1991-02-13February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
48
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on February 13, 1991, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. BoWie, M~s. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive; Mr.
George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
There were no members of the public present to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5.- Consent Agenda. Motion was ~offered by Mr. Bain and
seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 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 and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Item 5.1. Forest Lakes Subdivision Street Agreement, Reapproval of. By
letter of January 25, 1991, Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Virginia Department of
Transportation, forwarded a revised agreement which has been fully reviewed b
VDoT and the Attorney General's Office. The revised agreement was approved by
the vote shown above and set out as follows:
SUBDIVISION STREET REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT
FOREST LAKES SUBDIVISION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
"THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day of February, 1991, by and
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and
the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an administrative agency of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the "DEPART-
MENT";
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the DEPARTMENT have developed a transpor-
tation plan (known as the Year 2000 Transportation Plan) for Albemarle
County that includes, among other facilities, a future four-lane,
divided, controlled access roadway located north of the City of
Charlottesville, with a southern terminus near the north City limit
and with a northern terminus at Route 649 near its intersection with
Route 29, referred to variously as the McIntire Road Extension and as
the Meadow Creek Parkway; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the DEPARTMENT desire to see that plan
fully implemented in order to provide for among other benefits, the
manageable accommodation of property development and traffic, which
will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has adopted a
regulation entitled Subdivision Street Requirements pertaining to the
February 13, 1991 (Regular'Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
49
acceptance of subdivision streets into the secondary system of state
highways; and
WHEREAS, subject to the applicable provisions of Section 2.2 of
the referenced regulation, a street may be considered for acceptance
into the secondary system of state highways prior to its completion in
full compliance with the standards and related criteria for the
projected traffic resulting from the complete development of all land
to be served by the subject street; and
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the appropriate adminis-
trative agencies of the COUNTY, a plan for the development of certain
lands lying in Albemarle County, designated as the Forest Lakes
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, this plan proposed the construction of a roadway facili-
ty identified on the plan as Timberwood Parkway, a 3675 foot segment
of the future McIntire Road Extension/Meadow Creek Parkway, between
stations 11+25 and 54+11 as shown in roadway plans approved by the
DEPARTMENT with access to be restricted to those intersections as
shown in the plans, hereinafter referred to as "street"; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and the DEPARTMENT have mutually agreed,
pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Subdivision Street R~quirements, said -
street is functionally classified as either a collector or arterial
street; and
WHEREAS, the traveled way of this street, upon complete develop-
ment pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Street
Requirements shall provide four or more travel lanes, exclusive of
turn lanes, parking lanes, etc; and
WHEREAS, the developer of this land has proposed the phased
development of the street; and
WHEREAS, said street occupies an alignment which the COUNTY
believes should ultimately be extended for general public benefit,
beyond the particular benefit of the subject development; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY believes that it is in the public interest
that said street be accepted into the secondary system of state
highways notwithstanding its initial construction to a lesser standard
than that prescribed for "complete development" (streets) in the
Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees that the design and approval of the
plans for this street shall be in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in Section 2.2(c) of the Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is willing to consider the acceptance of
subject street upon appropriate resolution by the COUNTY and the
execution of an agreement assuring the timely subsequent improvements
of said street in accordance with applicable standards of the Subdivi-
sion Street Requirements for "complete development" (streets).
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
A. The COUNTY will:
Agree to three phases of development of subject street:
Initial, Intermediate, and Complete. For purposes of
this agree~nt, the following definitions will apply:
Initial development shall include two lanes plus
turning lanes, with rural shoulders, on a dedicat-
ed right-of-way of 120 feet, located in the
right-of-way so as to provide one-half of the
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
50
Complete four-lane divided street. Pavement
structure of the Initial development
shall be as noted on plans approved by the DEPART-
MENT.
bo
Intermediate development shall involve the im-
provement of the pavement structure of the Initial
development, in order to provide, at a minimum, a
Category VI pavement structure throughout the
length of the Initial development, as defined by
the 1990 Subdivision Street Requirements of the
DEPARTMENT.
Complete development shall consist of a four lane
divided street plus turning lanes, with rural
shoulders, on a 120-foot right-of-way, and with a
minimum of a Category VI pavement throughout, as
defined by the 1990 Subdivision Street Require-
ments of the DEPARTMENT.
Assure the construction of improvements to the street
to achieve the Intermediate and Complete development
phases within the following time periods after notifi-
cation by the DEPARTMENT:
Intermediate development phase: within 12 months
of receiving written notification from the DEPART-
MENT that conditions, as hereinafter prescribed in
item A.5.a., necessitate the Intermediate develop-
ment of the street.
Complete development phase: within two years of
receiving written notification from the DEPARTMENT
that conditions as hereinafter prescribed in item
A.5.b., necessitate the Complete development of
the street.
3. [Paragraph deleted.]
Assume sole responsibility for the collection and
maintenance of any funds provided, either voluntarily
or pursuant to its requirements, for the required
completion of the street's development.
Agree that the determination as to when the street's
Intermediate and Complete development is required shall
be exclusively that of the DEPARTMENT, based on the
following standards:
Intermediate development shall be required when
traffic volume as determined by the DEPARTMENT
exceeds 4000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
Complete development shall be required when either
of the following events occurs, as determined by
the DEPARTMENT:
(1) The street's traffic exceeds 8,000 ADT, OR
(2)
The street is incapable of permitting a
minimum service level of "D" to be main-
tained.
o
Agree that with the exception of the street's roadway,
all other applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Street Requirements including public service, drainage
easements, and administrative procedures shall apply to
this street's acceptance.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
51
Exercise its authority under zoning, site plan, and
subdivision approval, and other appropriate ordinances
or agreements, to carry out in good faith the obliga-
tions it has undertaken to perform in this agreement.
In addition, the COUNTY agrees that in the event that
either or both of the Intermediate and the Complete
development phases have not been accomplished within
the respective time periods prescribed in paragraph A.2
of this agreement, then the County Executive of the
COUNTY shall present to the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors a resolution for the appropriation of funds
in an amount necessary and sufficient to construct the
Intermediate and the Complete development phases, or
whichever of them shall be past due at that time, and
the Board shall take a recorded vote on said appropri-
ation resolution.
B. The DEPARTMENT will:
Accept said street into the secondary system of state
highways upon its construction to the Initial phase of
development in accordance with approved plans, in
accordance with applicable provisions of DEPARTMENT's
Subdivision Street Requirements, and as herein provid-
ed.
Provide written notification to the COUNTY of the
DEPARTMENT's determination that construction of the
Intermediate development phase is:
a. Required pursuant to item A.5.a., above.
Completed in accordance with all applicable
provisions of this agreement.
Provide written notification to the COUNTY of the
DEPARTMENT's determination that construction of the
Complete development phase is:
a. Required pursuant to item A.5.b., above.
Completed in accordance with all applicable
provisions of this agreement."
Item 5.2. Street Sign Resolution for Sections 5, 6 and 7 in Hessian
Hills Subdivision. Request was made by Ms. Laurie H. Curtin on behalf of the
Old Forge Neighborhood by letter dated January 16, 1991. The following
resolution was adopted by the vote shown above.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Old Forge Road (State Route 1472) and Georgetown Road
(State Route 656) at its intersection;
Old Forge Road (State Route 1472) and Sturbridge Road
(State Route 1473) at its intersection.
Sturbridge Road (State Route 1473) and Whetstone Place
(State Route 1475) at its intersection; and
Sturbridge Road (State Route 1473) and Cannon Place
(State Route 1474) 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;
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
52
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 is hereby requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street signs.
Item 5.2a. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sher-
iff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, for the Month of January,
1991, were approved as submitted by the vote shown above.
Item 5.3. Letter dated January 31, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, re: Monthly update on Highway Improvement Projects Cur-
rently Under Construction, was received as information. Mr. Roosevelt noted
that a new project for the entrance to the Southern Regional Park should be
completed by May, 1991.
Item 5.4. Letter dated February 5, 1991, from Mr. John G. Milliken,
Chairman, Commonwealth Transportation Board, re: 1991 Spring Preallocation
Hearings for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems, was received as
information. Mr. Bowie noted that the date for the Culpeper District is
11, 1991.
Item 5.5. Letter dated January 31, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, re: Annual Preallocation Hearings for Improvement Funding
on the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems, was received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated January 24, 1991, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Commissioner, Department of Transportation, re: State Revenue Shortfall.
Board requested that this item be discussed under Agenda Item No. 7d.
Item 5.7. Letter dated January 14, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, entitled "VDOT Policy Concerning Operation of Traffic
Signals." The Board requested that this item be discussed under Agenda Item
No. 7d.
Item 5.8. Letter dated February 4, 1991, from Mr. Kurt Klavuhn, Vice-
President, Monticello Velo Club, re: Bike Race planned for March 2, 1991, on
Route 810, 601, 671 and 664 was received as information.
Item 5.9. Letter dated January 25, 1991, addressed to Mr. Frederick R.
Bowie, from Mr. Robert J. Walters, Jr., outlining activities of the Jefferson
Area Board for Aging Advisory Council, was received as information.
Item 5.10. Monthly Bond Reports for November and December, 1991, for
Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) was received as information.
Item 5.11. Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Annual
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1990 (on file in Clerk's office),
received as information.
Item 5.12. Memorandum dated February 1, 1991, from Mr. Wayne S.
Campagna, Director of 911/EOC, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
re: Procedures for Coordinating Local Emergency Events or Disasters,
as information in response to questions raided by Mr. Way about the power
outage in Southern Albemarle County during the last week of 1990.
Item 5.13. County Executive's Financial Report for December, 1990, was
received as information and set out as follows:
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1990 TO DECEMBER 31, 1990
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
53
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
56,670,098 37,095,852 19,574,246
4,254,388 1,760,050 2,494,338
160,400 28,077 132,323
524,145 0 524,145
61,609,031 38,883,979 22,725,052
- 65.46%
- 41.37%
- 17.50%
- 0.00%
- 63.11%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
SCHOOL FUND
REVENUES
3,771,276 1,800,824 1,970,452
1,287,796 647,238 640,558
5,686,794 3,108,125 2,578,669
2,340,322 853,570 1,486,752
3,572,977 1,666,227 1,906,750
28,974,085 14,459,315 14,514,770
2,073,318 1,019,654 1,053,664
1,566,828 735,919 830,909
9,476,565 2,887,113 6,589,452
2~859~070 224~131 2~634~939
61,609,031 27,402,116 34,206,915
+ 47.75%
+ 50.26%
+ 54.66%
+ 36.47%
+ 46.63%
+ 49.90%
+ 49.18%
+ 46.97%
+ 30.47%
+ 7.84%
+ 44.48%
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
702,995 134,234 568,761 - 19.09%
20,006,716 8,709,396 11,297,320 43.53%
431,775 0 431,775 0.00%
29~114~923 14~452,500 14~662~423 49.64%
50,256,409 23,296,130 26,960,279 46.35%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION &MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
REVENUES
39,394,013 15,429,849 23,964,164 + 39.17%
1,853,376 1,073,485 779,891 + 57.92%
4,211,544 2,340,351 1,871,193 + 55.57%
4,632,968 2,218,534 2,414,434 + 47.89%
164,508 64~726 99~782 + 39.35%
50,256,409 21,126,945 29,129,464 + 42.04%
1990/91 RECEIPTS
EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
291,800 157,462 134,338 53.96%
452,040 0 452,040 0.00%
12,104,082 4,457,371 7,646,711 36.83%
924,330 0 924,330 0.00%
6~500~000 1~500~000 5~000~000 - 23.08%
20,272,252 6,114,833 14,157,419 - 30.16%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 99,747 30,811
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 1,403 0
PUBLIC SAFETY 592,351 537,517
PUBLIC WORKS 3,039,413 301,070
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 7,000 0
EDUCATION 12,532,318 8,496,987
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 2,198,086 345,631
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 301,356 21,085
TRANSFERS 1,500~578 0
TOTAL 20,272,252 9,733,101
68,936 + 30.89%
1,403 + 0.00%
54,834 + 90.74%
2,738,343 + 9.91%
7,OOO + O.0O%
4,035,331 + 67.80%
1,852,455 + 15.72%
280,271 + 7.00%
1~500~578 + 0.00%
10,539,151 + 48.01%
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
OTHER FUNDS
1990/91 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 0
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT 0 10,519
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 0
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 486,416
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 134,997 28,540
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 404,077
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 55,959
FOOD SERVICES 1,510,500 546,126
CHAPTER I 538,994 55,329
CHAPTER II 57,929 0
MIGRANT EDUCATION 57,093 117
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 25,000 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 74,181 4,750
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 14,995 0
SLIAG PROGRAM 34,219 2,769
CBIP SEVERE 461,547 0
E. D. PROGRAM 622,315 0
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL) 23,311 0
G E ELFUN 0 0
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 637,500 210,172
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 369,411 171,739
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 1,215
A H S FIRE DAMAGE 0 0
JOINT SECURITY 2,626,614 1,225,001
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 30,619 0
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 784,642 394,157
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 179,905 43,104
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 2,341,333 0
VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 33,867
DEBT SERVICE FUND 3~429~096 1~387~113
TOTAL 13,964,201 5,060,970
0 - O.OO%
(10,519)+ 0.00%
0 O.OO%
(486,416)+ 0.00%
106,457 21.14%
(404,077)+ 0.00%
(55,959)+ 0.00%
964,374 - 36.16%
483,665 - 10.27%
57,929 - 0.00%
56,976 - 0.20%
25,000 - 0.00%
0 - O.OO%
69,431 - 6.40%
14,995 - 0.00%
31,450 - 0.00%
461,547 - 0.00%
622,315 0.00%
23,311 0.00%
0 0.00%
427,328 32.97%
197,672 46.49%
8,785 - 12.15%
0 - O.OO%
1,401,613 - 46.64%
30,619 - 0.00%
390,485 - 50.23%
136,801 - 23.96%
2,341,333 - 0.00%
(33,867)+ 0.00%
2~041~983 - 40.45%
8,903,231 - 36.24%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 1,124
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT 0 7,856
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 0 1,967
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 426,820
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 134,997 55,383
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 167,000
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 57,232
FOOD SERVICES 1,510,500 625,983
CHAPTER I 538,994 191,990
CHAPTER II 57,929 21,938
MIGRANT EDUCATION 57,093 28,511
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 0 3,996
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 25,000 2,695
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 74,181 35,812
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 14,995 24
SLIAG 34,219 11,897
CBIP SEVERE 461,547 184,939
E D PROGRAM 622,315 165,633
PROCESS APPROACH (PAL) 23,311 2,500
G E ELFUN 0 0
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 637,500 289,731
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 369,411 203,876
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 0
A H S FIRE DAMAGE 0 201,496
JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,626,614 1,198,302
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 30,619 23,676
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 784,642 401,989
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 179,905 82,141
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 2,341,333 32,212
VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 33,867
DEBT SERVICE FUND 3~429~096 1~402~442
TOTAL 13,964,201 5,863,032
(1,124)- 0.00%
(7,856)- o.oo%
(1,967)- 0.00%
(426,82o)- o.oo%
79,614 + 41.03%
(167,000)- 0.00%
(57,232)- 0.00%
884,517 + 41.44%
347,004 + 35.62%
35,991 + 37.87%
28,582 + 49.94%
(3,996)- 0.00%
22,305 + 10.78%
0 - 0.00%
38,369 + 48.28%
14,971 + 0.16%
22,322 + 34.77%
276,608 + 40.07%
456,682 + 26.62%
20,811 + 10.72%
0 0.00%
347,769 + 45.45%
165,535 + 55.19%
10,000 + 0.00%
(201,496)- 0.00%
1,428,312 + 45.62%
6,943 + 77.32%
382,653 + 51.23%
97,764 + 45.66%
2,3o9,121 + 1.38%
(33,867)- 0.00%
2~026~654 + 40.90%
8,101,169 + 41.99%
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
55
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: December 19N, 1990; January 2,
JanUary 9 and January 16, 1991.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for January 16, 1991, pages 1 through 14,
and found a typographical error. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and
seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Request to Vacate Plat in Marshall
Manor Subdivision, Property Described as Tax map 90B, Parcels 11, 12 and 13,
together with public right-of-way known as Reva Ridge Road.
Mr~ Cilimberg said the subdivision plat for Marshall Manor was approved
in 1975. However, Reva Ridge Road was not constructed, and the County holds
no bond for that purpose. He said Reva Ridge Road was to be a restricted road
serving only lots 11, 12, and 13. The action requested is vacation of Reva
Ridge Road and lots 11, 12 and 13. He noted that only one property owner is
involved in vacation of this plat.
Mr. Cilimberg said the bond for this road was released some time ago and
this section of road is no longer necessary for the subdivision nor for the
landowner. The owner has agreed that vacation of the plat is the simplest
action to resolve this matter. Because the one property owner involved is
agreeable, there is no need for a public hearing. The property owner,
Albemarle Farms, feels this action is necessitated because of an error on the
County's part and feels that the cost should be borne by the County. He said
staff recommends approval of the request to vacate.
Mrs. Humphris commented that it bothers her that this seems to be an
error on the part of the County regarding bonding procedures. She feels that
the attempt to put the responsibility on the purchaser is not appropriate.
She feels the bonding procedure needs to be improved.
Mr. Cilimberg said the release of this bond occurred several years ago.
Mr. Tucker said staff is continuing to improve procedures for handling bonds.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
approve vacation of the subdivision plat for property described as Tax map
90B, Parcels 11, 12, and 13, together with public right-of-way known as Reva
Ridge Road in Marshall Manor Subdivision.
Mr. Tucker said that staff will develop an instrument of vacation to be
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Court.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT': Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Highway Matters: Road Naming - Private Road Extend
lng from Route 844 (Panorama Road)/Route 743 to Route 643.
Mr. Cilimberg said in October of 1990, there was a public hearing held
a request to name Route 844 and a private road extending from Route 844/Route
743 to Route 643 as "Panorama Road". At that time, some residents along the
private road objected to the proposed name. The Board approved the name
"Panorama Road" for Route 844 only and asked the property owners on the
private road to get together and try to reach an agreement on a name. Subse-
quently, staff received a letter dated December 13, 1990, from Ms. Lillian
der Veer indicating that the residents agree on the name "Millers Cottage
Lane". Mr. Cilimberg said staff has received no opposition to this name.
Therefore, staff recommends approval of the name as proposed for the section
of road east of Route 743 and west of Route 643.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Lou Kramer, resident of the private road, said he has no objection to
the proposed name of the road. He is concerned that the placement of road
name signs on this private road will increase the traffic. He has the same
concern if the name is added to Albemarle County Maps. He said the road
provides easy access to Route 29 and to Route 743. He noted that when prop-
erty on this private road was advertised for sale, the traffic increased
tremendously. He said even real estate agents used this road as a short cut
to Route 29. He said the private road is a one-lane, gravel road and there
have been two head-on collisions in the past year and one-half. Mr. Kramer
said he would rather forego the convenience of the 911 service than to open up
this private road to increased traffic. He wants to be assured that the
County Police will support these residents when there are violations of the
law on this road.
Mr. Bowie interrupted to point out that the decision has already been
made that the E911 system will be installed throughout the County. All roads
in the County will have to be named, whether they are private or public roads.
He said that signs will ultimately go up so that the rescue units can find the
roads. The question being addressed today is what name the residents want.
Mr. Kramer said he wants to address the potential problem of traffic now,
rather than later when it is too late. He feels the County should give some
guarantee in writing to the residents of this private road of the County's
continued support.
Mr. Perkins said the road can continue to be posted as a private road
after it is named. Mr. Bowerman added that none of the rights of the resi-
dents change by the naming of this road. The same right to police protection
for violations of the law which residents have always had will continue. He
said he does not understand what Mr. Kramer is requesting.
Mr. Kramer said this road currently looks like a driveway to someone's
house. He feels that placing a road name sign there will indicate to the
public that this road is for their use as a short cut. He wants reassurance
in writing that if he stops a member of the public for trespassing that the
County Police will back him up.
Mr. Bowie said the residents of this road have the same rights as the
other residents of the County. He said the residents 'will receive police
support to the same extent they are receiving it now. Again, the question is
whether there is an objection to the name proposed.
Mr. Kramer said he feels that naming this road will mean more traffic
with more accidents.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr.
Perkins to adopt a resolution naming the private road extending from Route
(Panorama Road)/Route 743 to Route 643 as Millers Cottage Lane.
Mr. Bowerman said the individual property rights exist for maintenance
the private road. He agreed that the road currently looks like a driveway
will look like a driveway with a name after the Board's action today. Ail
roads in the County will be named, and the residents of this road deserve and
will have the same rights in the future that they enjoy today. He does not
see any abridgement to those rights by the naming of the road;
Mr. Bain said the naming of a road does not mean that the County is goin~
to place a sign on the road. He said if the residents want to have a sign
erected, they can do so. The point is to have a name on a map so that Egll
can identify the location.
Mr. Bowerman said it is possible for the residents to terminate the road
at mid-point themselves to prevent through traffic. This is not a public
and the residents have a right to do that.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
(The resolution adopted by the Board is set out below.)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the portion of private road extending from Route 844
(Panorama Road)/Route 743 to Route 643, be named Millers Cottage Lane.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Route 29 North: Discussion of Rehearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff is working on refining the statement to be pre-
sented to the Commonwealth Transportation Board next week. He said the Board
of Supervisors is tentatively scheduled for presentation at 10:00 A.M. on
February 21, and that schedule is to be confirmed today. He understands that
the Board is to be heard first on'the agenda that day.
Mr. Bowie said he received a phone call Friday, February 8, at his home
from Mr. Jack Hodge of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Hodge asked
about the Board's response to VDoT's request for new information related to
the hearing before the Commonwealth Transportation Board. According to a
letter to the Board of Supervisors from Secretary of Transportation, John
Milliken, new information was to be submitted 30 days before the hearing. Mr.
Bowie informed Mr. Hodge that the Board will make its presentation on February
21. Mr. Bowie said on Monday, February 18, he received a call from Commis-
sioner Ray Pethtel with a similar conversation. Mr. Pethtel also said that
there is a possibility that a decision of whether or not to grant the rehear-
ing will be made at the meeting on February 21. Mr. Bowie said the Board of
Supervisors was told previously that the decision would be made at the Common-
wealth Transportation Board's meeting in March. Mr. Pethtel noted that the
Board of Supervisors made no response to the difference in legal opinion on
whether the rehearing is a matter of right. Mr. Pethtel said that the presen-
tation should definitely contain the Board's feeling on that issue.
Mr. Bowie said he feels that the Board should decide in advance of the
meeting who will make the presentation and what will be said. His opinion is
that the presentation should be available to the Board of Supervisors to
review by Monday, February 18.
Mrs. Humphris said there is a rumor that a member of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has been soliciting the Charlottesville City Council to
actively oppose the Board's request for a rehearing. She emphasized that this
is rumor only, but stated that she will be extremely disappointed if this
turns out to be a fact. Mrs. Humphris feels that the Board has a right to a
rehearing under the law and questions the ethics of any member of the Trans-
portation Board who actively solicits opposition to the Board's request. Mrs.
Humphris feels that the people of Albemarle are the ones directly affected by
the resolution of November 15 of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, yet
the Commonwealth Transportation Board has solicited nothing from the Board of
Supervisors.
Mrs. Humphris said she had met with a group of attorneys in Richmond who
are in a position to give meaningful advi~e about the Board's presentation on
February 21. It was the advice of these attorneys that the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors introduce the County Attorney who would then make the
presentation. A number of the members of the Transportation Board are attor-
neys and will likely respond to a presentation by one of their own profession.
Mr. Bowie said that advice runs counter to previous advice given to the
Board of Supervisors that it is important that an elected official make the
presentation.
Mr. Bain said the presentation is about a legal position, that is,
whether the Board has a right to a rehearing. He feels the County Attorney
should address that issue. The presentation is a logical progression of the
rationale for a rehearing, and he feels it is appropriate that the County
Attorney make that presentation. If a rehearing is granted, then a more
detailed presentation can be made by several members of the Board of Supervi-
sors. The Board will be represented by the Chairman making the introduction
and by as many Board members present as possible. The Board will be speaking
about a legal matter through its attorney, and he feels that is a good ap-
proach. He said Board members have not made a presentation to the Transporta-
tion Board before. If lawyers who regularly represent clients before the
Transportation Board give this advice, he is inclined to listen.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 58
(Page 11)
Mrs. Humphris said she talked with Robert Patterson, Bill Broadus and
Carter Younger from McGuire, Woods, Battle and Booth. She said these men have
had experience in the kind of presentation the Board is planning to make and
they know whereof they speak. She feels that the Board should follow their
advice.
Mr. St. John said if he is going to make the presentation, he wants to
know now so that he can prepare.
Mrs. Humphris said when she saw the draft proposed by Mr. St. John, she
could picture him making the presentation. The wording and emotions reflect
Mr. St. John and she feels that no one else can take his .place and make the
presentation as well. She feels that it would sound phoney for someone else
to use Mr. St. John's expressions. She feels that his work on the draft is
exceptional and that the Board is fortunate to have the feeling in the docu-
ment that only Mr. St. John can give.
Mr. Perkins said he agrees, but feels that the presentation could be
broken into two parts. Possibly Mr. St. John could address the legalities
Mr. Bowerman can make a statement as well since he has been involved with the
issue as long as any Board member.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not feel that the document can be broken into
two parts. It is essentially all of a piece containing a line of thought with
a logical progression to the conclusion. She feels that it is a one man job
and that Mr. St. John is the appropriate person.
Mr. Bain said the first goal is to get a public hearing granted. If that
is granted, then several people can address various issues. He sees a dis-
tinction between the appeal to obtain a hearing and the actual hearing. This
appeal is to be concise, while the hearing can be more detailed and can come
from individual Board members.
Mr. Bowie said he personally feels that a member of the Board should
Board presentations. He agrees that this is not the rehearing but is a
request to be allowed to make a presentation. He feels there is an advantage
to having someone who has been involved in the Route 29 issue throughout its
history. He said Mr. Bowerman was on the Planning Commission when the CATS
plan originated. Mr. Bowie noted the he was elected to the Board before the
first Route 29 By-pass committee was formed. However, he has heard Mr. St.
John in court and knows that he is a dynamic speaker.
Mr. Bowerman said he is flattered by Mr. Perkin's statement, but feels
that Mr. St. John is the logical choice to make the case that the Board
deserves a hearing. He agrees that Board members should participate in a
presentation if the hearing is granted.
Mr. Bowie said the consensus of the Board is that Mr. St. John will make
the presentation on February 21. He noted that due to an urgent family
matter, he cannot be present on February 21. The Vice Chairman of the Board,
Mr. Perkins, will introduce the County Attorney. He said he hopes that the
rest of the Board can be present and possibly the Director of Planning as well
in case there are questions. Mr. Bain added that Mr. Tucker has had a lot of
experience on this issue as well.
Mr. St. John asked that staff ascertain the exact location of the hear-
ing, other items on the agenda and what kind of environment in general there
will be.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Highway Matters: Other Highway Matters Not Listed
on the Agenda.
Mr. Roosevelt said if the Board is expecting the Transportation Board to
give an answer and the Board wants to have an answer at the February 21
meeting, the Transportation Board should have an opportunity to review the
Board's presentation in advance.
Mrs. Humphris said the Department of Transportation and the Commonwealth
Transportation Board have changed the rules on several occasions. The Board
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page
of Supervisors was told that the request for a rehearing would be heard on
February 21 and that a decision would be made at a later date. She feels that
the Board has a right to present its position at that meeting as scheduled,
present copies at that time, and allow them time to study and discuss the
matter before making a decision. She does not expect nor want them to make a
decision at that moment. She feels that a presentation ahead of time will not
work to the Board's advantage at all.
Mr. Roosevelt said his intention was to make this process as smooth as
possible for the Board and was under the impression that a decision on Febru-
ary 21 was desirable. If that is not the case, then he misunderstood and
there is no point to his suggestion.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Roosevelt is making this suggestion as a result
of input from the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Mr. Roosevelt said it
was his own thought based on his apparent misunderstanding that the Board of
Supervisors would prefer an immediate decision.
Mr. Bowie said there is no statement available at this point to submit
ahead of time. It is his personal opinion that if a decision is made on the
21st, it will indicate that the decision was already made in the minds of the
Transportation Board members. Mrs. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that logistically, there is not sufficient time to
send a statement ahead of time. Mr. St. John said that is important because
the Board does not want to give the impression that it is trying to spring
something on the Transportation Board.
Mr. Roosevelt pointed out that there is a difference in the way State and
County government works. At the County level, staff presents information
ahead of time and the Board generally makes its decision at the time of the
hearing. However, the Transportation Board meets once a month and information
is received from all portions of the State. He feels that it is only fair
that the people making the decision have as much information as possible prior
to the meeting. If, however, the Board is satisfied that the Transportation
Board should take whatever time is necessary to make a decision, then he
withdraws his suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels that the Transportation Board is composed of
responsible citizens of Virginia who have open minds. He feels that if
information is provided which gives them concern about their previous deci-
sion, due consideration will be given to the Board's request. It is
on the Board to provide information that will give rise to a review of their
past decisions. Mr. Bowie agreed and said that a decision against the Board
of Supervisors does not mean that the Commonwealth Transportation Board is
irresponsible. He said it is obvious from this discussion that the Board of
Supervisors is prepared to wait for a decision.
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 5.7, Mr. Perkins said he appreciates Mr.
Roosevelt's response in his letter dated January 14, 1991, but he has r
questions from constituents as to who paid for the traffic signal at the
Forest and Farmington Country Club intersection on Route 250 and how much it
cost. Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT paid for the light, but he cannot recall
the amount at this time. He said that information is available to the public
and he will find out. Mr. Perkins said the rumor is that it costs $400,000
because of the railroad crossing. Mr. Roosevelt said the cost was slightly
over $100,000 because of the railroad crossing. Normally, a traffic signal
light costs approximately $100,000.
Mr. Perkins asked if it is unusual for VDoT to purchase a traffic signal
light when the side streets are private roads as in this case. Mr. Roosevelt
said it is not unusual. He pointed out that the traffic signal at Shopper's
World was put in at the expense of VDoT. The same is true for the signal at
the entrance to Sperry Marine and the entrance to the Seminole Square
Center. Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT is attempting to put the burden for the
traffic signal on the private developer in more recent developments. Forest
Lakes is a current example.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
6O
Mr. Bain said he appreciates the response as well, but does not agree
with the results of the research. He intends to do some research on his own
regarding the accident rate at night when traffic signals are placed in a
flashing mode. He said he does not understand how there is a liability issue
for VDoT. It is a matter of a violation of the law to go through a flashing
red light without stopping. He still feels it would be appropriate to have a
flashing red light during certain hours.
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 5.6, Mr. Bain asked if the Route 742
project is the only one being delayed by the revenue shortfall. Mr. Roosevelt
said that is the only primary road project being delayed. Mr. Bain asked
about the Route 250 East project. Mr. Roosevelt said that project has been
advertised. He said the bidding period has been extended for two months
because of the revenue shortfall. However, Mr. Roosevelt feels that the delay
will work to the advantage of the project because it is such a complicated
project. He said he expects the project to begin in June or July.
Mr. Bowerman asked the process by which the speed limit on Old Brook Road
was raised from 25 miles per hour to 35 miles per hour. Mr. Roosevelt said
complaints from residents that the speed was artificially low initiated the
process. The traffic engineer reviewed the road td determine whether it
should be posted based on radar reading or based on it being a subdivision
street. Recognizing that Old Brook Road is a through road, the speed limit
was set based on radar readings, just as was done in the Northfields Subdivi-
sion running parallel to Old Brook Road. The radar readings at selected spots
on the road indicate that the limit should be 35 miles per hour.
Mr. Bowerman asked the Chief of Police, who was present in the audience,
if the police officers who are frequently om Old Brook Road issuing tickets
are there because of citizen complaints. Chief John Miller'responded that
these officers are present because of complaints from citizens.
Mr. Bowerman feels that Old Brook Road is totally different from
Northfields Road and Huntington Road. He said the homes on those two roads
are on large, two-acre lots with few homes. Old Brook Road serves about 200
homes and has a sidewalk which serves as a promenade in mornings, afternoons
and evenings. He said there are always a number of people walking down this
road. He said between 50 and 60 students get on and off the school bus along
that road. Mr. Bowerman feels that the efforts of the police department were
just beginning to have the effect of slowing drivers down. He said the speed
limit was 25 miles per hour because it is a subdivision street. Mr. Bowerman
said he is outraged that citizens feel that the speed limit is artificially
low and have caused the speed limit to be raised to 35 miles per hour. He
feels that having radar readings determine the appropriate speed limit is
changing the speed limit in a school zone because somebody wants to speed.
feels there are situations where the public health and safety override the
convenience of a few people who want to drive fast. Mr. Bowerman said he
travels Old Brook Road up to five times a day and feels that it is a menace
have a speed limit of 35 miles per hour because of the enormous number of
people this road serves. He said he will do everything in his power to see
that the speed limit goes back to 25 miles per hour.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the signs at the end of Old Brook Road change
speed limit back to 25 miles per hour because of a curve, and at one portion
in the center of Old Brook Road the speed limit is 30 miles per hour because
of the vertical curves.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
adopt a resolution requesting that the speed limit on Old Brook Road be
reduced to 25 miles per hour.
Mr. Bain said he agrees, but he feels that there should be consistency
the recommendation for other subdivisions, particularly in the urban area.
asked that staff determine the situation in other subdivisions.
Mr. Bowerman said there must be other criteria for establishing speed
limits besides the speed at which people are driving. In circumstances where
there are hundreds of people living along a one-mile stretch of road~ other
considerations have to be taken into account.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
61
Mr. Roosevelt said he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Bowerman's view.
He said the easiest thing for VDoT to do is to lower the speed limit to 25
miles per hour and let the police department try to enforce it. However, his
experience has been that people drive at comfortable speeds unless they are
afraid that the police are just over the hill. Through close enforcement the
speed can be held to 25 miles per hour. Mr..Roosevelt said his opinion is
that there are not enough officers available to hold traffic to the lower
speed. When people think the police are not there, they will drive 40 regard-
less of what the sign says. If the children and citizens think that a number
on the sign is going to protect them, they will be at risk on that road. Mr.
Roosevelt said he will take any resolution the Board adopts and discuss it
with the traffic engineer and the District Engineer and give a response.
However, his experience is that the numbers on the signs mean nothing unless
the drivers feel comfortable at that speed.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(The resolution is set out below.)
WHEREAS, 01d Brook Road is a residential street in Albemarle
County serving numerous homes and students; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalks are heavily used by pedestrians at all
hours; and
WHEREAS, a speed limit of 35 miles per hour endangers the health,
safety and welfare of residents of Old Brook Road; and
WHFJlEAS, the health, safety and welfare of its citizens is an
overriding concern to the Board of Supervisors;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County does hereby request the Virginia Department of
Transportation to reduce the speed limit on Old Brook Road to its
original 25 miles per hour limit.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the completion date for the Barracks Road and
Georgetown Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said he is hopeful that the contracto
is within a day or two of completion. He said the temperature at this time
year often causes delays, as has been the case in the past few days. Mr.
Roosevelt noted that it is to the advantage of the contractor to finish this
project as quickly as possible because the project is already past schedule.
Agenda Item No. 16. Pilot Police Satellite Station, Approval of.
Mr. Tucker said the owners of Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall have
made available an area of approximately 325 square feet for use by the Police
Department as a pilot police substation. He said this location will provide
more convenient location for squad meetings, report preparation and other
for officers patrolling in the northern area of the County. This will also
aid in improving the response time for police emergency calls. Mr. Tucker
said the space is rent free with the understanding that arrangements can be
terminated by either party when notice is given. He said the County applauds
the offer and appreciates the gesture of cooperative service between the
private and public sectors. The County Attorney has reviewed the agreement,
and authorization to accept the offer is requested. Mr. Tucker then intro-
duced Ms. Karen Tarantino, General Manager of Fashion Square Mall.
Ms. Tarantino said Fashion Square Mall has gone through some structural
changes which resulted in 325 square feet of office space becoming available.
She said it seemed appropriate to her and to Chief Miller that this space be
used for the pilot substation.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
62
Mr. John Miller, Chief of Police, said the Police Department is pleased
with the offer. He said he is concerned about the amount of time police
officers have to spend coming into the County Office Building. This space
will provide the opportunity for officers to remain visible in the sector to
which officers are assigned.
Mr. Bowie agreed that this is an excellent offer of public and private
cooperation. He expressed his personal appreciation for Fashion Square Mall's
spirit of public service.
Chief Miller emphasized that this satellite facility is strictly a site
for officers to prepare reports, etc. The facility will not be manned and
roll call will continue to occur at the County Office Building.
Mr. Perkins asked for clarification regarding response time for police
calls. He noted that an earlier speaker referred to a ten-minute response
time. Chief Miller said the ten-minute response time always refers to emer-
gency calls only.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to accept
the offer in a letter of agreement dated December 31, 1990, of 325 square feet
of space at Fashion Square Mall to be used as a police satellite substation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(The letter of agreement is set out in full below.)
December 31, 1990
John F. Miller
Chief of Police
County of Albemarle Police Department
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
RE:
Charlottesville Fashion Square - Police Substation
Dear Chief Miller:
It is with pleasure that the owners of Charlottesville Fashion
Square, CFS Associates Limited Partnership, make available to you and
your Department Space D-19 in the mall consisting of 325 square feet
for the purpose of a satellite police facility for your police force,
the main purpose of which will provide a location for your officers to
complete paperwork and otherwise engage in normal and usual adminis-
trative activities.
This space is being made available to you rent free, but with the
understanding that at any time either CFS Associates Limited Partner-
ship or you can by notice to the other at your address stated above or
to the owner of the shopping center at the shopping center office,
respectively, terminate this arrangement with no continuing obliga-
tions to the other.
We understand that any of your equipment that you bring in to the
facility remains your equipment and will be taken away by you at the
end of this arrangement.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
63
Should you have any questions about the above do not hesitate to
contact us. Otherwise, we request that you execute the enclosed
carbon copy of this letter as indicated below to indicate your concur-
rence to the above stated arrangements.
Very truly yours,
CFS ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
a Virginia Limited Partnership
By: Leonard L. Farber Incorporated,
a Florida corporation,
Managing Agent for
CFS Associates Limited Partnership
SEEN and AGREED to this
By:
Felicia Gervais, Vice President
day of December, 1990.
By:
John J. Miller, Chief of Police
County of Albemarle
Police Department
The Board recessed at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened at 10:42 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 9. Reconsideration of Resolution of Intent for a Rural
Areas Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA-90-13).
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board adopted on September 12, 1990, a Resolution
of Intent to amend Section 10.3 and 10.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to bring
this section into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to
rural and agricultural uses. Since that time, the Planning Commission has
recommended ordinance amendments to the Board of Supervisors, which were
returned to the Commission for consideration after alternative amendments were
proposed by the Piedmont Environmental Council. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has
had difficulty in forming appropriate language to address the intent of the
resolution. Meanwhile, the Board of Zoning Appeals overruled the Zoning
Administrator's determination regarding Blandemar Farm. The County Attorney
has indicated in a letter dated January 17, 1991, regarding agricultural
preservation, that he believes the revised guidelines used by the Zoning
Administrator in determining parcels of record will address the Board's intent
better than any proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Those guidelines
are set out in a memorandum dated February 7, 1991, from the Zoning Adminis-
trator to the Director of Planning and Community Development.
"You have asked that I address any change in the methodology utilized
for such determinations that has occurred since the Board's resolution
of intent for this text amendment. This methodology has been amended
to incorporate the findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals in the
Blandemar appeal, in which my determination of multiple parcels was
reversed. I think it is appropriate to state that in general based on
this precedence, the number of cases in which there are determined to
be multiple parcels will be decreased.
The primary change is in the prevailing weight of the descriptive
terms of the deed as evidence of the owner's treatment of the property
as one or several parcels. This language of the deed supersedes plat
descriptions or references to predecessor deeds. While I have not
conducted a study of the actual numbers, I would expect future deter-
minations under these guidelines to find fewer cases of multiple
parcels due to the narrowing of these guidelines.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
The Board of Zoning Appeals discussed the Inglecress case and a
Virginia Supreme Court case in their deliberations. They recognized
the lack of clarity in the Zoning Ordinance as to what is considered a
parcel. They did use the definition of 'lot of record' in relying on
the deeds and plats of record in the Clerk's Office. The point at
which I erred in review of these documents was in not applying the
findings of the Supreme Court case, Faison v. Union Camp, 224 Va 54.
This case considered the intentions of the owners in signing deeds,
more particularly evidenced in the language of the deed's descriptive
clauses and reference to predecessor deeds.
The descriptive clause within the Blandemar deed states, 'all that
certain tract of land .... ' with reference to predecessor deeds for all
of the portions which constitute the property. In my determination, I
did not interpret this phrase evidence of the owner's intent to treat
the property as one parcel. I instead considered the composite plat
as significant in its treatment of the property as individual parcels.
This plat which showed the internal property lines of nine individual
parcels does not take precedence over the language of the deed refer-
ring to one tract.
In conclusion, the records filed at the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court still prevail over the tax maps in these determinations.
However, the records are interpreted more restrictively in accordance
with the Faison case. In addition to these records, unity of use,
unity of ownership and physical unity are considered. Unity of use
includes how the property is treated by the owner in application for
land use and the like. Unity of the ownership and physical unity are
guidelines derived from the Inglecress case (Ann H. Sanford v. B.Z.A.
of Albemarle County VA). In his findings, Judge Pickford applied City
of Winston Salem v. Tickle as a precedent. These cases consider
property separated by public rights-of-way to be separate parcels.
This principle would extend to include any fee-simple ownership by any
public or private entity. It would not be extended to consider
separation by private easements or physical features. In addition, in
the Inglecress case, a will severed common ownership of the property
by disposition of the two parcels to two different parties.
There has been some confusion as to how far back in history the
separate parcels may be traced. I do not apply the reasoning 'once a
parcel, always a parcel.' The records through history to December 10,
1980, would have to reflect these parcels as separate within the
descriptive terms of the deed itself and not simply by reference to
predecessor deeds or plats.
I also think it worth clarifying that I have not substituted a new
process for determining development rights for one which relied solely
upon the tax maps. The Planning and County Attorney staff will attest
to the fact that the tax maps have never been used exclusively for
these determinations, and that the record at the Clerk's Office has
been the prevailing factor.
I stand ready to administer whatever ordinance the Board chooses to
adopt. In the event that the ordinance is not changed, I intend to
establish the guidelines outlined herein for the official ruling file
for Office of the Zoning Administrator."
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that no further action be taken on
ZTA-90-13, based on the County Attorney's advice, and recommends that the
Zoning Administrator's guidelines for interpreting parcels of record be used
instead. If the Board feels that development activity is too great in the
rural areas, staff recommends that ~econsideration be given to the number of
development rights and the minimum size of residue lots established in the
Comprehensive Plan, rather than making changes in the text of the Zoning
Ordinance at this time.
Mr. St. John said in his letter dated January 17, 1991, he offered three
alternatives in drafting amendments to clarify the original intent of the
Zoning Ordinance in 1980:
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
65
Ila.
A clarifying amendment confirming Amelia's (Patterson) approach,
under which in essence an owner would be entitled to claim multiple
parcels if a presently unified piece of land had ever consisted of
multiple parcels as shown in the deed books.
An amendment which would confirm my original opinion, namely, that
you look to the records to see if there is language combining
parcels which had formerly been separate and multiple, which is what
I found had taken place at Blandemar.
Co
An amendment which would eliminate the use of 'parcels of record'
altogether, and in essence say that no matter how many parcels
exist, where contiguous parcels are under common ownership, that
owner would only get one set of development rights for the entire
group of parcels."
Mr. St. John said he believes that Alternative b. would reinstate what
was intended all along as the proper interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
This alternative has the advantage of coinciding with the common law interpre-
tation of the term "parcel of record" as defined by courts in Virginia.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board would be aware if there is too much
development activity taking place in the rural areas. Mr. Bain asked a
follow-up question as to how many determinations by the Zoning Administrator
have occurred since the Blandemar case and the results of the determinations.
Mrs. Patterson said there have been two reviews for determination of
development rights since the Blandemar case. In both instances, Mrs.
Patterson said she determined there to be one parcel.
Mr. Tucker said the impact of development on the goal of the Comprehen-
sive Plan of preserving the Rural Area is obtained through the quarterly
Building Activity Report. Mrs. Humphris said she is interested in the connec-
tion between the parcel number determination and the impact on the develop-
ment.
Mr. St. John said staff can develop a vehicle for keeping the Board
informed of development right determinations and the impact on the rural
areas. Mr. Tucker said the Zoning Administrator can submit a copy of each
ruling to interested Board members in the event that a Board member wants to
appeal a ruling. He suggested that a report of the impact of rulings by the
Zoning Administrator be forwarded to Board members on a quarterly basis.
Mr. Bowie said the consensus of the Board is that it be informed of
determinations that change the development activity in the Rural Areas over
what is currently anticipated.
Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator should send a copy of every
ruling about the number of development rights to Board members and to the
Planning Office so that appeals can be made by Board members if a member feels
it is appropriate.
Mr. Bowie said he does not want to increase the amount of paper being
sent to Board members. He feels that interested Board members can request
copies of the Zoning Administrator's rulings. Mrs. Humphris said she wants to
receive a copy of all rulings by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Bain said he
would still like a periodic staff report regarding the results of these
rulings.
Mrs. Yates Garnett, a property owner in the Jack Jouett District, asked
how the Zoning Administrator currently determines what a parcel is. Mrs.
Patterson said she asks the applicant to submit information of record at the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court at the date of adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance. She said that is the deed and any accompanying plat. Mrs.
Patterson said she pays particular attention to the descriptive clause of the
deed and the language in the attached plat. She said if there is a public
right-of-way which physically separates the property so that ownership is not
contiguous, that is a factor. Unity of use, unity of ownership and how the
owners treated the property are other factors considered.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mrs. Garnett said she presently has what she believes to be four parcels.
She said her 400 acres have been put together from many parcels since 1840.
She has tried for the past year to determine the origin of each parcel and it
is very difficult to do. At present, she believes she has 20 development
rights. She is opposed to anything that takes away what property owners
believe they have had for the last ten years. She and her husband no longer
are able to farm the land and have sold some land on both sides of her proper-
ty. She said it now seems possible that all of the development rights on her
property have been used. Mrs. Garnett said the land is all that she and her
husband have to live on for the rest of their lives. If they cannot sell the
land, they will soon be on welfare. She said the average farmer puts his
savings into his land. Therefore, she is absolutely opposed to any change
which would take away the rights of property owners at the time the Zoning
Ordinance was adopted. She feels that would be a breach of faith with a
number of property owners in Albemarle County.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, representative of Piedmont Environmental
Council, said he feels that the solution of returning to Alternative b.
recommended by Mr. St. John makes sense. He said the issue of development
rights is an emotional one and is complicated and difficult to determine. He
said there are a number of people in the County who are taking advantage of
the development right provision of the Zoning Ordinance. He said development
rights were created to allow farmers who had a bad year to sell some of their
land without selling everything and to allow them to locate their families on
these parcels. He said this provision has become a development vehicle
instead, and he does not think that was the intent of the Board when this
ordinance was adopted. He is happy with the solution proposed.
Mr. Fred Payne said he is not speaking to this item as a representative
of a client, although he has clients who would be affected by an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance. He totally supports Mr. Cilimberg's statements and Mr.
St. John's recommendation. In the interest of people like Mrs. Garnett, he
feels this is a serious fairness issue. He believes that staff's position is
fair and is supported by history and logic. Mr. Payne added that he feels
that Mrs. Patterson is an asset to the County and is the best qualified persor
to make the development right determinations because she is respected through-
out the County.
Mr. Bowie said he also supports the recommendation of staff to withdraw
the resolution of intent.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
withdraw ZTA-90-13. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: SP-89-08. Hollymead Racquet and
Fitness Club (Phil Rogers). Request to consider extension of approval time.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: This parcel is presently vacant. It is
surrounded by P.U.D. zoning. Adjacent to the east are developed
residences including single-family detached dwellings on White Oak
Place. Dedicated open space (vacant) is adjacent to the north and an
undeveloped commercial lot is adjacent to the west. The property
slopes moderately to severely down from the road in front, to the rear
of the lot. With the exception of the adjacent dwelling on Hollymead
Drive which is located on the same level, this property lies signifi-
cantly above the nearby residential lots and open space.
The Board of Supervisors approved the initial request at its April 5,
1989, meeting. That approval will expire on April 5, 1991. The
applicant is requesting that the special use permit approval be
extended through July, 1991. Pursuant to Section 31.2.4.4 the 'Board
of Supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose such alterna-
tive time limits as may be reasonable in a particular case.'
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 67
(Page 20)
Staff has been unable to identify any changes in circumstance which
warrants disapproval of this extension request. Staff would note that
during the original review of the special use permit one letter of
objection was received (copy on file.) The applicant's extension
request also contains a request for administrative approval of the
site plan. This was granted in the initial special use permit and the
site plan was approved on October 12, 1989. That approval has ex-
pired. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to extend this request,
no separate action is needed to address administrative approval of the
site plan.
Staff recommends approval of the extension request for SP-89-08
subject to the original conditions and the addition of condition 8.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Waiver of Section 32.7.6.1 is granted for the barn area; compli-
ance with BOCA code is required with the following stipulations:
(1) Fire Official approval of any change in use in accordance
with ISO standards; (2) No seating in the tennis barn; and (3)
No fixsd mechanical equipment other than lighting in the tennis
barn;
Planning staff approval of lighting plan, to include none or
minimal spill over onto residential properties;
Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include a double
staggered row of evergreen trees directly beside the building
where it is visible from residential properties, with one row of
trees to be a minimum of eight feet in height;
Building site area shall be limited to 23,700 square feet;
building height shall not exceed 40 feet at the peak;
5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.;
Administrative approval of the site plan and subdivision plat.
The plan shall be revised to delete the six easternmost parking
spaces;
Staff approval of the exterior finish of the building for compat-
ibility with the area;
8. Approval of this permit shall expire on June 13, 1992."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the original site plan has expired and the
development will be subject to refiling of a site plan under the above condi-
tions of approval.
The public hearing was opened and the applicant had nothing further to
add to the staff report.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman noted that although he is in the fitness equipment business
the applicant is not a client, and he feels that there is no conflict of
interest by his participation in this discussion.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
SP-89-08 to June 13, 1992, subject to the conditions set out in the staff
report. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 68
(Page 21)
Agenda Item No. 8. Recreational Facilities Authority - To discuss taking
of easements.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Public Recreational Facilities Authority asks if
the Board objects to the Authority accepting a donated easement, not as part
of a rural preservation development. The Authority feels that they have the
authority under the Code of Virginia, but is asking if the Board objects in
the event such an offer is ever made.
Mr. Bain asked staff to review the County Code to see if there is a
limitation related to accepting rural preservation easements. If an amendment
is necessary, that can be done at a later date.
Mr. St. John pointed out that preservation easements run to the County
and the Authority. However, Mr. Lindstrom is referring to an easement donated
to the Authority because there is no development involved.
Mr. Bowie asked that staff report at the next day meeting whether or not
an amendment would be necessary in the ordinance creating the Authority.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to authorize
the Public Recreational Facilities Authority to accept private, permanent
conservation easements under the Virginia Open Space Act, noting that the
Articles of Incorporation may require an amendment. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority
Service Areas to provide public water service to Watterson Farms Subdivision.
Mr. Bowie said the applicant has requested a deferral to March 13, 1991.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman
to defer this item as requested. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request to amend Albemarle County Service Authority
Service Areas to provide public water and sewer service to The Covenant Church
of God property on Route 643 (Tax map 46, parcel 22).
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:28 A.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"In June, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-35, Covenant
Church of God, to allow construction of an 800 seat church on this
property. At this time, the Board is being requested to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area to allow public water
and sewer service to this site without restriction.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: As was noted in the special use permit report,
this site is in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comprehensive
Plan. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan
is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and
under what circumstances public utilities should be made available.
This request is inconsistent with both the objective and applicable
strategies of the Comprehensive Plan. There are no identified quality
or quantity problems with water on this property that staff is aware
of. Further, the Comprehensive Plan warns that 'such utilities are
not to be extended to the Rural Areas as these services can increase
!
development pressures
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 69
(Page 22)
In the special use permit report, staff suggested that this project
was of an urban scale and orientation and would be more appropriately
located in a designated growth area. Currently, the Board is being
requested to provide urban utilities to the site. It should be noted
that the applicant has stated that 'approval of this petition would
also preserve acreage for much more practical uses than drainfield' as
well as their position that 'the governmental disposition towards this
parcel is commercial'. Should the Board provide this site with public
utilities, it could enhance argument for further development in the
future.
RECOMMENDATION: This request is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan
objective and applicable strategies for provision of public water and
sewer service. Public utility capacities should be reserved to
support development of designated growth areas. Allowance for water
and/or sewer services to this property would be inconsistent with past
actions by the Board to limit utility service outside the designated
growth areas. Staff recommends that public water and sewer service
not be made available to this property.
Should the Board choose to approve the applicant's request, service
should be limited to the 10.3 acres to be occupied by the church and
further limited to only the church building as approved under
SP-90-35, Covenant Church of God."
Mr. Harold Bare, Pastor, said he is asking to pay for the installation of
water and sewer. He feels that the decision today is not whether to grant the
connection, but whether to allow a public hearing. The process of County
government allows an applicant the right to make this request and to repeat
this request in the future. Further, any other property owner in the communi-
ty has the right to make a similar request. Refusal to set a public hearing
seems to deny the fact that the parcel is being taxed as nonfarm land. He
said over eight acres of this property is being taxed at the selling price.
This means that two acres are being taxed for the use of an eventual septic
system and a reserve area. The land south of the church property is also
being taxed at a comparable rate, and that land cannot be supported by a farm.
He feels that in time this parcel of land will likely be developed to some
extent. The question is not of farming use versus development. The question
is whether or not the area is rural or commercial. Reverend Bare said he is
not prepared today to address the questions of erosion and public health
because he has not enlisted engineers to study the impact on the Rivanna River
of development allowed under current zoning. He pointed out that in the
mid-1970's the decision was made by County planners that growth should follow
the water and sewer lines. The sewer is adjacent to this property and the
church has easement rights. Reverend Bare said a negative decision could
potentially mean a cost of thousands of dollars and use of numerous acres for
a waste system. In addition, should a waste system fail, there would be a
wholesale petition for connection to public sewer on an emergency basis. He
noted that Forest Lakes is developing south of this property following the
sewer line and potentially stopping across the road from this property.
Recently the Board denied a request for commercial development on an adjacent
tract of land because of the alignment of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Apparent-
ly, the Board believes that construction of the road is imminent and practi-
cal. The question arises as to whether a farm is practical beside the Meadow
Creek Parkway. Reverend Bare said he only learned today that the Planning
staff recommended denial of his request. He feels that there is some inequity
in a process in which taxpayers have a major decision made without the benefit
of knowing why. He feels that this is not a good system and that an applicant
should have the right to respond to the Planning staff's recommendation.
Reverend Bare said he also feels uncomfortable with staff's reference to the
previous application for a special use permit. He feels that the request
today should stand on its own merit and has nothing to do with previous
decisions made by the Board. He concluded by asking the Board not to make a
decision today on whether to grant a connection to the public water and sewer,
but to set a public hearing to consider the facts. He feels that there has
not been enough information gathered by staff regarding erosion control and
engineering analyses to support a recommendation for denial.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 70
(Page 23)
Mr. Bowie said according to the staff report, the applicant knew that
this area was not in the service area for water and sewer when the special use
permit application was made.
Mrs. Humphris said it is clearly an objective of Albemarle County to
limit growth in rural areas. The special permit provision is designed to
allow a particular kind of growth in the rural area. If an applicant chooses
to develop in the rural area, there are clearly certain factors the applicant
is aware of, such as whether or not the property is within the service area.
The Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in stating where public
utilities are to be made available. Exceptions are allowed where two condi-
tions exist. The property has to be adjacent to existing utilities or public
health and safety is endangered. Mrs. Humphris agrees with staff's report
that the request does not comply with the objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan. She cannot see any basis on which to approve the request to amend the
service area.
Mr. Bain said he concurs wholeheartedly, but the question today is
whether to set a public hearing. He recognizes that this parcel is between
two jurisdictional areas and there are other properties in the County in the
same situation. He said the Comprehensive Plan was carefully reviewed by the
Board in terms of growth and providing public utilities. He is not inclined
to now start making exceptions.
(Mr. St. John returned at 11:45 A.M.)
Mr. St. John suggested that it is unwise to take no action on a matter
before the Board. In order to make it clear what the Board intends in a given
case, he feels that a motion is appropriate. He suggests this as a general
practice for the Board, although there may be instances where the Board does
not wish to go on record.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels strongly that this request is not in compli-
ance with the Comprehensive Plan and offered a motion to deny a request for a
public hearing to consider amending the Albemarle County Service Authority
service areas to provide public water and sewer to the Covenant Church of God,
property Tax map 46, parcel 22. Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he will not support the motion. When the request for a
special use permit was approved for this applicant, Mr. Bowerman was aware
that the-property is in a rural area and that the service area was adjacent to
this property. Mr. Bowerman said he personally felt at that time that the use
requested at that location would not be inappropriate. He noted that the
Board has denied public utilities to applicants in the rural areas in the
watershed. This property is not in the watershed, and he feels that a public
hearing is warranted to discuss the merits of the request. He does not know
whether he would support this request after a public hearing, but feels that
it warrants a review at least.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bowerman.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 13. Policy Governing Regional Stormwater Management
Facilities, Approval of.
Mr. Tucker said the Board previously asked staff to develop a methodolog]
for obtaining fees for development of land within the drainage basin of a
regional stormwater management facility. He said such a policy has been
developed by the Engineering Department in consultation with the County
Attorney, the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, the Department of Finance
and the Watershed Management Official. The initial use of the policy will be
for the Lickinghole Creek Regional Sedimentation Basin, which is currently
under design. As development occurs in the drainage basin, fees based on the
amount of impervious cover from the development will be submitted to the
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 7iL
(Page 24)
County to defray the cost of construction of the sedimentation basin. Staff
requests approval of the policy.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that in situations where there are no firm costs
available for development, there are alternatives available to developers set
out in this policy as well.
Mrs. Humphris referred to Page 3, Items 2 and 3, and the statement that
developers shall not be required to maintain the bond for a period to exceed
ten years. She asked if that means that the developer is relieved of any
future responsibility for participation.
Mr. Moring said if there is no limit on how long the County will hold a
bond, the County would be leaving someone "dangling". He feels that it is
fair to include a time limit. Mr. Tucker said it is expected that the County
will have made a decision to proceed with the basin within ten years.
Mr. Moring said he has not received any strong objections to the ten year
limit.
Mr. Perkins asked if this policy applies to a landowner who has one lot
and builds one house on it. Mr. Moring said application for a building permit
within one of the affected areas requires a fee based on the amount of imper-
vious area created by the building permit. The policy is structured so that
the developer pays a fee based on the impervious area created by road con-
struction and pavement, etc.
Mr. Bain asked if in a ten-lot subdivision the developer is paying only
for his improvements, but not on the single-family unit. The builder who buys
a lot from the developer would then pay on the individual lots. Mr. Moring
said that is correct. Mr. Bain asked if the policy is applicable to a prop-
erty owner who has three acres in a drainage basin who wants to build a house.
Mr. Moring said that is correct. He said individual houses are separated from
the development because it is difficult to project what the impervious area on
a lot will be. It is simpler to pay per square foot of impervious area
constructed.
Mr. Perkins asked if this policy applies to drainage areas outside the
growth area. Mr. Moring said the policy is based on the proposed zoning in
the Comprehensive Plan and does not apply outside the growth area.
Mr. St. John noted that the policy is based on the Virginia State Code.
Mr. Bain asked if this policy is to be part of an ordinance, or does it
come under the Stormwater Management ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said this
policy results from the amended Run-off Control Ordinance adopted last year.
Mr. Tucker said this is a County-wide policy and any amendment to the
policy would have to come before the Board for approval.
Mr. Bain asked if the Blue Ridge Home Builders were a part of the t
of developing this policy. Mr. Moring said he did not have a meeting with the
Blue Ridge Home Builders, but copies were distributed to them. He has dis-
cussed the policy with a number of these builders. Mr. Moring said he re-
ceived no specific objections to this policy. In his opinion, there is
opposition to the concept of drainage basins, but not particularly to this
administrative policy.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
approve the Policy Governing Calculation and Collection of Fees for Develop-
ment of Land that lies in the Drainage Basin of Regional Stormwater Management
Facilities.
Mr. St. John noted that a policy does not have the force of law, but is a
set of administrative guidelines under which a department of the County
performs its functions.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
72
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(The policy is set out in full below.)
POLICY GOVERNING CALCULATION AND COLLECTION OF FEES
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LAND THAT LIES IN THE DRAINAGE BASIN
OF REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
When the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors determines that
the public interest is best served by a regional stormwater management
facility (for runoff control or stormwater detention), and appropri-
ates public funds for the construction of the facility with the
express understanding that a fee will be assessed for the development
of land within the drainage basin of the facility, the fee will be set
such that the total of all fees collected will reimburse the County of
Albemarle for the total cost of the regional facility.* Total cost is
hereby defined as the sum of: 1) construction costs; 2) design costs;
3) land acquisition costs (including legal costs); 4) construction
management and inspection fees; and 5) cost of County staff time.
When the total cost of the facility is available, the potential
maximum impervious coverage using the most recent Comprehensive Plan
land use designations will be calculated. The calculation of the
total maximum impervious coverage within the drainage basin shall be
based on the following averages obtained from "Guidebook for Screening
Urban Non-Point Pollution Management Strategies (Metropolitan Washing-
ton, COG, November 1979)":
Development
Impervious Coverage
Low Density Residential
(Average 2.5 dwelling units per acre)
5000 square feet per acre
Medium Density Residential
(Average 7.5 dwelling units per acre)
15,000 square feet per acre
Commercial
40,000 square feet per acre
Industrial
25,000 square feet per acre
When the maximum impervious coverage estimate for the drainage
basin is calculated, the total cost of the required facility will be
divided by the total square footage of impervious cover created by new
development. This calculation will yield a charge in dollars per
square foot of impervious cover for each development project within
the drainage basin. This calculation will be done by the Albemarle
County Department of Engineering. Development fee calculations will
be done by the applicant or his designer, Subject to Albemarle County
Department of Engineering approval. Documentation must be supplied
for review.
Following project submittal for review and approval, the develop-
ment fee must be paid before any permits will be issued for land
disturbing activities. For example:
When a developer proposes a subdivision within a designated
watershed, the applicant or his designer will calculate the total
impervious square footage as shown on the final development plans
resulting from the paving of streets, roads, driveways, paved
ditches, parking areas, recreation areas, etc. The development
fee for this project will be calculated by multiplying the total
square footage of impervious area on the project times the
calculated charge per square foot. No permits will be issued
until the fee has been paid.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
When a builder applies for a building permit for any lot in a
designated watershed, the builder will calculate the development
fee for the project by totaling the impervious coverage resulting
from all construction on the lot. Impervious coverage may be
generated by roof, slab, driveways, etc. All driveways will be
assumed to be paved and therefore impervious. The development
fee for this project will then be calculated by multiplying the
total square footage of impervious cover times the per square
foot charge. No building permit will be issued until the fee has
been paid.
When a developer proposes construction per a site development
plan in a designated watershed, the applicant or his designer
will calculate the required development fee. This fee will be
calculated by summarizing the total impervious coverage on the
project due to areas under roof, parking areas, sidewalks, slabs,
streets and roads, paved ditches, curb and gutter, recreational
areas, etc. This total square footagewill then be multiplied
times the charge per square foot to obtain the development fee.
No building permits or land disturbing activity permits will be
issued until the fee has been paid. The provisions of this
paragraph (#3) are applicable to condominium and/or townhouse
projects.
Under normal circumstances no building permit or land disturbing
permit will be issued until all fees have been paid. However, it is
recognized that there will likely be instances where developments are
proposed and the owner will wish to proceed prior to the construction
or perhaps even the design of a regional facility. In such an in-
stance where the regional facility has been designated by the Board of
Supervisors but firm cost data is not available, the following options
are available to developers who wish to proceed prior to the construc-
tion of the regional facility.
The developer may contact the County Department of Engineering
who will provide the best available estimate of total project
cost (generally from the County's Capital Improvement Program).
This estimate will be used by the designer with approved project
plans to calculate a development fee for the project. The
developer may then make a cash contribution to the County in the
amount of the approved development fee based on the best avail-
able estimate. This cash contribution will be deposited into a
separate interest bearing account that will be used only to
offset construction costs for the designated project. All
interest earned on this contribution will also be used to offset
project cost. If for any reason the project is not initiated,
funds will remain in the interest bearing account for a period of
ten years or until the project is abandoned. At the end of this
ten year period or upon abandonment, all funds and interest will
be returned to the developer making the initial fee payment.
The developer may provide the County with a letter stating that
he is knowledgeable of all conditions set forth in this policy
and agrees that the County may withhold occupancy permits on his
project until the development fee is paid in full. If for any
reason the County does not initiate construction of the facility
at such time as occupancy permits are required, the developer may
post a bond for payment of the development fee based on the best
estimate of the County Department of Engineering of the fee plus
a contingency. The developer will be liable for a development
fee based on the actual project cost, not the bonding estimate.
The developer shall not be required to maintain this bond for a
period to exceed ten years.
Any developer desiring to proceed with a project for which
approved plans are in hand may post a bond for the development
fee for stormwater management facilities. Bonding amount for
this fee will be based on the best estimate of the County Depart-
ment of Engineering of construction costs at the time the bond is
posted plus a contingency. However, the developer will be
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
74
required to pay a fee based on the actual project cost when firm
costs are available. The developer shall not be required to
maintain this bond for a period in excess of ten years.
Any questions concerning interpretation or administration of this
policy should be addressed to the Albemarle County Department of
Engineering at 804-296-5861. Bonds will be held and administered by
the Albemarle County Department of Zoning and any cash contributions
will be deposited and managed by the Albemarle County Department of
Finance.
* Code of Virginia - Title 15.1-466(j)
Agenda Item No. 14. Leaf Collection, Service District, Discussion of.
Mr. Tucker said the Board asked staff last year to review the provision
of leaf collection through a service district. The Code of Virginia was
amended by the General Assembly to allow counties to provide certain specified
services through service districts. These districts are geographically
defined areas where additional real estate property taxes may be levied by
ordinance in order to provide services which are not offered in other areas of
the county.
Mr. Tucker explained the process for creating a service district as
follows:
1. Delineation of the service area;
2. Determination of the costs of the service;
Compilation of the value of the taxable property base within the
delineated district;
Determination of the amount of the tax rate levy to be applied to
the taxable property for coverage of the service costs;
Drafting of an ordinance for creating the district and levying the
tax; and
6. Holding an advertised public hearing for adoption of the ordinance.
If the Board wishes to pursue this matter further, Mr. Tucker recommends
that staff work with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to provide a nonregu-
lated or composting disposal area for a leaf collection service. If a service
district is created, there will obviously be a need for a place of disposal.
A composting disposal area will avoid the disposal of leaves at the Ivy
Landfill. He said staff will need to do further work in locating a disposal
area and in determining whether the County wants to get into the business of
leaf collection.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority is making an
effort to prevent disposal of leaves and lawn waste from the Ivy Landfill.
Mr. Tucker said he knows of no specific method to do that. Currently, if
leaves come to the Landfill separate from other trash, they are disposed of in
an earth pile. However, there are occasions when leaves are bagged and
haulers are not aware of the contents.
Mrs. Humphris said possibly this service could evolve through the Rivanna
Solid Waste Authority efforts. Mr. Moring said since the Authority is just
getting started, this has not been addressed by them as yet.
Mr. Bain asked that staff keep abreast of the Rivanna Solid Waste Author-
ity's efforts in this area and let the Board know if action is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that leaves are actually a resource for homeown-
ers. He would like to see the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority consider this
issue because there should not be a problem with a natural substance that
degrades naturally. He feels that a public hearing needs to be held, howeve%,
before the County makes any decisions with regard to leaf collection.
No action was taken by the Board on this matter.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Agenda Item No. 17. Northside Library Lease Agreement, Approval of.
Mr. Tucker said that after many months of negotiations, the lease has
been signed by the owners of Albemarle Square Shopping Center to place a
branch library in the space currently occupied by Rite Aid Drug Store. The
faCility is 15,572 square feet and the lease is for ten years, subject to
annual appropriation for rent. The annual rent is $10.35 per square foot or
$13,430.85. The annual rent will increase for years two through five by four
percent each year. From years six through ten, the annual rent will be at the
Consumer Price Index rates, not to exceed an increase of six percent. Mr.
Tucker said an annual operating cost of $385,000 is projected for the facility
in the proposed 1991-92 budget.
Mr. Tucker said it is the intent of the Library to make the internal
improvements to the building this Spring, occupy the facility in July, 1991,
and open for services in September or October, 1991. He said a $600,000
appropriation in the existing Capital Improvements Program is for the "start-
up" of the facility which includes costs for carpeting, new lighting, HVAC
system, internal partitions, furniture and new books.
Staff recommends that authorization be given to the Chairman to execute
the lease on behalf of the County. (A copy of the lease is on file in the
Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Bain
to authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign a lease agreement dated the
31st day of January, 1991, by and between Rio Associates Limited Partnership
and the County of Albemarle, with the tenant being the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library, Northside Branch. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie said there has been a request for an Executive
Session to discuss applicants for the Whitewood Road Park Committee and to
discuss the pending case of Bargamin vs. Albemarle County.
At 12:16 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr.
Bain to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel
matters related to appointments to the Whitewood Road Park Committee under
Section 2.1-344.A.1., and for legal matters related to the pending case of
Bargamin vs. Albemarle County under Section 2.1-344.A.7.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
The meeting reconvened at 1:39 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 21. Audit Report.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the auditing firm of
McGladrey & Pullen prepared the Financial and Compliance Report for the County
of Albemarle, for the year ended June 30, 1990. As previously reported to the
Board, the report indicates that the County is in a sound financial position
and has no significant compliance or reporting problems. The fund balances
presented in the audit report, with minor variations, are the same as those
reported to the Board in September, 1990. As noted in previous years, the
auditor's opinion was qualified because of the omission of an inventory of
fixed assets. He then introduced Mr. Steven A. Morrow, auditor, with the firm
of McGladrey & Pullen.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) -~6
(Page 29)
Mr. Morrow summarized the components of the audit report. As in prior
years the County has an "except for" qualification because the general fixed
asset accounts are not disclosed in the financial statements. That is not
unusual for localities and is not required by the Auditor of Public Accounts.
He indicated that this audit report is unchanged from prior years. Mr. Morrow
said he has been informed that steps are being taken to inventory some of the
fixed assets at which time the auditors will decide whether to reconsider the
qualification.
Mr. Morrow said the undesignated fund balances from 1989 to 1990 de-
creased from approximately $13.1 million to $11.6 million, a reduction of 11
percent. The components of that reduction were an increase in revenues by
about nine percent and the increase in total expenditures including debt
service by 17 percent. In comparing budget projections, the 1989-90 budget
projected approximately a $440,000 shortfall and in actuality the shortfall
was $1.2 million.
Mr. Morrow said the audit went extremely well. The individuals they
worked with handled themselves in a professional manner and provided good
assistance.
Mr. Bain said the auditors recommend that the County review its current
procedures for collection of delinquent taxes and establish formal procedures
to check all computations to insure accuracy of the physical inventory of
various supplies. The auditors noted that the percentage of outstanding
delinquent taxes increased over the past three years to approximately 7.4
percent of the total tax levy and the year-end annual physical inventory of
various supplies indicated numerous grammatical footing and extension errors.
He asked what is being done to rectify these items. Mr. Morrow commented that
the 7.4 percent is a cumulative percentage. The last report by the auditors
indicated a 98.5 percent collection. This is indicative of a cumulative
build-up, not a 93 percent collection. This is not abnormal in comparison to
other localities, but the auditors did feel it should be brought to the
Board's attention.
Mr. Breeden said the physical inventory consists mainly of the vehicle
maintenance facility in school activities. The reports were not reviewed as
close as they should have been and primarily involved multiplying out quantity
times value. He will make sure that the reports are checked more closely
before sending to the auditors next year.
Mrs. Humphris noted that the auditors commented that no formal disaster
recovery plan presently exists for the continuation of processing in the event
of a major disaster. She asked if such a plan should be implemented by the
Finance Department. Mr. Breeden said the disaster recovery plan mentioned
applies to data processing/information services activities. This recommenda-
tion has been included in the report for several years, however, the expense
is similar to that of a fixed asset accounting system. It is extremely
labor-intensive and expensive to maintain a facility off-site where operations
can be set up and continued. It is unlikely that such a facility will ever be
needed. Mrs. Humphris asked if backup data is stored off premises. Mr.
Breeden replied "yes"; the County has an agreement with other data processing
organizations in the area. Someone from the data processing office reviews
the backup data occasionally to make sure that the County's material has not
been changed or been affected in anyway. In his opinion it is a matter of
whether the cost is justified.
Mrs. Humphris noted that the auditors felt that a thorough review of the
County's cash management system could lead to additional interest income. She
asked who will review this recommendation. Mr. Breeden said that area is
constantly being reviewed. The auditors commented on this because of the
decrease in investment earnings for the past year. The decrease is a result
of the interest rate dropping and there being less funds to invest. He does
not think that it is an indication that the County is doing something wrong.
There are always improvements that can be made, but with his present staff,
this is as much as can be done. Mrs. Humphris asked if that is a suggestion
that it might be profitable for the County to add more staff. Mr. Breeden
said staffing is an area that has been discussed and is being looked at from
an internal standpoint. It is also a matter of priority and where the addi-
tional staff is most needed.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Bowie said he has reviewed the audit and does not think there is
anything the Board needs to worry about. The County seems to be in great
financial shape. Mr. Morrow said he concurs; overall the financial condition
of the County is good and the records are in good shape and easily auditable.
Mr. Bowie asked if the audit has been sent to the Auditor of Public
Accounts. Mr. Breeden said a copy of the audit was presented to the State on
time. The reason it was late coming to the Board was due to the workload in
the Finance Department. The auditors received a favorable letter from the
State on the 1989 audit in terms of its preparation.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could get an update on the collection of
delinquent taxes. Mr. Breeden said the 7.4 percent covers a ten year period.
As in any business, there are certain uncollectibles from bankruptcies and
the like. A large portion of the uncollectibles come from the University
community where students are here on January 1 and leave during the year.
These uncollectibles are not from real estate taxes. In the current year,
they have consistently collected from 98 percent to 99 percent of the current
year's levy. The uncollectibles are not out of line with other localities.
Mr. Bowie asked if these uncollectibles can be written off as bad debts. Mr.
Breeden said that is done to some extent especially for personal property.
Delinquent real estate taxes are either paid or the County initiates the
delinquent tax collection procedure. Mr. Breeden said in the report the
auditors discuss total outstanding debts. The allowance for the total fund
balances takes into account that about 60 percent of the total of outstanding
taxes is for uncollectible items.
Mr. Bowie thanked Mr. Morrow for being present and for his work with the
audit.
Not Docketed. At 2:00 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded
by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following Certification of Executive Session:
MOTION: Mr. Bowerman
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: February 13, 1991
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WI~EREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Way.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
Agenda Item No. 15a. Resolution of Intent to Amend Business License
Section of the Code of Albemarle.
Mr. Tucker said the Director of Finance, in consultation with the County
Attorney's office has developed several amendments and revisions to the County
Code relating to the Business License Section. The revisions will provide
clarification to existing interpretations of the ordinance, as well as comply
with 1990 General Assembly changes to the Code of Virginia. The most substan-
tive amendment involves an accelerated tax payment for motor vehicle pur-
chases. Currently motor vehicle dealers collect taxes on vehicle sales and
defer payment to the County in some cases for up to one year. The proposed
amendment will require dealers to make tax payments to the County on a quar-
terly basis. Staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend
the County Code for these business license revisions and set a public hearing
on the proposed amendments for March 13. Mr. Breeden is present to answer any
questions.
Mr. Bowie referenced a proposed amendment in Section ll-i2.d which states
"A penalty of ten percent per annum, or ten dollars, whichever is the greater
.... "and asked if $10 is the limit set by State code. Mr. Breeden said ten
percent is the actual limit. The main revision in this section is to clarify
that the penalty cannot exceed the amount of the tax. The only time the $10
minimum would not apply is if that makes the penalty more than the tax.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that in Section 11-12.c change the word "for" to
"from" in the first sentence to read: "Payment of the tax due from motor
vehicle .... " Mr. Breeden concurred with the change.
Mr. Bain asked the amount of the current license tax for itinerant
merchants. Mr. Breeden said several years ago during major revisions of the
County Code, the license tax for both peddlers and itinerant merchants was
amended to the maximum amount allowable by State code. That revision caused a
lot of confusion. The peddlers and itinerant merchants are moving about but
are selling at retail. The maximum fee of $500 makes it prohibitive for a
number of local people, such as the ice cream truck driver, to operate. The
proposed change is to reduce the license fee to $50 for those people who are
selling items of a perishable nature. This would also put some people in this
category who previously had their business license based on gross sales such
as salesman coming in and setting up at a hotel for a day.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public
hearing on an ordinance to amend the Business License Section of the County
Code for March 13. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Resolution of Intent to Amend the Motor Vehicle
Section of the Code of Albemarle.
Mr. Tucker said the Director of Finance, in consultation with the County
Attorney, is proposing an amendment to Section 12-26 of the County Code
regarding motor vehicle registration so as to clarify the new proration
ordinance. This amendment clarifies that only new registrations or decals for
vehicles shall be prorated on a monthly basis. Renewals of decals for pre-
viously registered vehicles will not be prorated, i.e., the vehicle owner will
be charged the full amount of the decal fee. This proposed amendment is
consistent with the State Department of Motor Vehicles~ policy. Staff recom-
mends that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend and reenact the
County Code in Section 12-26 of the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance,
Article 5 and set a public hearing for March 13.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a
public hearing on an ordinance to amend the Motor Vehicle Section of the
County Code for March 13. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
S: None.
ENT: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
79
Agenda Item No. 15c. Resolution of Intent to Amend Open Burning Section
of the Code of Albemarle.
Mr. Tucker said at the meeting on January 9, the Board requested staff to
prepare an amendment to the County Code to prohibit the burning of refuse in
subdivisions or clearly defined areas. This provision is similar to those
which currently prohibit the burning of leaves and prohibit of dogs running at
large when a majority of the property owners petition the Board to do so. The
County Attorney has prepared amendments to Sections 9-23.2.b and 9-27 of the
Code. Should the Board choose to amend the Code with these provisions, they
should be mindful that prior to enacting the prohibition of open burning of
refuse within any proposed area, they would need to consider whether an
adequate refuse collection system is available to that area. Staff recommends
the Board set a public hearing for March 13.
Mr. Bowie suggested that there might be enough public interest to set the
public hearing for a night meeting.
Mr. Bain asked if there should be a distinction between "burning of
refuse" and "open air burning". Mr. Tucker said the Board asked the staff to
look at burning of refuse which can be specified if the Board chooses to do
so. The way the language is proposed opening burning would prohibit leaf and
refuse burning. Mr. Bain questioned what is meant by "all open burning". He
wonders if someone might come back and say it is too vague or too broad.
Mr. St. John said this proposed ordinance and the leaf burning ordinance
must be related to the State Code and to the regulations of the Air Pollution
Control Board. The definitions of "open burning" and "refuse" are in those
regulations. There are several categories of open burning, i.e., refuse and
household garbage; debris and construction wastes; leaves; and agricultural
and timber operations. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 2:15 p.m.) The
regulations relating to burning of refuse and so forth are separate from the
regulations on burning of leaves, and is one of the areas that the Code allows
the localities to treat differently. The staff did not think there was a need
to put the burning of refuse in this ordinance because that would allow the
burning in these areas of anything that is not refuse. He thought the Board's
intent was to prohibit open burning. "Open burning" means the burning of any
matter in such a manner that the product resulting from combustion is emitted
directly into the atmosphere without passing through a stack, duct or chimney.
The County has no regulations against opening burning per se. There are all
kinds of regulations regarding what you can burn. In order to prohibit open
burning of household refuse, exclusive of those prohibited materials, citizens
are entitled to burn unless there is garbage disposal pick-up service
reasonably available to the area. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at
2:17 p.m.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a
public hearing for March 20 to consider an ordinance to amend the Open Burning
Section of the County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 18. Naming of Southern Regional Park.
Mr. Bowie noted that the Board has received several letters from the Cove
Garden Ruritan Club supporting "Walnut Creek Park" as the name of the
southern regional park. Mr. Bowie said although Mr. Way is not present, he
has stated his support of the name "Walnut Creek Park".
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to name the new
southern regional park as "Walnut Creek Park". Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
Agenda Item No. 19a. Appropriation: Education Budget
grant from the Old Dominion Chapter of the Elfun Society.
80
to appropriate
Mr. Tucker said the Old Dominion Chapter of the Elfun Society, a volun-
teer organization of General Electric leaders, and Albemarle County School
personnel, have developed a partnership of collaboration and support. The two
organizations have been awarded a $20,000 grant for enhancement of math and
science instruction. The project for which this grant has been awarded is a
traveling classroom, a modified school bus equipped with information, activi-
ties, materials, and laboratories for students in all grades. Mr. Tucker,
said the School Board, at its meeting on January 14, requested that the Board
of Supervisors receive the $20,000 grant and appropriate the funds.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
following resolution approving the appropriation request in the amount of
$20,000 to reflect a grant for enhancement of math and science instruction:
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: NEW
FUND: ELFUN SOCIETY
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ELFUN SOCIETY GRANT FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MATH AND
SCIENCE INSTRUCTION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1320461311137100
1320461311160300
1320461311210000
1320461311420100
1320461311580500
1320461311601300
1320461311800100
PT/WAGES-BUS DRIVERS
STIPENDS-STAFF/CURRICULUM DEVL
FICA
FIELD TRIP MILEAGE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES
MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT
TOTAL
$ 923.00
4,000.00
77.00
1,000.00
500.00
12,000.00
1,500.00
$20,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320418100186020
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
GE E ELFUN SOCIETY CONTRIBUTION $20~000.00
TOTAL $20,000.00
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 19b. Appropriation: Hawkwood Court.
Mr. Tucker said last month the Board authorized staff to proceed with the
construction contract for upgrading Hawkwood Court for acceptance into the
State Secondary Road System. He commented that the General Fund amount is
$330 greater than that anticipated from homeowners in Laurel Ridge Subdivi-
sion. This amount is the interest earned from the bond proceeds currently
held on the project. He requested Board approval of the appropriation re-
quest.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution approving the appropriation of $4,600 for completion of
Hawkwood Court in Laurel Ridge Subdivision.
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITIONAL
GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMPLETION OF ROAD - HAWKWOOD COURT
LAUREL RIDGE SUBDIVISION.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100041000331910
REVENUE
LAUREL RIDGE SUBDIVISION
TOTAL
$4,600.00
$4,600.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100051000510100
2100019000199921
GENERAL FUND BALANCE
LAUREL RIDGE HOMEOWNERS
TOTAL
$2,465.00
I24 ,135-00
,bO0.00
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 19c. Appropriation: United Way Child Care Scholarship
Program, transfer of funds from Teen Child Care Program.
Mr. Tucker said this is a request that Mr. Way asked the Board to consid-
er. The United Way Child Care Scholarship Program is requesting the Board's
permission to use approximately $7500 of the $20,000 appropriated for the Teen
Child Care Program to assist working parents under their regular child care
scholarship program for the remainder of this fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said
although the Teen Program is currently serving seven teens and expects to
serve an additional seven before the end of the school year, necessary start-
up time and intensive outreach prior to the actual dispensing of scholarships
means that only $12,500 will be spent by the end of the fiscal year. With the
Board's permission, the remaining $7500 could be used to provide scholarships
to some of the 14 County families who have been on United Way's waiting list
since October. Staff, with the concurrence of the Department of Social
Services, recommends approval of the request. With only one senior currently
enrolled in the program, United Way should have at least 15 teen mothers in FY
1991-92 and should use the total $20,000 appropriation.
Mr. Bowie commented that Mr. Way called him and expressed his support of
the transfer of the funds.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
transfer of $7500 from the Teen Child Care Program to the United Way Child
Care Scholarship Program. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 19d. Appropriation: Transfer of Handicapped Trail
Funds.
Mr. Tucker said the County and City Parks and Recreation staff have
requested the transfer of $3500 in Capital Improvement Program funds from the
Ivy Creek Natural Area nature trail to a Five Senses Trail for the handicapped
at the Rivanna Park. This was discussed during the Board's recent Capital
Improvement Program public hearing, at which time handicapped representatives
supported this trail improvement at Rivanna Park. Mr. Tucker said the pro-
posed trail extension was recommended by the Handicapped Playground Committee
prior to the idea for a Five Senses Trail at Rivanna Park. As it turns out,
the Handicapped Committee and the Ivy Creek Foundation have not been able to
reach a mutually satisfying agreement on the type of surfacing for the trail.
Not wanting to force a recommendation on the Foundation that they are not
happy with, Mr. Gene German and Mr. Pat Mullaney suggested that the funds be
used to begin planning the Five Senses Trail at Rivanna.
Mr. Bowie concurred with the request.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, said the purpose of
this money is to begin developing a plan for the trail. The plan is to be
approved by the Committee before proceeding further. Mr. Bain said it sounds
like a good idea to him.
Mrs. Humphris asked what will happen at Ivy Creek. Mr. Mullaney said
some other things will be done at Ivy Creek. There is already a limited
access trail for the handicapped at Ivy Creek that is hard-surfaced. They
have some other ideas that will not cost this much money that will be done
eventually out of the operating budget with funds for Ivy Creek.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
following transfer of $3500 from the Ivy Creek Natural Area to a Five Senses
Trail for the handicapped at the Rivanna Park.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
82
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER
FUND: CAPITAL IMPROVFJtENTS PROGRAM
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM IVY CREEK NATURAL AREA TO
RIVANNA PARK FIVE SENSES TRAIL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
1900071000950063 iVY CREEK NATURAL AREA
AMOUNT
($3,500.O0)
1900071002950075
RIV. PARK-FIVE SENSES TRAIL
TOTAL
3~500.00
$o.oo
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments: Whitewood Road Park Committee.
Mr. Bowerman said so many applications were received for the Whitewood
Road Park Committee that the Board has decided to appoint seven reps to the
Committee. He then recommended the following seven citizen appointees to the
Whitewood Road Park Committee: Robert H. Cooper of Ivy Ridge Road; Ron Ervin
of Oak Forest Circle; Ernest A. Flynn of Ivy Ridge Road; Virginia H. D.
Gardner of Earlysville; Thomas J. Jakubowski of Minor Ridge Road; Marcia
Joseph of Fox Ridge Drive; and Sally I. Whaley of Solomon Road. Mr. Bowerman
then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appointed the above recom-
mended persons to the Whitewood Road Park Committee. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
At the request of Mr. Way, Mr. Perkins offered motion, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to reappoint Mr. Forrest H. Marshall, Jr., to the Fiscal Resource
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire on June 30, 1991. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Mr. Tucker recommended that Mr. Robert Brandenburger be appointed to the
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) Technical Cox~ittee. Motion was
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint Mr. Robert
Brandenburger to the PACC Technical Committee to replace Mr. Robert W. Tucker
Jr. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 22. Request to Abandon Rights-of-way in Rosemont and
Ragged Mountain (Defer to February 20, 1991).
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to defer
the request to abandon rights-of-way in Rosemont and Ragged Mountain to
February 20, 1991, at the request of the applicant. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
83
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. St. John said the County and Mrs. Linda Davis, the
HOusing Coordinator, have been sued by a former tenant of one of the Section 8
apartments for monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and so
forth, because of an eviction the plaintiff claims was illegal. Mr. James V.
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, will represent the County. His office with
promptly notify the County's insurance carrier and proceed to defend the suit.
(Mr. St. John then left the meeting at 2:35 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 23. Work Session: Community Facilities Plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff talked with Mr. David Papenfuse from the
School Administration and he indicated that the School Board has not reviewed
the section of the Community Facilities Plan that relates to the schools. He
suggests that the Board defer its work session on that portion of the Plan
until the staff can get comments from the School Board. Mr. Bowie suggested
that the Board discuss the school section of the Plan on March 13. If the
School Board still has not reviewed the Plan, then it be carried over to
sometime in April for discussion.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, said the Library and
Fire and Rescue sections will be discussed today. Mr. Benish referenced the
amended version of the section on Libraries and said staff made no substantive
changes to this section of the Plan except to update the population projec-
tions and needs assessments based on new census information. Service and
facility standards are based on the master plan and study conducted for the
Jefferson/Madison Regional Library and established State standards.
Mr. Bain asked staff to monitor the circulation statistics at the
Northside, Jefferson-Madison and Gordon Area Libraries in order to determine
future expansion needs. Mr. Tucker said one of the recommendations is to
provide additional library space in the southern urban area that would also
serve the eastern urban area. Mr. Benish said staff at the Jefferson-Madison
Library is currently doing pin maps to monitor and track the location of the
people who are utilizing the services. The staff will use that information to
determine future needs for additional library space. There is a recommenda-
tion in the Plan for a minimum of 21,420 square feet of additional library
space over the next ten years based on the combined population of the City and
County. That needs assessment assumes that the Northside Library will have
15,000 square feet.
Mr. Bain questioned the meaning of "construction of a centralized faci-
lity'' in the needs assessment. Mr. Benish said the emphasis is to have cen-
tralized libraries and branches within the growth areas to serve the demands
of the County and not to operate numerous small branches.
Mr. Perkins asked if consideration should be given to putting community
librarieS in the schools. .He thinks it would be a great resource particularly
in the high schools.
Ms. Donna Selle, Director of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, said
there is a strong effort in Louisa County to construct a joint school and
library facility. The Regional Library Board is looking at areas of coopera-
tion with the school system. She has managed joint facilities and they
operate well in rural areas. She also did her master's thesis in Hawaii where
there are joint school and community libraries. There are some major over-
riding concerns with these type of facilities. It is a proven fact that this
area has a population that does not like to go back to school. Joint facili-
ties are not necessarily less expensive. The public is not comfortable with
going into a library with a class of 35 students. The public usually uses the
library between the hours or 3:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. which would make a long
day to staff seven days a week. Certain economies are not available, but that
does not mean that public libraries and school libraries cannot do things
together. One item of interest is a literature-based curriculum adopted by
the County schools which has had an enormous impact on the libraries. The
libraries are not equipped to deal with that. They are the ones that have the
literature. The school libraries have curriculum support. Children are
reading hundreds of books. Everyone thinks it is wonderful, but it is an
enormous strain on the library resources. Such efforts need to be planned for
together. She thinks that a joint school/library facility is something that
Fmbruary 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
could be discussed in the future, but she would emphasis that it works best in
... rural areas. It is hard to find staff that care equally about support-
ing lhe school curriculum and teachers, running computer systems, running
media centers, as well as care about literature. It has been her experience
that if such a facility is done and well planned out then it works. It is
also expensive to undertake. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the cost savings
would be in capital costs. Ms. Selle said that is correct.
Mr. Bowie asked how the books-by-mail program works. Ms. Selle said the
library received a grant which basically allowed people to order books by
mail. They have a catalog which lists about 500 titles and the program has
been extremely successful. Mr. Bowie said he thinks that it is a good idea.
He also thinks it would be a good idea to have satellite stations at various
locations, for example at the Greenwood Community Center, which would allow a
person to get the book there without having to drive into the City. Ms. Selle
said the library system is set up so that it will mail books to anybody who
requests one. They think that is the way to go. Mr. Bowie said he would like
service to rural areas emphasized. Ms. Selle said their long term plans
include adding dial access to their card catalog and then sending out the book
requested.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the Regional Library Operational Agreement.
Ms. Selle said a meeting has been set for a member of County staff and juris-
dictional representatives for March 1. In meetings with the Planning Commis-
sion, she attempted to explain the historical nature of the libraries'
regional agreement which governs the relationship and financial responsibi-
lities among and between all of the jurisdictions that fund them. The Plan-
ning Commission recommends that financial responsibilities for buildings and
facilities should be shared among all of the participating jurisdictions. She
tried to convey to the Commission that the historical nature of the agreement,
not only for this regional library, but for regional libraries throughout the
state, is that the capital costs are assumed by each jurisdiction, however,
the operating costs are shared. There is a special relationship between the
City and the County for the operation of the two facilities downtown. The
Library Board discussed the inclusion of the Northside Branch in that mix.
Since the County has generously funded two facilities for many years in the
City, they feel it behooves the City to share in the operating expenses of the
Northside Branch. The Library Board also recommended a clause that due to the
unexpected circulation jump for the County and to assist the County in this
huge incremental leap in operating costs, that the circulation be averaged
over a two year period which would ease the burden for the County. On behalf
of the Library Board she would like to have the Comprehensive Plan changed to
reflect that each jurisdiction should be responsible for the capital costs for
buildings. The agreement will come to each jurisdiction for ratification
which they hope to have by the end of this fiscal year.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the plans for the bookmobile in the northern
urban area when the Northside Branch opens. Ms. Selle said they plan to scale
back bookmobile service; they intend to purchase a smaller one and operate
with only one person. They want to dove-tail the opening of the new branch
and moving the bookmobile route further out into the rural area. The Library
Board is considering the ramifications of not coming within three or five
miles of any library facility. It would really impact Hollymead and Forest
Lakes.
Ms. Selle thanked the Board for allowing her to come before it. She
announced that there will be a book sale from April 6-13. They have about 60~
volumes ready for the book sale which will be one of the largest held and will
be held in the new Northside Branch.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff does recommend that capital costs be the
responsibility of the respective locality. He asked if the Board wants the
staff to make that change. The capital costs for all facilities in the County
would be the sole responsibility of the County. Mr. Benish said the County
would continue sharing in the costs of maintaining the Gordon Avenue Branch
and the Jefferson-Madison Branch. Mr. Tucker said this would address new
facilities in the County. Operating costs would be shared based on circula-
tion. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it would be premature to make changes until
the Regional Agreement is presented to the Board. Mr. Bain agreed and sug-
gested that this issue be discussed at that time. Mr. Bowie agreed. There
was no other discussion.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting) 85
(Page 38)
(Mr. Bain left the meeting at 3:04 p.m.) Mr. Benish then took up discus-
sion of the Fire and Rescue Section of the Plan. Mr. Benish said some changes
have been made which are not significant. The changes include the addition of
the Scottsville Rescue Squad to provide Advance Life Support Service to the
County. The service objectives and service/facility standards are based on
the study conducted by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association that
was presented to the Board, as well as State fire and rescue standards,
professional standards and insurance services office. The recommendations
include reducing the parking requirements by about 40 percent; allowing the
various companies more flexibility in how they size the building for their
staffing needs; and allowing the number and types of vehicles more flexibility
as they relate to the characteristics of the service area.
(Mr. Bain returned to the room at 3:08 p.m.) Mr. Bowie asked why there
is a requirement for a TV room in the recommendations for the building. Mr.
Benish said the staff tried to generalize the necessity for living space. The
notion is that there needs to be a sleeping and resting area for the workers
to congregate. They could call the area a lobby instead of TV room.
Mr. Benish noted that previously the needs assessment stated that the
Stony Point station lacked space, which is incorrect. That facility is
actually adequate based on the square footage necessary for the equipment. It
was also stated incorrectly that the Crozet Fire Company had purchased an
aerial truck from the City. The City is storing a reserve aerial truck out in
Crozet and they will be selling it as soon as they receive their new aerial
truck. Mr. Perkins said Crozet has purchased the aerial truck. He spoke to
one of the firemen earlier this morning who indicated that the Crozet station
had purchased the truck.
Mr. Benish said the final change was the indication that there needed to
be a training facility. There is a training facility near the Jail. This
facility should be maintained and updated as necessary to allow for the
training of volunteer personnel.
Mr. Benish said they worked closely with the President of JCFRA and with
the members of JCFRA on the study.
Mr. Bain asked who will oversee the establishment of a data collection
plan to provide the County with the means to evaluate location and expansion
of facilities and the increasing of equipment. He does not want anything done
until standards and criteria are in place. Mr. Benish said the County fire
official currently has a method to tract and report this type of information.
Currently no such system is set up with the rescue squad nor is there a person
with that function working in the County. Mr. Bain said he is reluctant to
implement any of the recommendations until the data is in place. Mr. Tucker
commented that these recommendations identify the needs. Mr? Cilimberg said
this analysiswas based on available data. That needs assessment resulted in
these recommendations. He thinks for the future in locating additional sites,
the staff is saying there is a need to continue to have a data base and an
analysis of the data base on a regular basis to determine where future sites
might be necessary.
Mr. Bowie said although the recommendations call for new stations they
would not be located anywhere unless there are the volunteers to man the
station. Mr. Benish said that is correct.
Mr. Bain said as long as the recommendations are well defensible, he has
no problem with incorporating some of them into the Comprehensive Plan through
this plan. Mr. Benish commented that as far as priority is concerned, there
could be ways to improve the service without recommending a new station. Mr.
Cilimberg said the staff put a lot of time into the standards so that when
they were adopted by the Board they would be guidelines that the staff could
feel comfortable with in future planning. The standards will be as important
as the recommendations when the document is adopted. Mr. Benish said Mr.
Bowie's comment on the dependency on volunteer services is good. The County
does not have direct control over these fire stations. In this concept, the
staff is providing what the County feels is adequate service and if the
volunteers can provide that service then so much the better. The County could
get into a situation where a volunteer system may not allow us to meet these
standards. One suggestion is that three of the stations meet standards set by
the County.
There was no further discussion of this item this day.
February 13, 1991 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
86
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Perkins referenced a memorandum from Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed
Management Official, notifying the Board that his office is organizing a field
trip for local government officials in recognition of efforts to protect area
water resources and as a local kickoff for National Drinking Water Week.
Attached to the memorandum is a form which lists various options for times,
dates and particulars for the proposed field trip activity. Following some
discussion, the Board suggested that the County Executive coordinate a field
trip with Mr. Robertson for the afternoon of May 8.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been receiving telephone calls from citizens
about the reassessment. Her communications have been taking a twist because
of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision on Route 29 North. People
in and near the corridor are finding that their property has little to no
value at the moment and yet by law these property reassessments have to be
done based on data available as of August, 1989. She had a brief conversation
with the Director of Finance and the County Attorney and they toldher that
they could not say anything definitive about this quandary right now, but that
they would put their heads together to see if any relief can be provided to
these people. The property reassessments of these people have increased from
20 to 34 percent and they feel the actual value of their property is only a
small percentage of the assessment. These people are frustrated and upset.
Mr. Bain said these people may be able to initiate an inverse condemnation
where they can take the Highway Department to court and have their property
value established. That is a private action and something that will need to
be done by the people. Mrs. Humphris said she just wanted to let the Board
know about these concerns.
Agenda Item No. 25. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:32 p.m.