1991-06-05June 5, 1991 (Regular'Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
143
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 5, 1991, at 7:00 P.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 Y. 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 Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
The Chairman acknowledged that several people from the public were
present concerning the Albemarle High School Renovation Project (Agenda Item
No. 14). There being no objection from the Board he allowed several speakers
to make statements at this time.
First to speak was Dr. Ivan Login, a resident of 3113 Edgewater Drive,
who said he wished to present several points to urge the Board to reconsider
destroying the forest around Albemarle High School (At{S) to create additional
parking. Until about March, 1991, when his daughter at AHS told him that the
trees were to be removed, he was shamefully ignorant about county government,
local politics and any of the plans for this major improvement project. To
become better informed and to appear before the Board tonight, he has spoken
with Mr. George St. John, County Attorney; Mr. A1Reaser, the Director of
Building Services; Mr. Walter Johnson, Planning Commission member; Mr. Dave
Emmitt, candidate for the Rivanna seat on the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive; Mrs. Bahs
Huckle, Planning Commission member; Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Board of Super-
visors; Mr. Charles Martin, Chairman of the School Board; Mrs. Freidman, an
official at CATEC; members of the Forestry Service; residents of housing
projects adjacent to the school; and many private citizens.
Dr. Login said he was surprised to learn that many people, both officials
and private individuals, were unaware of the planned destruction of the forest
as a component of the overall project. He may be mistaken, but this is the
first public airing of this particular issue. He then presented his specific
details. First, the trees represent a magnificent stand of Loblotly and White
Pine that are largely mature, healthy and about 50 years old. Mr. Brian
Edson, a senior official in the Forestry Service, has indicated that this
forest should thrive at least 20 to 30 more years with only minimal husbandry.
There is no support for those who would argue that destruction of these trees
is required.
Second, this forest is one of the last remaining picturesque sites along
Hydraulic Road. No one of the Board members can ignore the reality of an
enormous national and even global interest in the preservation and extension
of areas of natural beauty and ecological importance such as this. How can we
justify this destruction at such a crucial time?
Third~ parking is needed, but how much is fundamental and how much is
luxury? Do we have enough to satisfy our essential needs and should we
destroy the forest to achieve the rest? Have we gotten so complacent that
parking for students is now considered a right and not even a privilege? How
much more parking is required, and, who actually requires it?
When he asked the Chairman of the School Board why more parking was
needed, his first response was-to provide additional space for parents, guests
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
144
and visitors to attend social and athletic events in the evenings. He thinks
that this is hardly an appropriate expenditure of precious financial resourc-
es. Even the University of Virginia has parking for only a finite number of
cars at its facilities. Although Mr. Martin has been intimately involved with
this building project for the entire four years of his membership on the
School Board and he knew he was getting new parking spaces, he, as Chairman,
was not even aware that the trees were to be destroyed.
He has been led to believe that there are certain requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance which require additional parking. With appropriate justi-
fication, this Board could request a variance or waiver to offset these
issues. Sadly, the present parking areas at the high school are grossly
abused. At a recent meeting of the school's Sierra Club, it was pointed out
to Mr. Raines, the principal, and Mr. Reaser, that cars were parked illegally.
These officials were either disinterested or claimed they were unable to
police the area efficiently to correct the problem. The students took it upon
themselves to quantify the magnitude of the problem and on a routine school
day they counted 150 cars parked without official school tags. It seems
disgraceful to provide new and additional parking when the officials cannot or
will not administer the space now under their control. Tighter regulations
may go far toward meeting all needs and spare the trees.
If more parking is actually required, he asks the Board to be creative.
Please do not simply react in a reflex manner by clearing the area of trees
and paving away. Could the number of cars using the present area be reduced
by providing some incentive for students to carpool, which would be an inno-
vative and environmentally-sound direction. Could a small daily parking fee
of perhaps 25 cents motivate some students to seek other forms of trans-
portation such as the school bus? Could a lottery distribute parking spaces
to different students throughout the year at three to four monthly intervals?
Although Mr. Reaser stated he would never have students park in his area,
these tough times should not spare him from some review and as the maintenanc~
area near the school often has vacant space, this could be another resource.
Perhaps part of the funding designed for parking construction could be used to
lease space from the church across the street. Some members of the Sierra
Club have already volunteered to use this alternative facility. Again, please
try to seek other options.
Fourth, of some concern to him, and he hopes to the Board, is the posi-
tion that Mr. Reaser has taken with the Sierra Club. About one month ago Mr.
Reaser offered the students $1500 in a matching program to replant the new
parking area after the additional spaces are constructed. One week later he
claimed he never made such an offer. Yesterday, on June 4, in another meeting
with the same group, he offered the students $10,000 for their replanting
efforts. Does he have the funds to make this promise? Why has he increased
his offer to $10,0007 What is going on here? If Mr. Reaser has the author-
ization to allocate this money, he proposes that it be used in a more con-
structive manner that may diminish the need for new parking - perhaps the high
school could hire a student to police the present area for cars parked ille-
gally, or hire a traffic director for evening affairs, or even to rent space
from adjacent property.
Lastly, he knows that the Board is already aware of some of these con-
cerns because in the minutes of the Board meeting of May 15, it was recorded
"... there is a lot of citizen concern being expressed about the removal of
the pine trees at the high school to put up a parking lot." He also knows
that as of yesterday, the Planning Commission has essentially approved the
technical aspects of the site plan for the whole project. Thus, the last hope
the citizens have to save these trees is if the members of the Board are
persuaded that they wish the County to meet its objectives without cutting the
trees. In an effort to accomplish this goal, the citizens have collected more
than 100 independent signatures on a petition reading, "We the citizens of
Albemarle County protest removal of the trees around Albemarle High School and
urge the County and School officials to reconsider this plan." The signers of
the petition represent a broad spectrum of ages, occupations and localities
within the county. Please accept these points in his argument in a spirit of
constructive feedback.
Mr. Bowie asked how many people present agreed with Dr. Login's position.
Approximately 16 people raised their hands.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
145
Next to speak, Mr. Tom Edwards, a resident of 16 Georgetown Green, said
Georgetown Green is in a unique setting, surrounded totally by the high school
on one side. The residents were not made aware at all of the changes that
were occurring or how the residents would be impacted. The destruction of the
trees for parking spaces is a big concern, but their major concern is with a
detention basin to be located on the back corner near the track. The resi-
dents are concerned about the grade and the trees that are proposed to be
destroyed which will leave several of the houses in the open, exposed directly
to the school. He wants to make sure that somebody is aware of this and that
screening will be required. His other concern is the proposed baseball
diamond. He would recommend that anyone who has not had the opportunity to do
so, walk over the area. The area houses a beautiful stand of mature trees and
it is a shame to destroy them to put in a baseball diamond. Something should
be worked out so that the site will not be quite so intrusive. The proposal
will cause a tremendous change in the terrain. The residents are concerned
about the site and the aesthetics at the back of the lots. The last issue is
the maintenance facility. The residents are already concerned about the noise
level they are picking up from the facility. The residents want to be good
neighbors and need the Board's help.
A person who did not come to the microphone identified himself as the
soccer coach at the high school, and said he has a vested interest in the
fields being built. He introduced Emily Kyser, a student, and said it is
important that the Board listen to what the youth have to say. In defense of
Mr. Rea~er, the $10,000 is a budget item for review.
The last speaker, Ms. Emily Kyser, said, as student, she is very con-
cerned about what is going on at the school. She feels this is just a symbol
of what is going on in the world today. As a group, the trees may not seem to
be too many, but if each tree is considered individually as a spirit or a
person, then that many spirits are being killed. In a world that is dying,
she thinks that it is important that every tree be preserved. Mr. Reaser's
actual comments were that he was unwilling to make any alterations to the
plans and that it is too late to make changes. She would like to know why the
students at the school, since they are the most directly affected, were not
made aware of these plans or the public meetings on this issue. It would seem
logical that the students in the school and the residents living around the
school would be informed of these plans. It is apparent that the meetings
were not made public enough and not enough was done to make the community
aware.
Mr. Bowie commented that this matter is scheduled as Item #14 on the
agenda and, although it is not a public hearing, if anyone wishes to wait, the
Board will take further comments at that time. He commented that this is an
issue on which the School Board must make a decision. He announced that there
will be a joint meeting of this Board and the School Board on June 12, at 3:00
p.m. He asked the Clerk to distribute this portion of the minutes to the
School Board and to the Board. Although he does not think this is the time to
discuss it, he does believe that this Board can waive some portion of the
Zoning Ordinance and act on the issue, but he would need the County Attorney's
opinion.
Mrs. Humphris thanked the Chairman for allowing those present an opportu-
nity to speak. She thanked the people for their input and encouraged them to
remain until the item comes up later on the agenda for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Itemms 5.1 through 5.6 on the consent
agenda, to pull It-ms 5.10, 5.13 and 5.14 for discussion on June 12, and to
accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. 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.
Item 5.1. Request for resolution approving street name signs to identify
streets in Mill Creek Subdivision, Phase I, Section 3: Mill Creek Drive/Quail
Crossing, Mill Creek Drive/Gristmill Drive, Gristmill Drive/Bryan Court, and
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
146
Spring Mountain Road. (This request was occasioned by a letter dated
February 16, 1989, from Mr. Mark Hutchison, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc.,
who requested street name signs for roads in Mill Creek, Phase I, Section 3.
The signs have been installed and the cost for the signs and shipping charges
_ have been paid. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following
resolution:)
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Mill Creek Drive (State Route 1150) and Quail Crossing (State
Route 1156) at its intersection.
Mill Creek Drive (State Route 1150) and Gristmill Drive (State
Route 1157) at its intersection.
Gristmill Drive (State Route 1157) and Bryan Court (State Route
1158) at its intersection.
Gristmill Drive (State Route 1157) and Spring Mountain (State
Route 1159) at its intersection.
Spring Mountain Road (State Route 1159) and Spring Mountain Road
(State Route 1160) at its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street signs.
Item 5.2. Request for resolution approving street name sign to identify
McClary Court (State Route 1005) in Gilbert Heights Subdivision. (This
request was occasioned by a letter dated May 22, 1981, from Ms. Betty Proctor,
a resident of Gilbert Heights Subdivision, who requested street name sign for
McClary Court. She is in the process of trying to get postal service deliv-
ered on this road. Mrs. Proctor agreed to incur the cost of the sign and
shipping charges. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following
resolution:)
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road:
McClary Court (State Route 1005) at its intersection with State
Route 600.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned, street sign.
Item 5.3. Request for resolution approving street name sign to identify
Graemont Drive (State Route 1554) in Graemont Subdivision. (This request was
occasioned by a letter dated October 28, 1988, from Ms. Toby Zakin, Vice
President, Zakin Construction Company, who requested a street name sign for
Graemont Drive in Graemont Subdivision. The signs have been installed and the
cost of the signs and shipping charges have been paid. By the above recorded
vote, the Board adopted the following resolution:)
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following roads:
Graemont Drive (State Route 1554) at its intersection with State
Route 660.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street sign.
147
Item 5.4. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of May, 1991, were
approved as presented by the above recorded vote.
Item 5.5. Memorandum dated May 30, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, entitled "Non-Disclosure Agreement with C&P Telephone
Company" requesting that the agreement be approved and the Chairman authorized
to sign same.
"An initial consultation meeting for the implementation of the En-
hanced 911 (E911) Building Locator System was held between Albemarle
County, GTE-GIS, and C&P Telephone Company on Thursday, May 2, 1991.
C&P has approximately 900 access lines serving a small portion of
Albemarle County. The C&P service areas are located in the north-
eastern and western parts of the County.
The meeting was scheduled to organize the flow of information from C&P
required for the street naming and numbering project associated with
E911. This information is comprised of Albemarle County customers,
consisting of the resident's names, addresses, and phone numbers.
The C&P representative present at the meeting, explained that this
information is proprietary and, therefore, a non-disclosure agreement
between C&P and Albemarle County is required prior to its release (a
copy is available for review in the Clerk's Office). Mr. James
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, has reviewed the non-disclosure
agreement and approves the document as to form.
Staff recommends that you approve the agreement and authorize the
Chairman to sign the non-disclosure agreement."
By the above recorded vote, the Chairman was authorized to sign the
following agreement:
NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this 5th day of June, 1991,
between The County of Albemarle having an office at 401McIntire Rd.,
Charlottesville, Virginia, and The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company of Virginia having an office at 600 E. Main Street, Richmond,
Virginia, 23219.
WHEREAS, the above parties contemplate discussions and analyses
concerning street naming and numbering project for the purpose of
subsequent 911 service; and
WHEREAS, in order to facilitate such project, certain confiden-
tial and proprietary information may be disclosed between the parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as to the following:
1. The term "Information", as used in this Agreement,
means a printout of Albemarle County customers, consisting of the
residents' names, addresses and telephone numbers.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
148
2. "Proprietary Information" is defined as Information which is
in the possession of the disclosing party, is not generally available
to the public, and which a party desires to protect against unre-
stricted disclosure. That information specified in Section 1 above
shall be considered Proprietary Information by the parties.
3. All Information shall be conspicuously labeled as "Private -
This Information is for authorized Bell Atlantic Employees only."
Either party shall have the right to correct any inadvertent failure
to designate information as Proprietary by written notification as
soon as practical after such error is determined. The party receiving
said notification shall, from that time forward, treat such informa-
tion as Proprietary.
4. Subject to the Provisions of paragraph 6 with respect to any
Proprietary Information, provided hereunder, the receiving party shall
use the Proprietary Information provided hereunder only for purposes
directly related to the street naming and numbering project. This use
shall be for a period of no more than one yeaz after receipt of the
Proprietary Information. The receiving party shall use the same care
and discretion to limit disclosure of such Proprietary Information as
it uses with similar Proprietary Information of its own which it does
not desire to disclose or disseminate. The Proprietary Information,
including all copies, shall be returned to the disclosing party at the
end of this one year period.
5. The obligations imposed upon either party herein shall not
apply to Information whether or not designated as Proprietary:
a. which is made public by the disclosing party;
which is already in the possession of the receiving
party and not subject to an existing agreement of
confidence between the parties;
which is received from a third Party without restric-
tion and without breach of this Agreement;
which is independently developed by the receiving party
as evidenced by its records; or
ee
which is disclosed pursuant to a valid order or sub-
poena; provided, however, that the recipient of the
Information shall first have given notice to the
disclosing party and made a reasonable effort to obtain
a protective order requiring that the Information
and/or documents so disclosed be used only for the
purposes for which the order was issued.
6. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as
granting or conferring any rights by license or otherwise in any
Proprietary Information disclosed to the receiving party. Ail Propri-
etary Information shall remain the property of the disclosing party
and shall be returned by the receiving party to the disclosing party
upon request. If the parties hereto decide to enter into any licens-
ing arrangement regarding any Proprietary Information or present or
future patent claims disclosed hereunder, it shall only be done on the
basis of a separate written agreement between them. No disclosure of
any Proprietary Information hereunder shall be construed a public
disclosure of such Proprietary Information by either party for any
purpose whatever.
7. In the event either party discloses, disseminates other
party, except as provided above, such disclosure, dissemination or
release will be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and the
other party may demand prompt return of all Proprietary Information
previously provided to such party. The provisions of this paragraph
are in addition to any other legal right or remedies the party whose
Proprietary Information has been disclosed, disseminated or released
may have under federal or state law.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
149
8. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties and supercedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or %~itten
representation with regard to the subject matter hereof. This Agree-
ment may not be modified except by a writing signed by both parties.
9. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of
Virginia.
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
(Signed)
By: Frederick R. Bowie
Title: Chairman~ Board of
Supervisors
Date: June 6, 1991
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC
TELEPHONE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA
(Signed)
By: David Major
Title: Communication Rep
Date: May 2, 1991
Item 5.6. Memorandum dated May 30, 1991, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, entitled "Rivanna Park Committee Action." Staff requests
the Board to support the Rivanna Park Committee recommendation for changes in
the operating policy for nonresident softball tournament usage.
"Attached is a memorandum from Messrs. Gene German and Pat Mullaney,
Parks and Recreation Directors of the City and County. This memoran-
dum explains the items discussed by the Rivanna Park Committee on
May 14, 1991 which included the Phase II construction bids, the Five
Senses Trail and the park usage figures for the first season of
operation.
The low bid for Phase II of the Rivanna Park was approximately $73,000
over our current available funds. The committee directed the staff
and architect to make the necessary reductions to meet the funds
available including the provision of a $35,000 contingency fund. The
committee was provided with a status report on the Five Senses Trail
which indicates that approximately $41,500 in public funds and private
donations are available for construction of the trail.
The first year's park usage census figures have been completed and
will be used to determine funding for the FY 92-93 operating budget.
Nonresident usage of the park amounted to 27.85 percent of the total
park census. Rivanna Park Committee members will consider how nonres-
ident usage will be funded prior to the FY 92-93 budget preparation
cycle. Finally, the committee was advised of the relatively high
number of nonresidents using the park during softball tournament
weekends. The committee recommended several changes in our operating
policy as it relates to nonresident usage.
Staff recommends that you ratify the actions taken by the Rivanna Park
Committee and support the recommendation for changes in the operating
policy for nonresident softball tournament usage. Should you have any
questions concerning this matter, please do hesitate to contact me.
Mr. Bain said he has problems with reducing the quality of the materials
and substitution~ being made. Mr. Bowerman, a member of the Rivanna Park
Committee, said the Committee looked at the amount of sidewalk in the original
plan and found that all of it really was not needed. One of the sidewalks was
along the upper parking area. There was a lot of asphalt and concrete, both
impervious surfaces, that did nothing to add to the enjoyment or to the
accessibility of the Park. For the most part, the only thing really affected
was the impervious surface. Concrete is an expensive item which had not
previously been considered for elimination from the original plan,
Mr. Tucker said the idea was to look more at a pathway rather than urban-
type walkways. There is another phase of improvements and the staff and
Committee will have an opportunity to see if these improvements are holding
up; and if not, they can be reconsidered then. Mr. Bain said this makes
sense, but he wants it considered again in the future.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 1 50
(Page 8)
By the above recorded vote, the Board ratified the actions taken by the
Rivanna Park Committee and supported the recommendation for changes in the
operating policy for nonresident softball tournament usage, as follows:
1. Charge a nonresident parking fee on weekends beginning next
season;
2. Increase the softball field rental fee as soon as possible; and
Limit the weekends available for softball tournaments next
season. This would be done on a one year trial basis to see if
other groups make use of the fields during open weekends.
Item 5.7. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes for May 7 and May 14,
1991, were received for information.
Item 5.8. Letter dated May 14, 1991, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, Deputy
Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating that they have been
requested to conduct a preliminary evaluation of Bellair to determine if it is
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the
Virginia Landmarks Register, was received for information.
Item 5.9. Copy of The Floodplain Management Plan for The Commonwealth of
Virginia, 1990, from the Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division
of Soil and Water Conservation, Bureau of Dam Safety and Floodplain Programs,
was received for information.
Item 5.10. Letter dated May 21, 1991, from Mr. John G. Milliken, Secre'
tary of Transportation, addressed to Mr. F. R. Bowie, Chairman, re: Board's
request for a copy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's counsel's
written opinion on Section 33-1.18 (Route 29 North Project), received as
follows:
"May 21, 1991
The Honorable F. R. Bowie
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Bowie:
Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1991 concerning the position taken
by the Commonwealth Transportation Board not to rehear the location
decision on the Route 29 Bypass.
Regarding your request that I release a copy of our counsel's written
opinion on § 33.1-18, the points raised in my letter of April 19,
1991, reflect the Board's position on § 33.1-18. Any other informa-
tion that the Board's counsel may have given is protected by the
attorney-client privilege and will not be released by me.
I trust that you understand and appreciate my position in this matter.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
John G. Milliken"
Mr. Bowie suggested, and the other Board members concurred, that this
item be pulled for discussion with highway matters on June 12.
Item5.11. Memorandum dated May 10, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, entitled "1991-92 Fiscal
Year Construction Allocations Secondary System and Arlington and Henrico Coun-
ties'', with the following memorandum attached, was received for information:
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
151
"Enclosed is a copy of the estimated Secondary Construction allocation
for fiscal year (FY) 1991-92 for each jurisdiction in the Secondary
System. These estimates are somewhat lower than initial allocations
for FY 1990-91.
Due to the continuing revenue shortfall, Governor Wilder directed that
certain reductions be made in allocations for FY 1990-91; these
reductions were approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board last
October, after your Annual Budget was adopted. It was decided then
not to ask you to hold a new public hearing to revise your FY 1990-91
Annual Budget, but to accommodate the reduced allocation in the coming
year's Annual Budget. In this way, budgets and allocations will agree
over the biennium, even though they will not agree in individual
years.
Accordingly, the department's district administrators and resident
engineers will prepare for your review a list of projects to which
these funds are proposed to be budgeted, in accordance with priorities
in your county's Six Year P]an.
Following your public hearing and adoption of the FY 1991-92 priority
list, your resident engineer will prepare an Annual Budget reflecting
these priorities, thereby implementing your Six Year Plan in an
orderly manner.
1 appreciate your assistance and cooperation, especially during this
period of financial constraint, as we strive to improve the Common-
wealth's transportation network and the fulfillment of our mutual
transportation goals."
Item 5.12. Letter dated May 24, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, approving the addition of Route 1140 (South Pantops Drive) into the
Secondary System of Highways, was received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated July 11, 1990, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby ap-
proved, effective May 24, 1991.
ADDITION LENGTH
PANTOPS
Route 1140 (South Pantops Drive)
to Route 1117
From Route 1116
0.70 Mi"
Item 5.13. Memorandum dated May 23, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, forwarding copy of
"Tentative 1991-92 Construction Allocations and Six-Year Improvement Program"
for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systp~mm, as well as Public
Transit, Ports and Airports, including an update of the Six-Year Improvement
Program through 1996-97, was received for information.
Mr. Bowie suggested., and the other Board members concurred, that this
item be pulled for discussion at the June 12 day meeting.
Item 5.14. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
dated May 23, 1991, entitled "Proposed CATS Projects and Funding," was
received for information.
Mr. Bowie suggested, and the other Board members concurred, that this
item be pulled for discussion at the June 12 day meeting.
Item 5.15. Letter dated May 21, 1991, from Mr. John Ritchie, Jr.,
Executive Director, Virginia Housing Development Authority, addressed to Mr.
F. R. Bowie, Chairman, informing the Board that VHDA has allocated five-
percent, fixed-rate mortgage funds totaling $725,000 to two organizations
offering homes for low-income families in Albemarle County under the new Urban
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
152
Homeownership Opportunity program. The two organizations are: Charlottes-
ville Housing Foundation with an allocation of $375,000 for six homes, which
will be sold for $65,000; and Jefferson Area Builders, Inc., with an
allocation of $350,000 for six homes, which will be sold for $59,200 to
$61,600. This letter was received for information.
Item 5.16. Letter dated May 28, 1991, from Mr. Walter A. McFarlane,
Office of the Governor, acknowledging receipt of the Board's resolution
regarding the Dillon Rule, was received for information, as follows:
"The Governor has asked me to thank you for sending him a copy of the
Board of Supervisors resolution regarding the Dillon Rule. The
Governor believes that Virginia's strict interpretation of the Dillon
Rule stifles creativity at the local level, and he supports the
appointment of a legislative committee to explore possible modifica-
tions to the rule.
The benefits of close cooperation between state and local government
are clear, and the Governor looks forward to more observations and
insights from local government officials as the discussion of this
,,
issue progresses.
Item 5.17. Memorandum dated May 23, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, entitled "Virginia Power Contract Negotiations," was
received as follows:
"The County has participated in the past with VML/VACo in their
contract negotiations with Virginia Power for electric rates. The
current contract expires June 30, 1991. Localities are assessed their
share of the cost based on the electric usage in the Virginia Power
service area for general government and schools during the calendar
year 1990. The County's share of the assessment is $1138.
The expenses of negotiations are always substantially less than the
savings realized as a result of negotiations. The estimated negotia-
tion costs of VML/VACo for the contract is $120,000. There were
savings to local governments of approximately $10 million during the
first year of the current three year contract as a result of the last
negotiations when the final rates were compared to Virginia Power's
proposed rates.
No official action is required by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has
approved the payment of the $1138 assessment because Virginia Power
has submitted a proposal for significantly higher rates than the
current contract and negotiations should be beneficial to the County."
Item 5.18. County Executive's Financial Report for the Month of April,
1991, was received as follow:
"Following is the April financial report from the Director of Finance,
which indicates General Fund cost centers that are either above the
normal spending level or currently over expended.
In the first category both the Police and Sheriff's Departments show
higher than normal spending levels due to the purchase of 91/92
replacement vehicles in the current year. These additional costs were
anticipated and will be covered within the current year's projected
carry-over balance. The minor over-expenditure in the Soil and Water
Conservation cost center will also be covered by carry-over funds.
Over-expended funds for the Keene landfill will be partially covered
by FY 90-91 funds allocated to the Southside Transfer Station, but
never spent. The rmmminder of the Keene closure costs, plus the
overexpenditures for Piedmont Virginia Community College and tax
refunds will come from the anticipated carry-over balance."
"The normal spending level through ten months of the fiscal year is
83.3 percent. Listed below are the cost centers that are above the
normal spending level.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
General Fund
% Obligated
Police 84.95%
Sheriff 89.97%
Soil & Water 86.09%
Listed below are cost centers that are currently overexpended in the
General Fund:
Cost Center % Obligated Amount Overexpended
Keene Landfill 456.71% $124,847.21
PVCC 105.71% 376.74
Tax Refund 145.64% 3,833.95
The total percent of obligated appropriations for the School Fund as
of April 30th is listed below:
1991 1990 1989
School Fund 74.84% 75.52% 76.64%"
153
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-91-10. Crossroads Waldorf School. Public Hearing
on request for private school on 8.72 ac zoned R-2. Property is the Old
Crozet Elementary School located on Rt 810. TM56,P61&62. White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This property is the location of the old.
Crozet Elementary School. The new school is located across the street
from this site. Single-family dwellings are located adjacent to the
site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to operate a private
school for up to 271 students in grades one to eight as well as
kindergarten/nursery. A more complete description of the applicant's
request is included as Attachment C (on file). Crossroads Waldorf
School may lease a portion of the building to other private schools
until its enrollment increases to maximum allowed limits under this
special use permit. In no case would total enrollment exceed 271
students.
Comprehensive Plan: The facility is located in the Rural Areas as
designated by the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that 'an
important portion of the Crozet social community exists north of the
Growth Area. This area is served by water and sewer and zoned for
development uses. It is this Plan's intent to identify this social
community and its existing zoning.' Staff recognizes that this site
has served as a school site in the past. The Plan makes no statement
as to utilizing existing school buildings for reuse as private
schools. However, staff feels that use of a former school facility in
the Rural Areas in a similar use, if not more intensive than the
original school use, is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, staff agrees that this site, although located in the Rural
Areas, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendation: In this report staff will address each
item, found in Section 31.2.4.1.
Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be
issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property
Staff opinion is that due to the existing character of the site
and past use as a public school this use will not be of substan-
tial detriment to adjacent properties. The applicant does not
propose any additior~ to the existing building and no additional
areas are required for parking, therefore, this school will
operate in a manner similar to the previous use of the site and
as stated above will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent
property.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
b. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby
154
The applicant proposes 271 students which compares favorably to
the maximum enrollment of the school when operated by the County.
Based on the fact that the site has been used as a school in the
past and that the applicant proposes to operate the proposed
school at a scale similar to past operations. Approval of this
permit will not, in the opinion of staff, change the character of
the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this ordinance
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose
and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and
1.6 with particular attention to Sections 1.4.2, 1.4.4 and 1.5.
Section 1.4.2 states 'To reduce or prevent congestion in the
public streets' The most recent traffic count available (1986)
indicates that the average daily trip count on this section of
Route 810 is 2108 vehicle trips per day. This road segment is
listed as nontolerable. Based on ITE trip generation figures
this use could generate 301 to 310 vehicle trips per day.
However, private schools typically do not use buses and rely on
private vehicles for pupil transportation. Therefore, the
anticipated traffic volumes for a private school are generally
greater than for a public school. The applicant has submitted
traffic information from their existing school. If this trip
rate remains the same at the Crozet site, this use could be
anticipated to generate approximately 499 vehicle trips per day.
This represents a greater volume of traffic than existed when the
site was used as a public school and, therefore, the increased
volume of traffic may be considered inconsistent with the intent
of the ordinance as stated in Section 1.4.2.
Section 1.4.4 states 'To facilitate the provision of adequate
police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense,
transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools,
parks, forest, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and
other public requirement'. Staff has not performed, nor request-
ed that the applicant perform, a study to determine if a need for
a private school exists in the area. Therefore, staff is unable
to comment as to the need for a private school. Staff opinion is
that certain uses such as churches, day care and schools contrib-
ute to the well-being and moral fiber of the community. Approval
of this request will provide for additional educational opportu-
nities in the County. Based on this perspective, this use can be
considered consistent with the intent of the ordinance as stated
in Section 1.4.4.
Staff opinion is that this use is consistent with Section 1.5 for
the following reasons:
a. Existing character and past use of the site.
Suitability of the property for other uses allowed by-right
is limited.
c. Provision of additional school facilities.
Staff opinion is that on balance this use is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of the ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district
Staff has reviewed the permitted uses of the R-2 district and
recommends that the existing building could be devoted to few, if
any, other R-2 uses. Staff opinion is that the proposed use is
not inconsistent with other uses permitted in the R-2 district.
e,
with additioDm] regulations provided, in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance
Section 5.0 contains no regulations regarding the proposed use.
JUne 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
f. the public health, safety and general welfare.
The existing school is served by public water and private sewer.
The Health Department has not reviewed the septic system for the
proposed use. However, they have stated that the system has
functioned satisfactorily for a number of years. There has been
no evaluation as to the expected life expectancy of the existing
septic system. Public sewer is located on property adjacent to
this site. This site is located in the jurisdictional area for
both water and sewer. The Virginia Department~ of Transportation
has recon~nended a right turn lane, as well as upgrading the
existing entrance pavement. The existing entrance meets minimum
safety requirements and these improvements are recon~mendations
onlY. Staff notes a similar request, SP-90-77, Marthe Robin
Catholic School, where entrance improvements were recommended by
the Virginia Department of Transportation. Those improvements
were not required by the Board of Supervisors as the proposed
private school enrollment was not greater than the enrollment of
the school when used by the County as is the case in the request
by Crossroads School. Staff notes that a majority of traffic
will be arriving from the south via Route 250, Route 240 and
1-64. This will result in left turns into the site (a left turn
lane is currently in place). Staff opinion is that no entrance
improvements should be required at this time. However, the
applicant is put on notice that at such time as an increase in
enrollment is sought, entrance improvements may be required. The
existing public right-of-way for the school access road muat be
vacated prior to the opening of the private school.
Summary: Staff has identified the following aspects which are favor-
able to this request:
Staff opinion is that zoning should provide a reasonable use of
land and recommends that this building could be devoted to few,
if any, other R-2 uses. A private school would appear to be an
appropriate use for a former public school.
The site has been used as a school in the recent past and this
use would not represent a significant change in intensity of use.
The use would allow for additional educational opportunities and,
therefore, would be consistent with the purpose and intent of
part of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 1.4.4).
Staff has identified the following aspects which are unfavorable to
this request:
This use will increase traffic volumes on a nontolerable road
and, therefore, may be considered inconsistent with the purpose
and intent of part of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 1.4.2).
The site is served by private septic system and not public sewer,
and is located within the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas.
Staff opinion is that this use represents a reasonable use of the land
and that the positive aspects of the request outweigh the negative
aspects. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request subject
to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Total enrollment shall be limited to 271 students. No students
shall be permitted to drive to school;
Use shall not commence without approvals from the appropriate
state, local and federal agencies;
Public right-of-way on site shall be vacated prior to the start
of the private school.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
156
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30,
1991, by a vote of five to two, recommended approval of SP-91-10, subject to
the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Cilimberg said the two dissenting votes were due to a concern that a
greater analysis of the public sewer availability was not provided with the
application.
Mr. Way asked why there is a condition that states the students cannot
drive to school when it would be illegal for them to drive anyway. Mr.
Cilimberg said the condition was used as a safeguard. Mr. Way then asked why
these students would not be allowed to drive to school, if they were old
enough, when students attending county public schools can drive. Mr. Cilim-
berg said the school has a limited parking area. Additional drivers would be
a detriment to the site. Mr. Bain felt the issue had to do with traffic
reduction and thought maybe the Board should also consider not allowing
students to drive to any county schools.
Mrs. Humphris asked the implications of the statement "In no case would
total enrollment exceed 271 students" because it was later implied in the
staff report that enrollment could exceed 271 students. Mr. Cilimberg said
the applicants have indicated that ultimately they may want to increase
enrollment to 300 students. The number of students was based on the highest
enrollment of record at this site and the fact that the site is supporting the
use through a septic system. The septic system has operated efficiently for
up to 271 students. The 271 was based on the capacity of the septic system
for the student enrollment. The staff feels that if the applicants want to
increase the enrollment, they may need to request connection to public sewer.
Mr. Bain said he does not think that increased enrollment should be encouraged
because of the confines of the school and the possible detriment to the
neighborhood.
Referring to condition #3, Mr. Perkins asked why the public right-of-way
should be vacated when according to the lease agreement, the property will
remain public and the County will continue having usage of the playgrounds,
ballfields, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said the public right-of-way does not coincide
with the entrance that currently exists on the site. The current entrance is
located off of the public right-of-way. The Highway Department requested the
vacation because a public right-of-way was not necessary for the operation of
the school. Mr. Tucker said technically the land. is public and although it
may be redundant, the Highway Department had requested the vacation because it
was an old right-of-way of theirs. All of the county schools have right-of-
way dedicated for access. If the school exercises its option to purchase the
property, the right-of-way would still be a public entity, but it would not be
under the auspices of the County.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Representing the applicant, Mr. Bill Laurita, Director of Develop-
ment for the Crossroads Waldorf School, said he would be happy to answer any
questions Board members may have.
There being no one else present to make comments regarding SP-91-10, the
public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris perceived the two main issues to be traffic and the septic
system. She has a problem with the fact that the Board has entered into a
lease with Crossroads and then it is presented with a special permit with the
issues of traffic and septic that have to be dealt with. She was not aware of
these issues when the lease came before the Board. Mr. St. John agreed that
the Board was in an awkward position, but this type of situation does happen
repeatedly. The school now belongs to the County since the School Board
enacted a resolution declaring it surplus. This Board is the only entity that
has the power to enter into a lease or sale. By State statute this Board
cannot step aside and allow someone else this authority, neither can the Board
choose not to hear the special permit. The way to handle this situation is to
state at the beginning, when entering into the lease or sale, that this action
in no way commits the Board to act favorably on the rezoning and that the
Board will apply impartially the Criteria for the special permit. It seems to
him that it is natural that the Board will be inclined to be favorably dis-
posed to the special permit or it would not have entered into the lease, but
that does not contaminate this process.
iJune 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 157
iii(Page 15)
Mrs. Humphris was concerned about the increased traffic volume on Route
il 810 that may occur. She hopes that the applicants will encourage carpooling
~'i or even busing because she feels there is the potential for a bad traffic
problem. Traffic reduction strategies are an important part of the implemen-
- ration of the school. In addition, the County worked hard and at great costs
to have the sewer interceptor line put in that area and it is in the best
interest of the County that everyone who has it available make use of the
interceptor.
Regarding the issue of sewer, Mr. Perkins said when the building was
under the ownership of the School Board, it could have been connected to
sewer. During the one-year grace periodwhen connection was first xmde
available, anyone, including the School Board, had the opportunity to connect
at a reduced cost. He thinks it is up to the lessor that if there are any
problems with the drainfields that a connection hem adc, rather than repairing
the existing drainfields.
Motion was then offered byMr. Perkins, seconded byMr. Bowerm~-, to
approve SP-91-10 with the three conditions recommendedbythe Planning Commis-
sion.
Mr. St. John said he was not fully aware regarding the implications of
condition #3 which is to vacate the right-of-way until the issue was raised.
He does not think the condition should be a part of the permit approval
because this is a public road that must be abandoned, not vacated. The Board
is putting a condition on an applicant that can only be fulfilled by Board
action.
Mr. Perkins withdrew condition #3 from themotion. This was agreed to by
the seconder.
Mr. Bain said although the septic system is an issue, his main concern is
traffic on a nontolerable road. He thinks the situation will only get worse.
There being no other discussion, 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: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
1. Total enrollment shall be limited to 271 students. No students
shall be permitted to drive to school;
2. Use shall not commence without approvals from the appropriate
state, local and federal agencies.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-13. Mount Calvary Baptist Church. Public
Hearing on a request for cemetery on 1.8 ac zoned VR. Property on S side of
Rt 738 approx 0.4 mi W of Rt 250. TM58A1,P19,20&21. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This site is currently occupied by a church.
Adjacent properties are developed residentially. All development in
this area is located near the state road. The area proposed for the
cemetery is gently sloping towards the railroad tracks. The rear
portion of the site is wooded and the front portion is cleared, a
portion of this site is used for parking. An existing cemetery is
located on Parcel 19 and an adjacent parcel (Parcel 17). This ceme-
tery is not related to Mount Calvar~ Baptist Church and would not be
continued with the proposed church cemetery.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Applicant's proposal: The applicant is proposing to establish a
cemetery on land immediately behind the existing church.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the
Comprehensive Plan. The Plan has no comments regarding the location
of cemeteries. Staff opinion is that a cemetery is consistent with
the existing church use of the site, and therefore, this request is
not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
158
Summary and Recommendation: Staff opinion is that the proposed use
will have virtually no impact on the adjacent properties. A cemetery
may be considered a reasonable accessory use to a church. In the
opinion of staff, this request will not change the character of the
district and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Ordi-
nance. In order to insure the public health, all graves must be
located in accordance with Health Department requirements. These
requirements require that all graves be a minimum of 100 feet from
wells and 50 feet from septic systems. The applicant is aware of
these requirements and has noted this on the attached plat (Attachment
C on file). The Virginia Department of Transportation has recommended
improvements to the existing entrance in order to obtain minimum sight
distance. These improvements will involve the trimming/clear'~ng of
trees. Staff notes that this portion of road is fairly level and
straight and that the proposed cemetery should result in only a slight
increase in traffic volumes. Staff notes that the entrance improve-
ments would be in order to meet minimum safety requirements.
The existing church involves multiple parcels and encroaches on the
adjacent property. The applicant has submitted information that an
easement can -De obtained on this site. Staff recommends that the
easement be obtained prior to the establishment of the cemetery use.
Staff opinion is that this request will have minimal impact on the
adjacent properties and is consistent with Section 31.2.4.1 and,
therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Compliance with all Health Department regulations;
Easement on adjacent property shall be obtained prior to the
establishment of the cemetery;
Entrance shall be improVed in accordance with Virginia Department
of Transportation comments prior to the establishment of the
cemetery."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 30,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of SP-91-13, with Conditions 1 and 2 as
stated in the staff's report, but changed #3 to read: "Entrance shall be
improved in order to meet minimum sight distance requirements in accordance
with Virginia Department of Transportation comments dated 4-22-91 prior to the
establishment of the cemetery."
Mrs. Humphris asked the meaning of the statement "The existing church
involves multiple parcels and encroaches on the adjacent property". Mr.
Cilimberg said there are three parcels that are currently part of the church
property. They are located toward the rear of parcels 18A and 20. Part of
the church circulation is off of its site on parcel 18, which is the parcel it
encroaches on for entrance and exit from the church to the parking area, at
the rear of the church. He does not know if the applicant has gotten the
easement.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked for comments from the
applicant. Mr. Henry Waller, Chairman of the Trustee Board for Mount Calvary
Baptist Church, said all of the conditions have been met. They have also met
the requirements of the Health Department.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Bowie asked if the applicants have obtained an easement.
responded "yes".
There being no other comments from the putfiic on SP-91-13, the public
_ hearing was closed.
Motion was offered byMr. Bain, seconded byMr. Perkins, to approve
SP-91-13 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Com~ssion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded, vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humph~is, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Compliance with all Health Department regulations;
2. Easement on adjacent property shall be obtained prior to the
establishment of the cemetery;
3. Entrance shall be improved in order to meet minimum sight dis-
tance requirements in accordance with Virginia Department of
Transportation comments dated April 22, 1991, prior to the
establishment of the cemetery.
159
Mr. Waller
(Note: The next two items were discussed concurrently.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District. Public
Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(a) of the Code of
Albemarle known as the Hatton A/F District. The district is in the vicinity
of Hatton, Warren & Scottsville. After this review, it is intended that the
A/F designation on the 2874.0 ac in this district be extended for an addition-
al ten years. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg said late last week, the staff received a letter from a
representative of Mr. Gunther Hawranke, owner of several parcels in the Hatton
A/F District, requesting withdrawal of 50 acres from the district. As of this
time a legal description has not been prepared of the 50 acres. Staff is
therefore requesting deferral for two weeks to allow information to be submit-
ted for an accurate description of the metes and bounds. This will not affect
renewal of the district which does not become due until June 29. Mr. Hawranke
is allowed, by-right, to withdraw any property at the time of renewal.
Agenda Item No. 9. Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District. Public
Hearing on anOrdinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of
Albemarle known as the Totier Creek A/F District. The existing district
containing 6071.0 is in the vicinity of Keene, Esmont & Scottsville. After
this review, it is intended that additional acres be added to the A/F Dis-
trict, and that the designation be extended for an additional ten years.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg said since the last presentation on Totier Creek, two
parcels (tax map 122, parcel 2 - 61.3 acres, and tax map 121, parcel 85A - two
acres) have been withdrawn from the original proposal. These two parcels are
located along Route 712 in the very northern edge of the Totier District. The
new acreage total is 7,246.517 acres. The renewal date is June 29, 1991, and
is proposed for another ten years.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Hatton Agricultural/Fores-
tal District. No one present wanted to speak, but the Chairman acknowledged
several persons from the public who were in favor of the district. The public
hearing was then closed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing on the Totier Creek Agricultural/
Forestal District. There being no comments from the public, the public
hearing was closed.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Way asked if every person currently listed, as being in the Totier
Creek District had been notified that renewal is contemplated to be for ten
years. Mr, Cilimberg replied "yes".
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded byMrs. H~mphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(b) of the Code of Albmmarle, for
the Totier Creek Agric~ltural and ForestalDistrict with the exception of Tax
Map 121, Parcel gSA and Tax Map 122, Parcel 2, for an additional tenyear
period. 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.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4 of the Code of Albemarle be, and the same
hereby is, amended and reenacted for an additional ten years from the
adoption date of this ordinance in subsection (b) "Totier Creek
Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(b) The district known as the "Totier Creek Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 121, parcels 70, 72C, 85; tax map 122, parcel 5; tax map 128,
parcels 13, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 27, 29, 30, 72; tax map 129, parcels
3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 7A, 7D, 9, 10A; tax map 130, parcels 1, 4, 5, 5A, 7,
7A; tax map 135, parcels 7, 10, 11.
At this time, motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way,
to defer taking any action on the MattonAgric~lt~ral and Forest District
Ordinance~ntil June 19, 1991.
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. 10. Public Hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan to include a Community Facilities Plan. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
The Chairman commented that the Board has held several work sessions on
this plan over the last several weeks. He asked if there were any questions
for staff. No comments were made. The Chairman then opened the public
hearing. With no member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
immediately closed.
Motion was ~-,-ediately Offered by Mrs. Hmphris, seconded byMr. Bain, to
adopt the Albpmarle County Co~nity Facilities Plan - 1990-2000, as prepared
by the Department of Planning and Comm~mity Development, May, 1991, as an
element of the Albp~-mrle County Comprehensive Plan. 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.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
161
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending and
reenacting Section 12-1, Adoption of State Law, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and
Traffic, stating that pursuant to the authority of Section 46.2-1313 of the
Code of Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requirements of the
laws of the state contained in Title 46.2 and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title
18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on October 1, 1989, and as amended
in the future ... are adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference
and made applicable within the county. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 21 and May 28, 1991.)
Mr. St. John said the purpose of this ordinance amendment is to correct
two mistakes in Section 12-1 of the County Code. These amendments incorporate
into the County Code, by reference, and make it County law to violate the
State Motor Vehicle Code. This amendment incorporates the State Motor Vehicle
Code with respect to driving under the influence and reckless driving. The
State Code is enforceable through the warrant system, but by having this in
the Code, the County receives the money from fines instead of the fines going
to the State. This amendment has been reviewed by the Commonwealth Attorney
who suggests another amendment. Where the draft language reads "... April 13,
1988, and as amended in the future," change the language to read "... October
1, 1989, and as amended from that date and in the future, .... " The remainder
of the language will stay as written.
The public hearing was opened. With no member of the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. H~mphris, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 12, Motor Vehic/es and Traffic, Section
12-1, Adoption of State Law, of the Code of Albemarle, with the changes as
suggested byMr. St. John.
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.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC, Article I, In General
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Sec. 12.1, Adoption of state law, Article I, In Gener-
al, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle,
is hereby amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 12-1. Adoption of state law.
Pursuant to the authority of section 46.2-1313 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, all of the provisions and requiremmnts of the
laws of the state contained in Title 46.2 and Article 2 of Chapter 7
of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, as in force on October 1, 1989,
and as amended from that date and in the future, except those provi-
sions and requirements the violation of which constitutes a felony,
and expect those provisions and requirements which by their very
nature can have no application to or within the county, are hereby
adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference and made appli-
cable within the county. References to "highways of the state"
contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be
deemed to refer to the streets, highways and other public ways within
the county. Such provisions and requirements are hereby adopted
mutatis mutandis, and made a part of this chapter as fully as though
set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person,
within the county, to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply
with any provision of Title 46.2 or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title
18.2 of the Code of Virginia which is adopted by this section; provid-
ed, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of
any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed
for a similar offense under Title 46.2, or Article 2 of Chapter 7 of
Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
162
Agenda Item No. 12. Thomas Jefferson Planning District, Draft Solid
Waste Management Plan (dated May 24, 1991), Presentation of.
Mr. William D. Middleton, Chairman of the Regional Solid Waste Task
_ Force, said the Solid Waste Management Plan is a summary of the findings and
recommendations of the Task Force. Tonight he intends to briefly review the
background of the Plan, some of the principal findings of the Task Force and
the recommendations put forth in the Plan. The Task Force is now going
through a process of public hearings in all of the jurisdictions in the
region, which will be followed by a Planning District public hearing on
Thursday, June 13, at 7:30 p.m., in the Piedmont Virginia Community College
Auditorium. At that time it is intended that the Planning District Commission
will take action on a regional plan.
Cities and counties in the region are all confronted with solid waste
management problems of varying levels of urgency. With regards to disposal of
solid waste, there are problems confronting everyone as well as availability
of landfill sites. Everyone is also faced with new and more stringent State
regulations regarding the standards and controls required, new State require-
ments that mandate recycling to reduce the volume of solid waste and the
requirement for a regional plan. Through resolutions of support from each
member government, the planning district was designated as the regional agency
for solid waste management planning. The TJPDC convened the Task Force
comprised of representatives from each member jurisdiction and the University
of Virginia. The primary purpose of the Task Force was to develop a regional
plan to meet State requirements.
The Task Force identified a solid waste volume in the region currently of
about 266,000 tons per year which happens to be declining very slightly,
presumably as the result of the imposition of tipping fees in the local
landfills. Collection systems being used in the region vary from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and each jurisdiction operates its own landfill, except for
Charlottesville and Albemarle who operate a combined facility which is operat-
ed through the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. The Task Force found that the
availability of landfill sites is a major problem. Several of the jurisdic-
tions in the region are almost out of landfill capacity. The selection of new
sites is expected to be quite difficult and because of the new regulations the
costs will be much higher than they have been in the past. New landfill
management regulations and requirements imposed by the Virginia Solid Waste
Management Regulations involve such items as the requirement for double-lined
cells, groundwater monitoring, leachate management, erosion and sediment
control, stormwater management and various standards regarding closure of
landfills. The Task Force expects that these requirements will require high
technical standards for management and operation and high costs for start-up
and operation of a landfill. The requirements for recycling imposed by the
State require that ten percent of the solid waste volume must be recycled by
the current year and must reach a 25 percent recycling rate by 1995.
Looking at the current situation, he has noted that the collection
methods are both public and private in the region at the present time with
disposal to local landfills, with the exception of the joint landfill operated
by RSWA. The Task Force found that centralization in some form offers poten-
tially significant management and cost advantages through an economy of scale
by reduction in the number of landfills, by centralization of required manage-
ment expertise and by centralized technical service.
Regarding recycling, the Task Force found that there are a variety of
public and private recycling initiatives presently underway. There is a pilot
curbside recycling program in Charlottesville which is scheduled to go city-
wide later this year and there are a number of drop-off centers for recycling
at various locations in the region. Marketing efforts for. recyclable materi-
als are individual efforts by each jurisdiction. The Task Force found that a
centralized system offers potential advantages for materials recovery, more
cost-effective p~ocessing of recyclable material, and a more attractive and
effective program of marketing. The Task Force examined financial issues and
found that the costs for future landfills will vary widely. The Task Force
developed some preliminary estimates which include the related transportation
costs to the landfills following a collection process. These analyses indi-
cated that a small landfill of about 10,000 tons per year capacity would cost
in the future about $98 a ton to operate. A mid-sized landfill of about
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
163
100,000 tons per year capacity would cost about $34 a ton and a system of
multiple, regional landfills, assuming three landfills of about 45,000 tons
per year, each would cost about $71 a ton to operate. Interestingly, a single
regional landfill which would require the operation of transfer stations show
slightly higher costs at about $74 a ton.
With regard to management of solid waste in the region, the Task Force
identified several options that are available to the jurisdictions. These
include continued independent operation as most are operating at present, the
possibility of contracts for some services between the jurisdictions and the
RSWA, alternatively membership in the Authority for those who are not now
members or creation of new authorities or other joint efforts among two or
more jurisdictions. The final conclusion the Task Force came to was that
centralization in some form offered management efficiency and potential cost
benefits. The Task Force felt this could best be achieved through contracts
with, or memberships, in the existing Rivanna Authority. The optimum time to
do this will vary with each jurisdiction and, therefore, they felt the flexi-
ble approach to participation in the Authority would probably be required, but
in some cases contract arrangements would be necessary initially and perhaps
later a full membership.
Key recommendations of the report are: 1) Local governments should be
prepared to expand the scope of the RSWA either through contracts for services
or through expansion of the Authority to serve additional jurisdictions; 2) At
a minimum, local governments should consider contracts with the RSWA for
landfill services to include household hazardous waste collection programs; 3)
Local governments should create opportunities and incentives that will promote
recycling. These should include encouragement of recycling through landfill
tip fee structures, the establishment of a regional materials recovery system,
the provision of recycling opportunities to all waste generators through
curbside or household recycling programs where solid waste collection is
available and through drop-off centers; 4) Establishment of a regional mmteri-
als recovery system to sort, process and market recyclables; 5) Public educa-
tion on sound solid waste management practices and recycling to be coordinated
regionally and implemented locally; 6) Consolidated landfill management
preferably through the existing RSWA; and 7) All new landfills be consolidated
under one owner and operator, preferably the RSWA.
Mr. Middleton said also present tonight are several members of the
Planning District staff and other members of the Task Force, and they will be
glad to respond to any questions.
Mr. Way asked if the public hearings in the other localities were well
attended. Mr. Middleton said the hearing in Fluvanna County was well attended
with a great deal of discussion concerning the possibility of a private
landfill operation in that county.
Mr. Bowie asked if a regional landfill would double the cost. Mr.
Middleton said on the assumption of three landfills the cost would be higher
in the future than a single landfill equivalent to the Ivy Landfill. The
important question is, when the Ivy Landfill is full and no longer able to be
used, could a similar landfill be created at a convenient location such as
Ivy.
Mr. Bain said he has been involved a lot with the Task Force. He would
like for the Board to set aside an hour for a work session with representa-
tives from the Task Force next Wednesday afternoon. There are a lot of issues
that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Bowie asked the pleasure of the Board. The Board members agreed to
hold a work session on the afternoon of June 12.
Mr. Perkins said regarding the goal of resource recovery and incinera-
tion, he thinks the Board needs some costs on how much it would cost to build
an incinerator and how much revenue could be generated from reducing electri-
city and if that electricity could be sold. It seems to him that we are
putting stuff in a hole that could be turned into energy. Mr. Middleton said
he could bring some material to the work session on that subject. There have
been several studies, as long ago as 15 years, where that was looked at and
costed. The conclusion of the Task Force is that it is not the right strategy
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
164
at this time, but they did hold open the possibility that in the future
lisomething like that may become the best strategy. The recommendation incorpo-
rated in the report was that the Authority should periodically reexamine what
technologies and systems are available in the field of waste stream recovery.
Mrs. Humphris said what the Board knows about incineration indicates that
it should certainly be looking at a materials recovery before incineration.
Mr. Middleton said that is also the Task Force's conclusion.
Noting that some students were present and wanted to make comments, the
Board opened this item up for discussion.
Ms. Audrey Washburn, representing some students from Western Albemarle
High School, said they think that Charlottesville and Albemarle should concen-
trate on envirornnentally sound policies. Rather than looking for new landfill
sites the area should think about increasing the longevity of the present
landfill. The students are willing to help and pitch in on environmentally
sound policies. They think Charlottesville is beautiful and everyone should
be working to help its preservation.
Mr. Norm McMahon said he read a report from 1989 regarding the same
topic. The article stated that it was necessary to find some way to make the
landfill last longer. Saving the Ivy Landfill could save a lot of money and
there would not be the problem of establishing a new site. There is a lot of
potential to infusing recycling and the landfill together. There is a want
for recycling in the county but it is all done on a sm~]l scale, but he thinks
the County should take the steps necessary to do something on a nn~ch larger
scale.
There was no further discussion. The Chairman thanked the students for
their comments.
Agenda Item No. 13. Employee Safety Policy, Adoption of. (Deferred from
May 8, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker said on May 8, the Board reviewed the proposed policy and
directed staff to make some changes. The issues raised by the Board have been
addressed, changes made and reviewed by the School Board. The School Board
has adopted the policy and it is now before the Board for adoption. The staff
is recontmending approval. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board members were satisfied
with the changes made. The Board members nodded in agreement.
Motion was offered byMr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowermmn, to approve the
Employee Safety Policy, as presented, and as set out in full below:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PERSONNEL POLICY
§P-07 SAFETY
The County of Albemarle is committed to providing the best possible
working conditions for all of its employees. To accomplish this, the
County shall comply with all current occupational health, safety, and
environmental laws and develop the best feasible operations, proce-
dures, technologies, and policies to provide such conditions.
County policy is aimed at preventing any employee, visitor, or person
residing or working near County facilities from being subjected to any
unusual health or safety risks.
The County shall base its practices on the principle of least accept-
able risks as defined and accepted by the public.
The County shall establish comprehensive and realistic policies based
on past experience and current scientific research to prevent unrea-
sonable health and safety risks.
To fulfill these goals, the County shall:
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
165
Maintain ongoing programs at all levels to identify employee
health and safety risks. The County shall see to it that all
employees clearly understand all facets of County health and
safety programs that directly affect themand their duties.
Make control, and elimination of health and safety risks a top
priority in all County financial plans and budgets. The County
shall provide the necessary funds to implement health and safety
programs to the maximum extent feasible.
Control and reduce employee exposure to all known or clearly
suspected occupatiomal health and safety risks, and attempt to
lower exposure levels as quickly as governmental regulations,
technology, and economic feasibility allow.
Provide incentive programs to encourage employees to identify,
control, and eliminate occupational health and safety risks.
Plan, design, and construct all new County facilities to provide
the safest and most healthful working environment possible.
Recognize that despite every effort the County makes, the basic
responsibility for employee health and safety rests with the
individual. It is a condition of employment for all employees to
conduct their work in a safe and healthful manner.
OSHA and EPA Compliance
The County shall comply with all OSHA and EPA requirements. Because
these rules and regulations are so extensive, each employee, supervi-
sor, and manager is strongly advised to consult with appropriate
County health or safety officials when there is the slightest question
regarding the existence or application of these rules and regul.ations.
Workers' Compensation
The County shall comply with the workers' compensation laws. The
Personnel Department will administer workers' compensation claims and
payments in accordance with applicable rules and regulations.
The County shall also strive to reduce workers' compensation claims by
providing the best possible working conditions. The status of an
employee shall not be affected by the filing of a workers' compensa-
tion claim. No job applicant shall be rejected for having applied for
and received workers' compensation payments.
Environmental Considerations
The County shall closely follow the provisions of various environ-
mental regulations as they relate to occupational health and safety.
With regard to solid waste disposal, treatment, and storage, the
County shall make every effort to prevent the development of harmful
environmental conditions. It will cooperate fully to the maximum
extent feasible with federal, state, and local efforts to clean up
hazards (dump sites) when it was directly involved in such practices
before the present concerns became known.
Safety Programs and Safety Committee
The County shall establish and maintain the best practical safety
programs. While safety is the direct responsibility of each employee,
the County shall designate a Safety Coordinator and Safety Committee
whose responsibility is the coordination of the development and.
implementation of safety programs. These programs sb~ll include, but
shall not be limited to:
Educational programs for all employees.
Incentive programs, such as financial rewards, formal recogni-
tion, and appropriate gifts.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Spot checks to promote employee interest in appropriate safety
and health practices.
166
County Property
Each employee is responsible for the safe operation of all equipment,
tools, machinery, vehicles, or other County property in his or her
charge.
The County shall provide for proper care and maintenance of County
property, but each employee should report any malfunction of County
property to his or her immediate supervisor. The supervisor shall
investigate and take the necessary steps to correct the malfunction as
soon as possible.
In case of serious malfunction where employees are endangered or
County operations threatened, employees are not required to jeopardize
their personal safety, but should immediately warn their fellow
employees, supervisors, managers, and anyone else affected by the
situation.
Protective Equipment
Employees are required to wear all appropriate protective equipment at
the proper times and in the proper environments. Failure to wear
required protective equipment is cause for a written reprimand. The
County is legally and morally bound to make sure each employee com-
plies with this policy. Supervisors shall strictly enforce this
policy.
Protective Measures
The Safety Coordinator, Safety Committee and Department Heads will
establish and enforce all measures required to protect County property.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion, which carried by the recorded
vote which follows:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Status Report: Albemarle High School Renovation
Project.
Mr. Tucker summarized the following staff report and informational sheet:
"Attached is a brief informational sheet regarding the status and
history of the Albemarle High School Addition. You will note that the
Planning Commission retained the authority to approve the final site
plan of the addition and are tentatively scheduled to review that plan
on June 11. Construction bid opening for the project is May 30 with
School Board review of these bids on June 10.
The issue of the parking lot and pine tree grove relates to a parking
space requirement of 270 spaces to meetthe County Zoning ordinance
standards. Any reduction or removal of the parking space requirement
will necessitate the school board seeking a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals. I am by copy of this memorandum submitting this
information, to Dr. Paskel who in turn will share these comments with
the School Board."
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION
INFORMATIONAL SHEET
Status of Site Plan - Preliminary Plan approval has been given but
Planning Commission retained authority to approve final plan. The
School Board will review the bid results on June 10. Final site plan
review by the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for
June 11.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
Adjacent property owners of the site were notified of the Planning
Commission's original review date for this site plan. No property
owner attended the review hearing.
167
Parking Lot Requirement - Additional parking is required to meet the
parking standards of the County Zoning Ordinance. The new parking lot
is designed to provide approximately 270 spaces to meet Zoning Ordi-
nance standards.
Parking Lot Amendment:
In order to reduce the 270 parking space requirement, the School
Board would need to seek a variance, based on hardship, from the
Board of Zoning Appeals. A policy from the School Board and/or
Principal of Albemarle High School limiting students driving to
school would be important to the Board of Zoning Appeals in their
deliberations.
Limiting student parking during school hours may alleviate the
problem created by reduced parking spaces but it would not
alleviate parking required for other school/public building
usage.
Storm drainage, ironically, will be improved by the construction
of the parking lot. Due to the drainage system designed to
collect and control runoff, a direct benefit will result to the
existing problem areas along the southern property line.
Tree Grove - The loblolly pine grove is being removed to provide for
the required parking lot. Staff has reviewed this issue with a State
Forester. The forester estimates the age of the trees at 30 years.
Normally trees are harvested at 50 years. (Mr. Tucker said today he
learned that the forester had actually taken~iO~nd the trees
are actually 50 to 51 years of age.)
Alternative Location for Parking - The only feasible alternatives for
relocating the required parking spaces, would dictate the loss of
existing planned playing fields. These fields are planned to meet
school needs and county facilities plan guidelines. Other locations
on site would impact other wooded areas and additional critical slopes
would be affected.
Construction bid opening is scheduled for May 30. Tentative review/
award schedule is as follows:
School Board reviews competitive bids on June 10.
Planning Commission reviews final site plan on June 11.
Award construction contract no later than June 30, if project is
to remain on schedule.
To change the scope of the project design documents or the overall
project phasing could result and may warrant a delay to the entire
project. The subsequent loss of the current favorable bidding climate
could incur a financial impact on this school project.
Mr. Way asked how bids can be reviewed before site plan approval. Mr.
Tucker said there is a preliminaryplan which must come back to the Commission
for final site plan approval. Regarding schools, the system attempts to do
the most critical part of any kind of school construction, particularly if it
is on an existing school, during the summer months. Basically the school
administration, staff and architects on this project were made aware of the
conditions of approval for the preliminary plat. The project was bid based on
those types of approvals and amendments or changes that have. to made for the
final plan.
Mr. Bowie said his only question is why not just allow fewer cars or say
students cannot drive to school.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 168
(Page 26)
Mr. Bain said one of the major projects of the MPO is a traffic reduction
plan which he thinks the Board needs to be looking at in the urban areas and
as it relates to schools. Maybe a voluntary plan has some merit.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks it is unfortunate that none of the Board members
knew the details of this project when it was approved in the Capital Improve-
ment Plan and the~ money appropriated, but now the bids have been received and
the project is before the School Board.
Mr. Bain asked how big a part of the project removal of the trees is and
if they have to be cut down since no buildings are located in the area. He
wondered if it is possible to look at some alternatives. He also thinks an
alternative is to look at a good buffer, maybe cutting some of the trees and
having a smaller parking lot, but still keeping the trees on Hydraulic Road
and on the entrance road. A 25 or 30 foot buffer would still leave a lot of
area where trees could be cut.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to provide the Board a little history
of the public's participation in this situation. The public brought this
matter to this Board's attention and she thinks it calls attention to a
problem that needs to be dealt with. Her first indication of the problem came
from a phone call from a student at Albemarle High School. The student asked
her if she knew that the County was going to cut down all the pine trees for a
parking lot. She had no idea, and even though the money had been appro-
priated, this Board was not aware that the plan called for the destruction of
the pine trees because that did not come before the Board.
She started looking into this by making a call to the County Executive.
She found that the County had done everything legally, had followed procedures
and the appropriate people were legally notified. However, it seems that the
word did not filter to the affected people, those people where property abut
the Georgetown Green public area. The owners and residents in this area were
not included on the list of people to be notified. Then she realized from the
input she was getting that the situation was not just the pine trees, although
that is a tremendous loss to the community environmentally and is just some-
thing that drivers want to see when they go by that area. It is a beautiful
buffer for that area, and it has all kinds of things to recommend it, but she
found that there was this problem that the residents were enduring with the
expansion of the County's maintenance center. The center has grown right up
to these people's back yards with what Mr. Edwards mentioned the 7:00 a.m.
noise right in their kitchen. When the people in that area were nice enough
to invite her to walk up that hill last evening onto the land where the
baseball field is to be constructed she could not believe it, and she begs the
Board members to go out and either walk down the access road behind the
football stadium toward the sewage treatment plant, or go into Georgetown
Green and walk up that road and see the hillside that is going to be dug out
and leveled to build this baseball field and look at the trees that are going
to be taken. Walk up to the football field, the football stadium, and look
over and see the area where the soccer field is going to be built, and see
what is going to happen. When she went back and read the Planning Commission
minutes on the February 5th meeting, there was not one mention about the the
pine trees. There was much discussion of building on the critical slopes.
They reached the conclusion, all except Babs Huckle who voted against the Plan
for the reason of building on the critical slope, that it was something that
must be done because of the existing topography on the rest of the school
land. The only mention that was ever made of the pine trees was noted in the
file in the Planning Department when it was presented to the Planning Commis,
sion by Citizens for Albemarle. One sentence questioned the proposed destruc-
tion of the trees for the parking lot.
Even though the County fulfilled its legal obligations during the pro-
cess, the notification, the public hearing and all that, something went wrong
because the people who needed to know and who should have been participants in
the process were not. Her point is that maybe the County needs to rethink how
it does these things and realize that this County has to be just as good a
neighbor whether it is the School Board or the Board of Supervisors as it
expects other people to be and when it is doing things in an urban area, we
are dealing with urban problems in what has been a rural county. The County
has to pay attention to the impact that it is having and the concerns of
people about what is being done not only on the land that this County owns but
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
169
to the neighborhood. She has no idea what the thinking of the School Board is
or what they can or cannot do, will or will not do, but she believes that it
is imperative that all of the Board members go out there and look at this and
see what is going to happen; School Board members, Planning Commission mem-
bers, Board of Supervisors members and question whether this is really what we
want. She understands that the baseball field, the soccer field, the football
field and the parking are important to a lot of people, but the Board needs to
start by weighing how important are they and what price are we willing to pay.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were any other Board comments.
Mr. Bain said he does not disagree with Mrs. Humphris comments other than
to say that any time you are dealing with an urban area, there are a lot of
considerations, especialiy for schools and the facilities that go along with
them.
Mrs. Humphris said her question is: instead of adding this parking lot,
should the School Board and the Albemarle High School officials modify their
parking policies? What should this Board be doing? Should the Board allow
those trees to be cut down for additional parking or should the Board be
disallowing a certain amount of student parking and look at amending the
ordinance?
Mr. Bain said there are a lot of issues to consider, such as early-bid
classes and children who only have access to cars. There are all kinds of
issues:, not just land uses that become involved. There are uses of the build-
ing at night and. parking at night that excemdm what is there in the daytime.
Mrs. Humphris said she has learned that there are a lot of people whose
priorities are different from the ones that are being implemented and that
they have not been given a chance at having a say so in what is being done.
She feels that the Board "missed the boat" in the beginning and she does not
know what part of the boat the Board can catch now or if the School Board or
the Planning Commission want to make any changes now. She is just saying that
something went wrong back in the very beginning.
Mr. Bowie said an item for discussion at the next joint meeting with the
School Board is to look at the high school's utilization for long-term plan-
ning. Since the Board adopted the ordinance, it has control over the parking
lots. The ordinance states there must be "X" number of car spaces for high
schools, grade schools, etc. If, in fact, the School Board is going to
restudy the long range needs for the high school, why cannot this Board, until
that is done, suspend the parking regulations for Albemarle High School and
then they would not need to build a larger parking lot. He would like a
response from the County Attorney on that for next week. It seems to him that
if the County has an ordinance that is requiring trees to be cut down then all
the Board has to do is change the ordinance. He does not understand the big
problem.
Mrs. Humphris said if the Board does it for the County then the private
sector would expect the Board to do it for them which would be "opening
another can of worms". Mr. Bain said this issue is not as simple as that.
There are other considerations.
Mr. St. John said there is a procedure for assuring that only a certain
number of parking spaces are going to be needed and the ordinance allows the
staff to make those provisions. This Board is acting in a dual role here.
The School Board is the owner of this property and they can regulate the
parking anyway they want. County regulations do not apply in this instance
like they do in other situations.
Mr. Bowie said he feels the Board could suspend its ordinance until a
study is completed and the School Board could go ahead and build the parking
lot anyway. Mr. St. John said they could, but this Board has the right to
bring up the Planning Commission's decision for review of the site plan and
take into account the effect it would have on the bid process. It would have
to be done within ten days after being acted on by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowie said one of the reasons that he asked for Dr. Login's verbatim
statement was the continued comment that there was no attempt to control
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
170
parking, and he thinks that must be checked out because certainly that is one
alternative - some controlled parking. Dr. Login had some excellent ideas,
ie., carpooling or whatever. He would suggest that Dr. Login make the same
presentation to the School Board and Planning Commission.
Mr. Bain asked that staff provide the Board. with copies of the bid
documents because he would like to review them. He would also like to have a
break out of the portion of the contract that relates to the parking area in
front of the school.
Mr. St. John said if the Board is just concerned with the trees and
reducing parking, that. would not require rebidding or anything. That can be
done by change order and would reduce the cost of the project. Mr. Bain said
another issue is that storm drainage has been built into the project.
Mr. Perkins asked if parking requirements are determined by the square
footage of the building or student enrollment. Mr. Cilimberg gave student
enrollment and rated capacity as the determinants. Rated capacity determines
the number of spaces; that is based on one space per three pupils. Mr.
Perkins said even though there are fewer pupils at AHS today than there were
five years ago, it still requires more parking. Mr. Cilimberg said in this
case the current enrollment actually is a growing enrollment until some of
that enrollment is redistricted. Redistricting has left the school short even
with the added number of spaces. They are going to be short by about 50
spaces the number of spaces required by the ordinance. There is one provision
that gives the Commission an opportunity to waive or change parking, but it is
only where there can be cooperative parking provided where there are two uses
that can use the same spaces for parking needs. He does not think that would
apply in this instance, otherwise, the ordinance is very specific in that it
states that provisions shall directly follow what is laid out in the schedule.
He added that the Planning Commission responds in site plan review to the
provisions of the ordinance. It is a ministerial act. The Commission is not
in a position where it can automatically grant exceptions or changes that the
ordinance calls for in the design of any project, whether it is public or pri-
vate. So he thinks the Commission had its hands tied somewhat because basi-
cally ordinance requirements were not in the design of the school. The
Commission did grant certain waivers for field construction. The parking area
actually was an area in which the Commission did not have much discretion
according to ordinance requirements. The staff and Commission are looking for
direction from the School Board and Board of Supervisors because they cannot
make the decisions about the design or the project, itself.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the parking spaces are determined by the rated
capacity in the school including the new phased addition. Mr. Cilimberg said
"yes" and temporarily, it will be over the rated capacity.
Regarding the trees, Mr. Perkins said it is true that trees of this type
are normally harvested at age 50 or before because they do reach economic
maturity, but it is not unusual for trees of this type to live to be 100 or
150 years old.
Mr. Perkins said he does not think that this project is any different
from other projects. For example, the housing project in Crozet. They came
in with grandiose plans and then said the project could not be changed because
it had to get to the State on time. The road design then came in and it made
absolutely no sense to change that road in front of the old school, nor that a
new entrance had to be made. He does not know whether the blame is with the
engineers, or whomever, but sometimes it just takes somebody with some common
sense to look at things to say this can be done better.
Mr. Bain said although the Board did not see the site plan for this
project, it knew the extensive nature of what was being planned. The Board
did not discuss removal of the trees, but did discuss the critical slopes and
the need for the facilities.
Mr. Bowie said the only thing that was not discussed or disclosed was the
trees and maybe that is because it required no kind of authority. He does
remember the other discussions.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 2L71
(Page 29)
Mr. Bain said there was some discussion about having to cut some of the
trees because of the expansion of the fields and a lot of concern was ex-
pressed.
There was no further discussion on this subject.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Mr. Tucker presented an Application and Agreement with Appalachian Power
Company for Underground Electric Service to the concession stand/bath house in
Walnut Creek Park; and an Application and Agreement with Appalachian Power
Company for Underground Electric Service to the ticket booth in Walnut Creek
Park. He requested, that he be authorized to execute these Agreements on
behalf of the County.
Motion was offered byMr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize the
County Executive to sign Agreement Nos. 811-297 {dated 5-23-91) and 811-329
(dated 3-12-91), with Appalachian Power Company, entitled Application and
Agreement For Underground Service to Commercial Buildings, Ind~strialBuild-
ings, Schools and Master-Metered Multi-Family]Pwelling Units, to install
underground pr~-~ry extension; instm]] pad mounted transformer amd pad;
install ~lndergronnd service lateral to meter base;, and set meter for conces-
sion standfbathhouse amd for ticket booth in Wm],ut Creek Park. 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. Tucker said late last week Mr. Cilimberg was asked to attend a town
meeting regarding economic conversion. The matter was a subject of discussion
on PBS last Sunday. Evidently this same group of people are putting together
a panel to discuss the issue in this community. The meeting is scheduled for
next Monday evening. Mr. Cilimberg was invited and basically his comments
will relate to the County's policy which is the Economic Development Policy
that is in the Comprehensive Plan. The approach that the County has been
following for years has been to provide the necessary land for economic
development, whether it is industrial or commercial land, through the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The County does not necessarily "roll the red carpet
out", but does provide the industry, the land area, the utilities and infra-
structure to development, and leave the rest to the private sector. The staff
has always understood the policy, but if there are other items that Board
members think should be addressed or commented on, he would like to hear that
before next Monday.
Mr. Cilimberg said that according to the moderator they are looking for a
policy statement, the County's response to their findings and what the County
intends to do about their findings. He has not seen the report, but will get
together with the County F~xecutive to formulate a response. Mr. Bowie said
the report was presented to the Board at a previous meeting.
Mr. Bowerman said the basis of the concern was that the defense industry
creates a lot of jobs in this area. A private company who depends on a
certain segment of defense business is in trouble when that business disap-
pears. The question is what private enterprise is going to do to look at its'
market and to find other ways to market its products in areas other than
defense. He thinks that is the very soul of free enterprise and competitive-
ness to try to do this and that is the thought that kept occurring to him when
the presentation was made to the Board. He thinks it is to the economic
interest of the entrepreneurs of the company to find a way to sell their
product to civilian users.
Mr. Bowie thought that was the majority view of this Board, but some
localities, because a lot of people are employed by a military base are going
out and seeking offers. Mr. Bain said this County is not like those and they
have got to be looking at something entirely different. Mr. Bowie said if the
County had a 20,000 person air base where half of the County was employed,
that would be a different situation, but it is not the case here.
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 172
(Page 30)
Mrs. Humphris said Charlottesville and Albemarle County have been dealing
with this forever. There are many companies and individuals, her husband used
to be one of them, who have been from time to time entirely dependent on
defense contracts. You lose the contract, you seek another source of funds.
This is purely free enterprise. "You sink or you swim". She feels that this
is the way it should remain. She does not see any need to change. Nothing is
really any different from the way it has always been. Sperry, G.E. and the
University have always operated and they are forward looking and anticipate
what is going to happen and deal with that.
Mr. Cilimberg said there was quite a discussion on this during work
sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. They had two work sessions on one goal
statement regarding economic policies.
Mrs. Humphris thought it was naive to think that this is something new.
This is not at all new for this community.
There was no further discussion.
Mr. Bain asked when a recommendation from the Private Roads Cox~ittee is
coming to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said recommendations from the Committee
will be made to the Commission in July and will probably be presented to the
Board in August.
Mr. Bowerman said during budget review the Board came across the annual
increase in the fire agreement with the City. The Board was told that if it
were to look at renegotiating that contract, the City would have to be noti-
fied by June 30 or vice versa. He has not had an opportunity to ever review
the agreement and would like to do so at this time. If the consensus of the
Board is to look at the agreement, then it should be done prior to July 1.
Mr. Bowie suggested the staff get something back to the Board on June 12.
Mr. Perkins asked the date of the Hazardous Waste Collection Day. Mr.
Tucker said although one has been scheduled, no date has been set. He will
let the Board know the date when it is set.
At 9:08 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive
session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A. 1 to discuss persomnelmatters.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. 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.
At 9:40 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion as offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution to
certify the executive session:
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mr. Bowerman
MR~TING DATE: June 5, 1991
CERTIFICATION OF ~%(ECUI~ MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
June 5, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 3_73
(Page 31)
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard., discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerma-, Bowie, ~{rs. ~mphris,
Mr. Way.
Mr. Perkins and
NAYS: None.
ABS]~lT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman