Bypass location; and
5. Resolution of the Meadow Creek Parkway.
With the exception of the fiscal impact model/analysis all other
items have either been addressed will be under study this fiscal
year. Therefore, upon completion of the .fiscal impact model,
Hollymead should be re-evaluated for potential expansion. It is
anticipated that this analysis could be~ in FY 92-93.
Develop~ Neighborhood Plans for the .Designated Neighborhood Plans
be developed for each of the designated growth areas. These
plans would provide a more detailed analysis of need, and a plan
for the development of these areas. It would also provide an
opportunity for the residents of these areas to become more
involved in the planning process for their neighborhood. The
following is the recommended priority for undertaking these
plans. Work would begin in FY 91-92 on priority #1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Urban Area Neighborhood 3;
Urban Area Neighborhoods 4 .and 5;
Hollymead/Piney Mountain;
Crozet;
Neighborhoods 1 and 2;
Neighborhoods 6 and 7; and
Remaining~Villages (North Garden, Earlysvil]e,
Rivanna).
Conduct an economic base analysis of the local .economy. The most
recent base analysis of the local economy is now seven years old.
A new study should be.undertakenby FY 92-93 so this information
will be available for the next review of the Comprehensive Plan.
It is recommended that the following items from the Action Agenda
be pursued in FY 92~93.
Urban Drainage Plan Update This plan would analyze
drainage needs in the urbanizing areas of the County. A
Capital Improvements Program (CIP) request to fund this Plan
in FY 92-93 has been submitted. The CIP is currently under
review and is expected to be adopted in December, 1991.
Agricultural/Forestal Resources.Advisory Committee - Due to
the continuing decline of agricultural activities in the
County as indicated in the 1987 Census of Agriculture it is
recommended that the Agricultural/ Forestal Resources
Advisory Committee be established to address agricultural
and forestal industry needs and develop and recommend
programs to support the industry.
The only remaining Action Agenda item which has not either been
completed or scheduled for completion is the development of a
social data base. This project should be undertaken when a
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
237
thorough analysis of the 1990 Census information is completed,
Census data will be available on a flow-basis beginning in the
fall/winter of 1991 and continuing through 1992."
Mrs. Humphris asked what is involved in the establishment of an Agricul-
tural/Forestal Resources Advisory Committee. Mr. Cilimberg said the committee
is identified as a group of people who would attempt to address some of the
economic concerns of the agricultural/forestal industry in the County, and
look at potential ways to market local products state-wide, such as through a
farmer's market. Mrs. Humphris asked why this committee had not been formed.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Department's work program is full and there is
no one-availableto provide the necessary staff work. Mrs. Humphris said she
would like staff to move forward with some planning on this committee.
Mr. Bowerman said~he would like staff to bring back a recommendation on
how to implement and accomplish recommendations #1 and #2. The recommenda-
tions mention hiring a consultant, but he thinks it might be feasible to
reconvene the Fiscal Resources Committee and charge them with this task.
Maybe staff could bring a proposal back to this Board in January on how this
could all be coordinated. Mrs. Humphris said she is not interested in hiring
a consultant when there are qualified volunteers in the community with the
expertise needed.
Mr. Bain said he. is not in agreement with. hiring a consultant, but~he ,is
also not sure he would want the Fiscal Resources Committee undertaking this
task. He thinks the Board could appoint another committee to do this. At
thispoint, the Board agreed to request staff.to bring back a recommendation
in January, 1992, on how to implement and accomplish recommendations #1 and
#2, set out above.
Non-Docketed: At 3:35. P.M. the Board recessed to attend a ceremony
honoring Mr. Bowie~s and Mr. Way's years of service on the Board.
The Board reconvened at 4:11 P.M. with Mr. Bowie and Mr, Way absent.
Mr. Perkins assumed the Chair.
Agenda Item No. 12. StormwaterManagement Report.
Mr. J, W. Peyton Robertson, Jr., Water Resources Manager, said the Board
was presented a repOrt from the WaterResources Committee on August 14which
outlined a number of recommendations for improving stormwater management in
Albemarle County. The Board requested a status report on the implementation
of those recommendations in 90 days. He has taken the recomm~ndations and
tried to integrate them into a graphic presentation of how they fit together
as program elements and how the Water Resources Committee looked at them in
trying to move forward on the issue.
Mr. Robertson said materials provided for the Board's information outline
a comprehensive stormwater management strategy. The first attachment trans-
lates the recommendations of the Stormwater Report into program elements
necessary to develop a Stormwater Management Master Plan. The STUDY/ASSESS-
MENT element is critical to moving forward with the rest of the program.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds dedicated to this effort should be
preserved. Other funding mechanisms (suchas stormwaterutility) may eventu-
ally provide an additional revenue source to implement the program.
Mr. Robertson said the second attachment to the report identifies the
status of each of these program elements and projects a timeline for comple-
tion of tasks. Availability of resources will determine actual completion,
depending on identified priorities in the CIP and other demands onstaff.
Changes~in the status of regulations may impose additional time constraints on
completion of a given element.
.~Mr. Robertson said the County should continue to move ahead in developing
a comprehensive stormwater program. Experience from other localities indi-
cates that this issue will continueto grow in importance. Opportunities for
cooperation with the City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia are
being explored as a means of defraying program costs.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
238
Mr. Bain queried Mr. Robertson about the rote and maintenance of drainage
basins and concluded that some concept will need to be developed to incorpor-
ate maintenance of the facilities and inspections.
Not Docketed. Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, Director, Monticello, asked to
address the Board. The Board agreed. Mr. Jordan said the reason he is
present is because he received a telephone call informing him that the Board
had reversed its' decision on the naming of Route 53 from the Thomas Jefferson
Parkway. He has some sensitive and confidential information he would like to
share with the Board and asked if he could speak to them in an Executive
Session. He thinks this information is absolutely pertinent and compelling as
to-whyRoute 53 ShoUld remain Thomas Jefferson Parkway.
Mr. St. John suggested Mr. Jordan tell him the basis of the subject
matter and.then he will determine if it is appropriate for .Executive Session.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 4:33 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board.
Mr. Tucker said Mr, Fred Kruger, Director, Information Services, had
planned to request new operating software for the mainframe in the-next,budget
cycle. During certain times of the year the entire building experiences
"lockdownS" due to Overloading of the mainframe. There is some software on
the market thatwould prevent this from happening. Yesterday, Mr. Kruger
learned that IBM is Offering a promotion on this particular software. If the
County takes advantage of this promotion, it would mean a savings of $1900 a
month over a 24-month period which equates to $47,600. Mr. Kruger would like
to take advantage of this savings and he feels he can find the money in.his
budget. He. requests that the Board authorize staff to purchase the software.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this price includes hardware as well as software.
Mr. Tucker said it is all software. Mr. Bowermanasked if this sOftwarewould
fix the "lockdown" permanently or if it would only be temporary. Mr. Tucker
said the software shOuld prevent this from happening again.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with this type of request coming in the
middle of the year.
Mr. Perkins ~asked how muchin total dollars is involved. Mr. Tucker said
the total cost for this fiscal year is about $6000. The cost will be approxi-
mately double next year.
Mr. Bain said prior to the budget cycle he would like an update on
Information Services equipment and software needs.
Mr. Perkins asked if a motion was needed. Mr. Tucker said a consensus of
the Board~is needed. The consensus of the Board was to authorize staff to
purchase operating software from IBM for the mainframe.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 4:40 P.M.) Mr. St. John said he
feels the information provided by Mr. Jordan is proper for an Executive
Session under the heading of acquisition and disposition of property for
public purposes. He does not know Whether the Board will deem the information
relevant to its' decision concerning the naming of Route 53. This information
would behighly prejudicial to the parties involved if it were discussed in
open session.
Mrs. Humphris said she cannot think of any information relative to the
Board's discussion on road naming that would make a difference in the Board's
decision.
Mr. Bain said he would rather wait until whatever the information is
becomes public and if necessary, then discuss the road naming issue again.
Mr. Perkins said he would be inclined to go into Executive Session and
hear the~information.
December 11, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
239
Mr. Bain said he does think it is necessary to go into Executive Session.
Whatever the relevance of the information, he does not think it has a bearing
on the Board's decision.
Mr. St. John suggested that if Board members were not amenable to an
Executive Session, then Mr. Jordan should talk to them individually.
Mr. Jordan again said he thinks the information is compelling and germane
and worthy of Executive Session.
Mrs. Humphris said she would feel uncomfortable making a decision on an
item the entire Board voted on while at this time two members are absent. She
would feel .more eomfortable with Mr. Jordan speaking individually with Board
members~
Mr. Jordan then asked if the Board would suspend its' previous action
pending further investigation. He was not notified this was being considered
and it is contrary to previous action. Mr. St. John said the Board can vote
to reconsider this item at its' next meeting.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
discuss reconsidering the naming of Jefferson-Monroe Parkway on December 18,
1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following reco.rded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way.
Mr. Bain said the Committee considering the Scottsville boundary line
adjustment received some additional financial information from the Town of
Scottsville and is "moving forward".
Mr. Bain commented that Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), will be present at the Board
meeting with the legislators on December 18. TJPDC has provided three
legislative priorities it wants, presented .....
Mr. Perkins requested that language be drafted for possible legislation
to not allow land use value taxation in the growth areas and to look at a
longer roll back period for properties in the growth areas.
Mr. Perkins asked if the Board would consider extending the Crozet
Recycling project for another month. Last Saturday, 230 people brought items
for recycling. The Rivanna Solid Waste Authority has not organized any
programs yet. Mr. Bain said he would like to look at the broad picture.
Individual programs such as this one in Crozet can get to be expensive after a
while. The Board then directed staff to bring back a cost estimate on
December 18 to extend the Crozet Recycling project for anothermonth.
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn to December 18, 1991, at 4:00 P.M. in Room
5/6.
At5:08 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman,
to adjourn to December 18, 1991, Meeting Room #11, at 3:00 p.m. for Executive
Session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1 to discuss personnel matters.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs.. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Bowieand Mrs. Way.