1991-03-20March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
190
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, was held on March 20, 1991, at 7:00 P.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, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
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
7:03 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were no members of the public who wished to speak.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and
seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve Items 5.1 and 5.la and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Aggnda as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Request to have roads in Raintree Subdivision - Phases IV and
V, taken into the State Secondary System. Letter dated December 1, 1989, had
been received from Mr. Robert M. Hauser, President of Republic Homes, re-
questing that roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases IV and V, be taken into
the State Secondary System. The following resolution was adopted by the vote
shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following roads in Raintree Subdivision, Phases IV
and V:
Ramblewood Place
Beginning at Station 0+65, a point com~non to the centerline of
Ramblewood Place and the edge of pavement at Station 38+67.54 of
Old Brook Road (State Route 652), thence in a northwesterly
direction 555 feet to Station 6+20, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Farm Brook Place
Beginning at Station 0+20, a point common to the centerline of
Farm Brook Place and the edge of pavement at Station 3+00 of
Ramblewood Place, thence in a southwesterly direction 370 feet to
Station 3+90, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Snowden Drive
Beginning at Station 0-132.5, a point common to the centerline of
Snowden Drive and the edge of pavement at Station 34+77.54 of
State Route 652, thence in an easterly direction 801.32 feet to
Station 6+68.82, the end of the cul-de-sac.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
191
Surry Hill Court
Beginning at Station 0+20, a point common to the centerline of
Surry Hill Court and the edge of pavement at Station 3+18.95 of
Snowden Drive, thence in a southerly direction 344.15 feet to
Station 3+64.15, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FI/RTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40-foot unobstructed right-of-way
and drainage easements along the requested addition as recorded by
plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 880, pages 43-44; and Deed Book 985, page 158.
Item 5.la. Memo dated March 14, 1991, was received from Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, requesting the
Board's concurrence for the substitution of a proffer submitted for ZMA-90-18,
J. S. and Frances Barnett. The memo read as follows and was approved by the
vote shown above:
"On November 28, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved this petition
to rezone the property at the intersection of Route 742 and Route 1101
(Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A) from LI, Light Industry, to HC, Highway
Commercial, with proffers limiting the use of this site and providing
landscaping. Due to recommendations made by the Virginia Department
of Transportation, the applicant has revised the proffered landscape
plan to provide a sight distance easement and right-of-way dedication
along Route 1101. The original proffer stated, 'We also proffer to
install rows of pine trees four to six feet in height adjacent to
Route 1101. The trees shall be spaced ten feet on center in two rows
and the rows will be evenly staggered.'
The Edgecomb's site plan proposes this landscaping to be replaced by a
six-foot wooden fence with azaleas planted in front of it. Staff
opinion is this substitution meets the intent of the proffer to screen
the northern parking area. With the Board's concurrence, staff will
proceed under that interpretation.
It should be noted that the proffer was proposed by the applicant to
address potential concerns of the adjacent property owner to the
north. Staff has received a letter from that property owner stating
their approval of the proposed substitution."
(Note: See discussion of this item%mder "Other Matters" at the emd of
the agenda.)
Item 5.2. Letter dated March 11, 1991, from Secretary John G. Milliken,
Chairman, Commonwealth Transportation Board, re: Estimate of Funds Available
for Transportation Improvements for FY 1991-92, received as follows:
"March 11, 1991
County Boards of Supervisors
Dear Board Members:
In my earlier letter to you, I promised I would get back to you with
further information on the estimate of funds available for trans-
portation improvements for FY 1991-92. I should emphasize that our
best estimate of available revenue is subject to change based on the
final actions of the Governor and General Assembly in the upcoming
April session.
The Department has received approval from the Federal Highway Admini-
stration to increase the Interstate Cost Estimate providing increased
Interstate funds to specific projects, however, we do not have federal
legislation for the other highway systems. This authorization could
come late this fall, but more than likely it will not be available
until calendar year 1992. Thus, we are not in a position to do more
than speculate on the availability of federal funding increases.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
192
However, we do know that as the recession has taken hold in the
Commonwealth, declining car sales and gasoline consumption have
reduced available State transportation revenues.
The Department of Transportation has reduced its administrative and
maintenance budget substantially in order to make the maximum dollars
available to the construction program. But the program will be
affected. Currently, funds anticipated to be available for projects
in the 1991-92 fiscal year on the Primary System are 16.0 percent less
than available this year; on the Urban System 16.0 percent less; and,
on the Secondary System 15.9 percent less. Transit funds are down 2.8
percent.
I urge you to review the program in your jurisdiction very critically
and to present to us your priorities, including recommendations on
which projects can be delayed or deleted. For the Secondary System,
resident engineers will work directly with the counties in reviewing
the program. The Governor's direction to me is to bring the Six-Year
Improvement Program into line with available revenues. To do that I
need your help. Later this year I will present to the Governor a list
of priority transportation projects that cannot be financed out of
presently available transportation funds and some recommendations to
him of how they might be financed. In the meantime, we must live with
what we have.
I look forward to hearing from you at the preallocation hearing and
stand ready to work with you to move our transportation program
forward in these difficult times.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) John G. Milliken
Chairman, Commonwealth Transportation Board"
Item 5.3. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for March 5, 1991, received
as information.
Item 5.4. Copy of Memorandum from Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, to
Local Surveyors, Architects, Engineers, and Landscape Architects, dated
March 12, 1991, re: Entrance Corridor Overlay District Site Plan Process, was
received as follows for information:
"In November, 1990 the Board of Supervisors applied the Entrance
Corridor (EC) Overlay District to some eighteen roadways in Albemarle
County. Among other things, the EC district forbids approval of a
final site development plan until the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
has issued a certificate of appropriateness for all buildings and
improvements. Therefore, any site plan located within an EC district
requires approval of two bodies: The Planning Commission operating
under Section 32.0, SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, and the Architectural
Review Board operating under Section 30.6, ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY
DISTRICT (EC).
In an effort to maintain the current two month (more or less) review
schedule, a system of parallel reviews has been established which
allows for submittal of the preliminary site development plan for
Planning Commission review and, at the applicant's choice, submittal
of required materials for ARB issuance of a certificate of appropri-
ateness on the same date. Note: ARB filing is not considered com-
plete until Planning Commiss--~non action on the preliminary site devel-
opment plan.
Procedure:
The most important step in this process is the preliminary con-
ference with the ARB and staff. This meeting would provide you
with basic comment from the ARB as to aesthetic matters and
concerns of the site plan. The Architectural Review Board is
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
193
interested in both the design and location of the building.
Submittal of information necessary for preliminary conference with
the ARB is Enclosure 3. Submittal of this information must be
made at least one week prior to the desired ARB review date.
Following preliminary conference with the ARB (30.6 Entrance
Corridor District) and planning staff (32.0 Site Development
Plan), the preliminary site plan would be submitted and submittal
for a certificate of appropriateness may also be made at the
applicant's choice.
Presumably, at time of preliminary site development plan sub-
mittal, the plan would reflect primary concerns of the ARB and
could be forwarded to the Planning Cox~ission without significant
delay. However, this may only be possible if you take advantage
of the preliminary conference with the ARB and staff.
Summary:
Every effort has been made to coordinate Planning Commission and ARB
reviews in the shortest practical time frame. As with any procedural
change, some 'plans in progress' will be involved and determination of
such situations will be made administratively by Zoning and Planning
staffs. Both the Planning Commission and ARB have authorized exercise
of staff discretion to implement this new process.
In 1985, the Board-appointed Land Use Regulations Committee (LURC)
reported that the County should 'better orchestrate the County's
practices so that they are clear and consistent and so mutual obliga-
tions and expectations in the land use process can be better defined
and adhered to by all.' This effort can be aided by your identifi-
cation of problems and recommendations for improvement."
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-90-27. Rio/29 Self-Storage Limited Partnership.
Public hearing on a request to amend the HC zoning (proffered) under ZMA-87-13
which restricted the parcel to use as a self-storage facility only (Entrance
Corridor Overlay). The new proffer would allow 400 sf for commercial rental
office use for no more than 2 employees. Property on W side of Rt 29N approx
600 ft N of inters with Rt 631 (Rio Rd). TM45,P105. Charlottesville Dist.
Located in Urban Neighborhood 1. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2
and March 9, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with the self
storage facility. The property immediately to the north is the
Colonial Auto dealership.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend the original
proffer number one to allow for the rental of office space on this
site. A copy of the original proffers is included with this report.
The applicant proposes to amend proffer number one to read:
'Use of the property shall be limited to use as a self storage
facility and office space which meets the following requirements:
There can be no more than two employees excluding the one in
the storage office.
b. The net office is not more than 400 square feet.'
No change in proffer number two is proposed.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service in
Neighborhood One. Table 46 of the Comprehensive Plan lists offices as
a typical primary use.
Summary and Recommendations: The applicant's proposal does not
propose any modification to the existing building. The applicant has
submitted a justification for this request. This request notes that
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
194
in the initial building construction, the area for rental office space
was envisioned and was constructed with a separate outside entrance.
The applicant states that the original proffer (ZMA-87-13) was not
intended to forbid the use of the rental office storage area. The
applicant further states that similar operations in other localities
include uses of this type. The typical user is one that would also
rent storage area for the keeping of records.
The Zoning Department has reviewed the site and commented that the
site could be used for the limited office area proposed by the appli-
can~ without violating the site plan in terms of parking requirements.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented that this
request would result in a small increase in traffic from the site.
Further discussions with the Virginia Department of Transportation
indicates that the existing entrance is adequate for the proposed use.
Staff has attempted to identify a change in circumstance that warrants
modification of the original proffer. The applicant's justification
of the rezoning is that the rental office use was envisioned during
ZMA-87-13. Until notified by the Zoning Department that the rental
office was not allowed, the applicant was under the assumption that
the rental office was allowed. Staff notes that the zoning of this
site prior to ZMA-87-13 would have allowed for administrative, busi-
ness and professional offices 24.2.1.28. It appears that the current
request is brought about by a difference in proffer interpretation.
Due to the limited size of the rental office, and that no revision to
the site is needed to accommodate this use, staff recommends approval
of ZMA-90-27 Rio/29 Self Storage Corporation with the acceptance of
revised proffer #1, as follows:
Use of the property shall be limited to use as a self
storage facility and office space which meets the
following requirements:
There can be no more than two employees excluding
the one in the storage office.
b. The net office is not more than 400 square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 21,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-90-27 with revised Proffer #1
along with original Proffer #2.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Bob O'Neil, a general partner in the
Rio/29 North Limited Partnership was present. He said there has been a
difference in interpretation of the meaning of the original proffers. He was
present to answer questions.
With no one elsecoming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerma~ said he felt the request was in order and he moved to approve
ZMA-90-27 with the proffer stated in the Planning Cox~ission's letter to the
applicant, but changing lb. to read "The net office space is not more than 400
square feet." The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie' Mrs, Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: NOne.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-82. Free Union Country School. Public hearing
on a request to amend SP-88-33 to increase enrollment from 48 to 55 students
in a private school on 2.0 ac zoned RA. A building addition is proposed.
Property on W side of Rt 601 approx 700 ft SE of inters of Rts 601/655.
TM29,P15D. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and
March 9, 1991.)
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
195
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"On October 31, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-82 which
allowed enrollment to increase from 48 to 55 students. However, that
approval did not allow for any building addition. The applicant is
now requesting that in addition to the enrollment increase a building
addition of 1250 square feet be permitted.
Staff Con~nent: The Free Union Country School was approved by the
Board of Supervisors in 1984 (SP-84-19). A subsequent amendment was
approved in 1988 which increased enrollment from 35 to 48 students
(SP-88-33). The Planning staff approved the site plan administra-
tively. The existing facility is of a scale consistent with the rural
character of Free Union. A two-story structure is proposed. Each
floor will contain approximately 768 square feet. The location of the
proposed addition is on the rear of the existing building and, there-
fore, the impact on adjacent properties will be minimal. Staff is
unaware of any problems or complaints about the existing school.
The existing septic system was designed to accommodate the proposed
expansion, however, expansion beyond the current proposal may require
additional septic field area. Currently the site is served by 15
parking spaces. With an enrollment of 55 students and five teachers,
the number of required spaces is five. Therefore, no additional
parking area is required.
The applicant is requesting the proposed building expansion in order
to accommodate the increased enrollment at the site. The proposed
expansion represents the last expansion which may be approved with the
existing septic system.
Staff opinion is that this increase does not alter the character of
the district due to the location and limited size of the proposed
expansion. The applicant should be put on notice that additional
increases may change the character of the district and would, there-
fore, not be supported as consistent with Section 31.2.4.1.
Staff recommends approval of SP-90-82 subject to amended condition #3
and new conditions #5 and #6.
If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this
approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a)
of the Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of Section 5.1.6
shall be met;
2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and
is non-transferable;
Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of
the Site Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall in no
case, exceed ~rty-e~ghtL~48) fifty-five (55) students;
4. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum
Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers;
5. Staff approval of site plan amendment in general accord with
Attachment B;
6. Expansion shall be limited to a footprint of 21 feet, four inches
by 36 feet and shall not exceed two floors.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 21,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of the special use permits, subject to
the conditions in the staff's report, changing #6 to read: "Expansion shall
be limited to a footprint of 22 feet by 36 feet and shall not exceed two
floors."
Mr. Bain referred to a drawing included with the .Board's materials, and
asked about the piece of property containing 2.76 acres located directly
behind the Free Union Country School. He asked if that property is a part of
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
196
this proposal. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he thinks it is a part of the
property to be used for a drainfield and will be added to Parcel 15D, although
he does not think the properties have been joined yet.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Les Pearlstein, Presi-
dent of the Board of Directors, Free Union Country School, came forward to
speak. He said they were not aware last fall that this request needed to be
approved along with the special use permit, but thought that it would be
approved administratively through the Planning Co~mission. There are classes
for kindergarten and grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the school. As the students move
up the grades, the space for the upper level grades is becoming crowded. They
are also applying for membership in the Virginia Association of Independent
Schools, a licensing body which requires a library and multi-media center.
The added school facility would provide extra space for a variety of possible
community meetings.
Mr. Pearlstein said the original two-acre parcel was given to the school
by the adjacent property owner. When they had to expand the septic system,
they went back to that person and asked for permission to put the system on
his property. Instead, he agreed to give the needed land to the school. Just
as the transaction was about to be approved, the landowner was not able to
deed the property to the school for personal reasons. Instead, he gave the
school a promissory letter stating that the property would be deeded at a
later time, and they have begun that process again.
Mr. Bain asked if the drainfield is now in use. Mr. Pearlstein said
"yes"
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain expressed concern because the advertisement for this hearing did
not mention the 2.76 acre tract. The Board discussed Mr. Bain's concern about
the advertising for this hearing and it was determined that there was no
problem.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris moved to approve SP-90-82 for Free Union
Country School subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Bain said he thought the County was trying to avoid the expansion of
schools in the rural areas. He felt the adjoining landowner might some day
deed the school another ten acres, and he does not think the Board should
encourage this type of action.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
(The Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this
approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall
be met;
Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and is
non-transferable;
Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of the
Site Review Cox~ittee, provided that enrollment shall, in no case,
exceed 55 students;
Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Stan-
dards for Licensed Child Care Centers;
Staff approval of site plan amendment in general accord with Attach-
ment B (on file);
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
197
Expansion shall be limited to a footprint of 22 feet by 36 feet and
shall not exceed two floors.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 11,
Licenses, Article I, In General, and Article II, Schedule of Taxes, by adding
a section to require accelerated payment of tax collected from purchasers by
motor vehicle dealers; clarify penalty provision for delinquent payment;
require that retention of all records and general books is for five years; add
a section that requires motor vehicle dealers to report to the director of
finance on or before the 20th day of the month following the close of each
calendar quarter; clarify penalty for violation of the above by motor vehicle
dealers; revise Section 11-60 to treat peddlers and itinerant merchants
equally in terms of license tax; imposing a tax of $500 per year on itinerant
merchants and peddlers except as otherwise provided; and revise Section 11-62
to treat wholesale peddlers and itinerant merchants equally. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker explained the reason for the ordinance amendment (see minutes
of February 13, 1991).
The public hearing was opened. With no member of the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter
11, Licenses, in certain sections, all as set out in the ordinance which
follows.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 11, LICENSES,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, and
Article II, Schedule of Taxes, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby
amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows:
Sec. 11-12. Taxes--When payable~ penalties for nonpayment.
(a) All license taxes imposed by this chapter, except as herein
otherwise provided, shall become due and payable on or before June 15
of each year.
(b) In all cases where the person shall begin the business,
profession, trade or occupation upon which a license tax is imposed
under the provisions of this chapter at any time during May or at any
time after May 31, such license tax shall become due and payable at
the time when such person shall commence business.
(c) Payment of the tax due from motor vehicle dealers who sepa-
rately state the amount of the license tax applicable to each sale of
a motor vehicle and add such tax to the sales price of the motor
vehicle shall become due and payable on or before the twentieth day of
the month following the close of each calendar quarter.
(d) A penalty of ten percent per annum, or ten dollars, whichever
is the greater; provided, however, that the penalty shall in no case
exceed the amount of tax due, Shall be~added to all license taxes
imposed under the terms of this chapter which are delinquent and
unpaid on the due dates thereOf. A grace period of thirty days shall
be allowed from the date of beginning a business before the penalty of
ten percent of tax is imposed.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
198
Sec. 11-13. Same--persons liable to keep records~ report of 8ros~
receipts.
(a) Every person liable for a license tax under this chapter
which is based on gross receipts or gross expenditures shall keep all
records and accounts necessary to compute and to verify such gross
receipts or gross expenditures, and the report of such gross receipts
or gross expenditures shall be taken from such records. All such
records and general books of account shall be open to inspection and
examination by any authorized representative of the county, and shall
be maintained for a period of five years.
(b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or
gross expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not later
than May 1 of each year, a report of his gross receipts or gross
expenditures for the preceding year.
(c) In those cases in which the conduct of the business, profes-
sion, trade or occupation involves operation subject to more than one
rate or computed on more than one base, as hereinafter set forth, the
licensee is hereby required to maintain separate accounts for each
such operation and shall be separately licensed for such operation;
provided, that the licensee may elect to maintain a single account for
all operations taxed on gross receipts, in which case the entire
business taxed on gross receipts shall be computed at the highest rate
applicable to any part of the business taxed on gross receipts.
(d) If any licensee shall fail to maintain the records required
in this section, regularly supported by customary vouchers, the
director of finance is hereby authorized and directed to estimate the
taxpayer's gross receipts or gross expenditures on the basis of the
best evidence he can obtain, and the director of finance shall make an
assessment on the basis of such determination.
(e) Motor vehicle dealers who separately state the amount of the
license tax applicable to each sale of a motor vehicle and add such
tax to the sales price of the motor vehicle shall report to the
director of finance on or before the twentieth day of the month
following the close of each calendar quarter their gross receipts,
trade-in allowances and tax collected from the sale of such motor
vehicles.
(f) A penalty of ten percent of the tax due or ten dollars,
whichever is the greater; provided, however, that the penalty shall in
no case exceed the amount of tax due, shall be imposed for failure to
report gross receipts or expenditures as required by subsections (b)
and (e) of this section.
Sec. 11-60. Peddlers~ itinerant merchants.
(a) For the purpose of license taxation, any person who shall
carry from place to place any goods, wares or merchandise and offer to
sell or barter the same, or actually sell or barter the same, shall be
deemed to be a peddler.
(b) For the purpose of license taxation pursuant to this section,
the term "itinerant merchant" means any person who engages in, does or
transacts any temporary or transient business in the county and who,
for the purpose of carrying on such business, occupies any location
for a period of less than one year.
(c) The license tax on peddlers and itinerant merchants, except
as provided for in subsections (d) and (e), shall be five hundred
dollars per year.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
199
(d) The license tax on peddlers and itinerant merchants who sell
or offer for sale in person or by their employees meats, milk, butter,
eggs, poultry, game, vegetable, fruits or other edible family supplies
of a perishable and edible nature shall be fifty dollars per year.
(e) This section shall not apply to a peddler at wholesale or to
those who sell or offer for sale in person or by their employees ice,
wood, charcoal, meats, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, game, vegetables,
fruits or other family supplies of a perishable nature or farm prod-
ucts grown or produced by them and not purchased by them for sale.
Sec. 11-62. Peddlers--at wholesale.
(a) For the purposes of the license tax, any person who sells or
offers to sell goods, wares or merchandise to licensed dealers, other
than at a definite place of business operated by the seller, and at
the same time of such sale or exposure for sale delivers, or offers to
deliver, the goods, wares or merchandise to the buyer shall be deemed
a peddler at wholesale. For the purposes of this section any delivery
made on the day of sale shall be construed as a delivery at the time
of sale.
(b) The license tax imposed by the county on a peddler at whole-
sale shall be at the rate of five cents per one hundred dollars of
purchases. The rate limitations found in section 11-60 do not apply
to peddlers at wholesale.
Sec. 11-63. Peddlers, itinerant merchants and peddlers at wholesale.
(a) Any license tax imposed on peddlers or itinerant merchants or
on peddlers at wholesale shall not apply to:
(1) A licensed wholesale dealer who sells and, at the time
of such sale, delivers merchandise to retail merchants;
(2) A distributor or vendor of motor fuels and petroleum
products;
(3) A distributor or vendor of seafood who catches seafood
and sells only the seafood caught by him;
(4) A farmer or producer of agricultural products who sells
only the farm or agricultural products produced or grown by him;
(5) A farmers' cooperative association; or
(6) A manufacturer who is subject to a state tax on intangi-
ble personal property, who peddles at wholesale only the goods, wares
or merchandise manufactured by him at a plant, whose intangible
personal property is taxed by the state.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Chapter 11, Licenses,
of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that Sections 11-12 (c) and 11-13 (e) shall be
effective for the period ended June 30, 1991, and all other amendments
shall be effective with the 1991 license year.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 12,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses, to clarify
that only new registrations or decals for vehicles shall be prorated on a
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
2OO
monthly basis. Renewals of decals for previously registered vehicles will not
be prorated. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
1991.)
Mr. Tucker explained the reasons for the ordinance amendment (see minutes
of February 13, 1991).
The public hearing was opened. With no member of the public rising to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article
V, County Vehicle Licenses, in certain sections, all as set out in the ordi-
nance which follows.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC
ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V,
County Vehicle Licenses, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended
and reenacted in certain sections as follows:
Sec. 12-26. Same--Prorating.
For new registrations only, the license fee prescribed by
this article shall be prorated monthly commencing with the month in
which such license fee first becomes due and payable. Renewals,
timely or otherwise, of previously registered vehicles, trailers or
semitrailers shall not be prorated. The license fee shall be collect-
ed from and include that month on the basis of one-twelfth of the
annual license fee through each month remaining in the current license
year. The prorated license fee shall be rounded to the nearest
dollar. In no case, shall the amount of license fee collected be less
than two dollars.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Chapter 12, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the amendment shall be effective
immediately upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter 9,
Fire and Protection, Article IV, Burning of Brush, etc., to prohibit open
burning in any subdivision or other clearly defined area upon petition by
residents. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5,
1991.)
Mr. Tucker said the proposed ordinance provisions are similar to those
already in effect for the burning of leaves and dogs running at large. If
approximately 51 percent of the people in a clearly defined area sign a peti-
tion requesting that the area be included under this ordinance prohibiting the
burning of brush, the Board would then have the authority to enact such an
ordinance. This matter came up during the discussion of burning of refuse.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
2O
The Board does need to be mindful that when including any area under this
ordinance, there is adequate collection in that area before prohibiting
burning.
The public hearing was opened at this time.
First to speak was Mr. Clarence Wetsel. He said heunderstands the
nuisance of burning leaves in a subdivision, but he is concerned that owners
of large lots with gardens, etc., need to burn that waste. Mr. Tucker inter-
rupted to say that adoption of this ordinance does not deSignate any area
where burning will be prohibited. In order to have an area included, peti-
tions would have to be signed and submitted to the Board and then a public
hearing would be held on the request before any area were included.
Mr. Perkins said the ordinance is worded to include subdivisions and
clearly defined areas, so he does not believe that much of the rural areas
will be included. Mr. Tucker said that is correct although he believes that
someone could outline an area on a map, and have 51 percent of the people in
that area sign a petition. Mr. St. John said that would qualify as a defined
area. Mr. Bain said that, realistically, the ordinance is going to apply to
the areas with higher densities.
Next to speak, Mr. Reo Ford, said Mr. Wetsel is modest and did not say
that his lot is 175 acres. Mr. Ford said he lives at 104 Northfields Circle,
at the end of Northfields Road. He said he owns an adjoining lot and the
woods in back of him all the way to the Rivanna River, about 10 acres. He
borders Mr. Wetsel on the west, and the Norfolk & Southern Railroad on the
east. He has 200 trees on his lots where he collects a few brush piles in the
Spring, Summer and Fall. He leaves the piles for the birds and small game to
refuge in the Winter. In the Spring, he burns the piles and starts new. When
he burns the piles in the Spring, he does not produce as much smoke as when
the Railroad burns off their right-of-way. If the ordinance were adopted in
his subdivision, it could work a hardship on him since he would not be able to
improve his property unless there were a variance issued to accommodate
situations such as Mr. Wetsel's and his.
Mr. Fred Keister said he lives in an area with 100 foot lots, and he is
scared of fires. Last year he found thousands of leaves that had been burned,
but which had floated over his house, garage, driveway, car, and the grass on
three sides of his house. It was such a shock to find this that he picked up
some of these leaves and put them in jars (he displayed the jars of leaves for
the Board). His concern was that the burning was legal. He does not think
that burning should be permitted on 100 foot lots. There are a lot of trees
in his neighborhood, and he is surprised that the house did not catch on fire
from the leaves on the roof and in the valleys and gutters. He thinks that
requiring 51 percent of the neighbors to sign a petition requesting that the
burning of leaves be eliminated is a "cop-out" on the part of the Board. He
disagrees with allowing the burning of leaves on 100 foot lots.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to adopt an ordinance to amend and
reenact Chapter 9, Fire Protection, Articlm IV, Burning of Brush, etc., of the
Albemarle County Code, by adding subsection (b) to Section 9-23.2, by amending
Section 9-26, and by adding Section 9-27. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Humphris.
Mr. Way asked if staff had determined that it was impossible to include
language covering situations on large size lots. Mr. Tucker said the staff
had discussed this situation. They had decided that if an area which included
large lots was requested to be included under the ordinance, the Board would
consider at that time whether to provide an exemption or just exclude them
from the designation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.)
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 9, FIRE PROTECTION,
ARTICLE IV, BURNING OF BRUSH, ETC.,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 9, Fire and Protection, Article IV, Burning of
Brush, etc., of the Code of Albemarle is hereby amended and reenacted
as follows:
Sec. 9-23.2. Petitions to ban burning in designated areas.
(a) The residents of any subdivision or other clearly defined
area in the county may petition the board of supervisors to enact
supplementary ordinances banning all open burning of leaves in such
area.
(b) The residents of any subdivision or other clearly defined
area in the county may petition the board of supervisors to enact
supplementary ordinances banning all open burning in such area.
Sec. 9-26. Leaf burning prohibited in certain areas.
Pursuant to section 9-23.2(a), leaf burning is hereby prohibited
with the following areas:
Sec. 9-27. Open burning prohibited in certain areas.
Ail open burning is hereby prohibited within the following areas:
202
Agenda Item No. 11. GTE-GIS Building Location System Implementation,
Discussion of.
Mr. Cilimberg said he has provided information to the Board on contract
negotiations between the County and GTE-GIS who are to assist the County in a
building location system which is a prerequisite for the E-911 system.
Contract costs of $331,392 include hardware, software and services; the
contract is divided into seven phases.
Phase 1 initial consultation between GTE-GIS and the County to discuss
the responsibilities of each party.
Phase 2 the County is to approve names for any unnamed roads.
Phase 3 addresses will be assigned to all roads, and field verification
performed of all street and road networks, addressable structures, ad-
dresses, and address ranges.
Phase 4 - quality control and address notification to residents.
Phase 5 - a master street address guide (MSAD) will be generated and
delivered to CENTEL. Responsibility for maintaining the MSAG will be
transferred to the County.
Phase 6 all computer equipment necessary for updating and managing the
system's files will be installed at the County site.
Phase 7 - all components of the system must meet performance standards for
thirty consecutive days following completion of Phase six.
Mr. Cilimberg said the total time frame to implement the seven phases is
387 days. It is an intensive process. The time allotted for review and
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
203
approval of names for unnamed roads is 98 days. Assistance from resources
outside of consultant services and the County staff in the road naming process
will need to meet that time frame.
At the beginning of Phase One, staff will be working with the consultant
and must be prepared to instruct the consultant as to the structure of the
road naming review and adoption process.
The E-911 Committee has recommended that the County Executive be author-
ized to sign the contract, The Committee also requests the Board to identify
the role it wishes to take in the road naming process. In this contract, the
consultant will take the primary role in the road naming process. The consul-
tant will have an on-site person, full-time throughout the contract including
the road naming process. For that reason, the road naming process is con-
densed to the 98 days.
Mr. Bowie said there is a reference in the materials sent to the Board
concerning the need to keep the process going once it gets started. He asked
what type of decisions might slow the process down. Mr. Cilimberg said in
talking with staff people in both Montgomery and Rockbridge counties, they had
disagreements among people who were part of the road naming process. That
part of the process needs to be resolved at the working level, is possible, so
that when it gets to the Board it can be finalized quickly. It is expected
that there will be opposition to certain road names.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to decide if it wants to become involved
in appeals. This particular task could be taken from the consultants and
funded separately. The consultant feels it can put together the road names,
but it must be done rapidly in order to go on to the locater system, and get
it completed in order to mesh with the E-911 system itself.
Mr. Bowie said with the number of roads to be named, there is no way this
Board can have numerous public hearings on road names.
Mrs. Humphris asked how this type of situation was resolved in other
counties undertaking road naming. Mr. Cilimberg said in Montgomery County
they had public meetings before the process began. At the first meeting, they
heard comments from citizens. A list of names was compiled and then at the
second meeting they told the citizens that if they did not like the names,
they could appeal to the Board. That part of the process took six to eight
months. In Rockbridge County, each Board member is currently chairing a five
to seven member committee for his district. Because GTE-GIS will have a
person working on this full-time in Charlottesville, it has been suggested
that the committee be composed of a member of the Planning staff, a County
historian, and one or more citizens.
Mrs. Humphris asked how this can be handled in a County as large area-wise
as Albemarle. There will be few people who are knowledgeable about the
historical significance of all areas in Albemarle County. Mr. Cilimberg said
it has been suggested that each supervisor name a representative from that
district to serve on a committee. Mr. Tucker said that kind of group could
act as a standing committee to meet weekly with the consultant's historian to
put a group of names together. The number of public meetings, or public
forums would be left for that committee to decide.
Mrs. Humphris said a citizens committee sounds like a good idea, but she
thinks they Should have help from someone at the Albemarle County Historical
Society, or people with that kind of background. She asked if a decision
about holding community forums could be made at a later date. Mr. Cilimberg
said "yes".
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County can go ahead with E-911 if the City
decides not to implement it in the City. Mr. Cilimberg said "yes". Mr.
Tucker said the City does not have a hearing on the telephone surcharge
ordinance until May 6. Actually, three years ago, the City had a hearing and
approved the surcharge of 50 cents, but they need to have a hearing and
zncrease that amount. Mr. Tucker said if the City decided not to go ahead,
there might be some hardware costs that would have to be absorbed by the
County. Mr. Campagna is checking that possibility.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
204
Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board could authorize staff to proceed with
planning, but not authorize that the contract be signed at this time. Mr.
TuCker said "yes".
Mr. Bowie said each member of the Board will then appoint a member from
his district to a Road Naming Committee. Mrs. HUmphris suggested that staff
members or persons knowledgeable with the historical names of the different
areas of the county also be included.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Desert Storm Welcome Home Parade.
Mr. Bowerman said at the request of the Chairman, he attended the organ-
izational meeting of the people who are organizing the WelCome Home Parade.
This is the same group that put on the Troop Appreciation event. They would
like to have a proclamation from the Board proclaiming that week as Welcome
Home Week. They would like to have participation from the Police Department
and the Sheriff's Department. Mr.'Bowerman said he has heard through the news
media that they will not have a parade at Rio Hill Shopping Center, but they
want to hold the parade on Hydraulic Road from the Sperry Marineentrance to
Albemarle High School. Since it is a public road, they will need more in-
volvement fr°m the Police Department. They would also like to have coordina-
tion from the School Board, so that this time they have some more possibili-
ties for bands. Last time, there was not enough time to do this. They also
want to meet with this Board on April 3 to receive the proclamation.
Mr. Bowie said he told the group that this Board would probably not have a
representative at most meetings, but he has received a couple of progress
reports since last week, and the Police Chief is involved in coordinating law
enforcement activities. They want to coordinate this with the School Board so
that they might be able to use the school bands this time. Mr. Bowie suggest-
ed that he write a letter to the Chairman of the School Board saying this
Board would appreciate their cooperation in this event. Mr. Bowie said he
would proceed With the writing of the proclamation which will be forwarded to
the Board members for review before its final typing.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointments: Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA).
Mr. Bowie said he contacted Mr. Mark Reisler, Chairman of the JABA Board, and
Mr. Reisler endorses reappointment of the three members whose terms are about
to expire. Ail three members have expressed a desire to be reappointed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to reappoint
Mr. A. 3. Baglioni, Jr., Mr. Edward J. Jones, and Mrs. Virginia K. Lee to the
Jefferson Area Board on Aging with terms to expire on March 31, 1993.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion Carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: Mr. Perkins said he would like to appoint Mr. Arthur H.
Baker from Crozet to the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
from the White Hall District, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Mack Sheets,
term to expire on January 19,' 1993. He offered motion to this effect.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: February 6 (N), 1991.
Mr. Bowie had read pages 1 11 of February 6 and found only three typo-
graphical errors which he had giVen to the Clerk to correct.
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
205
Mr. Bowerman said he had read pages 35- end of February 6 and found them
to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
those minutes which had been read.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr, Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to mention Item 5.la on the Consent Agenda.
He said this item had been added late today, and he had overlooked it when the
consent agenda was approved at the beginning of the meeting. It was the
consensus of the BOard to hold this item, and put it on the April 3 meeting
for discussion.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. David Benish recently attended the Commonwealth
Transportation Board's presentation concerning Route 29 North. There is a
copy of the presentation on file in his office, and copies will be sent to the
Board members upon request. There will be no action taken on the Board's
request for a rehearing until next month.
Mr. Bain mentioned Item 5.2 on the Consent Agenda, letter from the Chair-
man of the Commonwealth Transportation Board concerning funds available for
transportation improvements for FY 1991-92. He asked when the staff would
have information ready for the Board to review.
Mr. Tucker said a discussion of the Six-Year Secondary Highway Plan is
scheduled for April 10. Although Mr. Milliken, in his letter, suggests that
the localities make recommendations as to which projects can be deleted, staff
feels this should be handled in a manner similar to that used for the Capital
Improvements Project, and that is to prioritize projects, and when the funds
run out, that is where the priority list ends.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the County should present its case and its actual
needs.
Mr. Bain asked about discussion of the redistricting of the county. Mr.
Tucker said a public hearing is scheduled for May 15. The first work session
on the magisterial district boundaries is scheduled for March 25, 1991, after
the final budget work session.
Mrs. Humphris said she mentioned several weeks ago that she had received
considerable communications from those citizens whose properties are located
within the designated corridor for the Route 29 North improvements, Alterna-
tive 10. There was a tremendous increase in the value of these properties
during the most recent reassessment, and these people feel that their proper-
ties have no value. She asked if there are any legal or practical remedies to
this problem. Mr. St. John said he has not even thought about this problem
since it was first mentioned, but will talk with the Director of Finance very
soon. Even if this situation has caused the value of the properties to drop
as much as thirty percent, and it can be proved that the situation has caused
that decrease in value, that is not a legal taking, but it seems as though it
should be reflected somehow in the reassessment.
Mr. Bain asked if there were many appeals filed on the recent reassessment
of real property. Mr. Tucker said there have not been as many appeals filed
as the staff had expected. There have been a lot of inquiries and many have
March 20, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
206
asked for the appraisers to come and view their properties again. In many
cases, the citizens have been satisfied with the answers given by the
appraisers.
Mr. Bain said citizens from two different subdivisions in his district
have spoken to him about the reassessment of their properties. It seems that
the increase has been more than one hundred percent since 1987.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to March 25, 1991, at 1:00 P.M.
At 8:29 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion
was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adjourn this meeting until
March 25, 1991, at 1:00 P.M.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Chairman