1991-04-03April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
232
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 3, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County
Executive, Ray B. Jones; Assistant County Executive, Robert B. Brandenburger;
County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Mr. Joseph J. Rein, III,
Field Division General Manager/Postmaster, sending notice that the postal
facility at 743 Shopping Center, Earlysville, Virginia, is inadequate to
efficiently serve the community and to invite comments on the location of a
new facility, was received as follows:
"The United States Postal Service has determined that the present
facility located at 743 Shopping Center, Earlysville, Albemarle
County, is inadequate to efficiently serve the co~mmunity. In the near
future, a study will be conducted to examine alternate solutions to
meet our facility needs.
Existing conditions justify seeking new quarters, owned or leased. It
has been determined that, ideally, the new facility should contain
approximately 3054 square feet interior net area. The Postal Service
desires to retain a location within the same general area as the
existing facility.
The purpose of this letter is to invite comments from local public
officials representing the community interests. It is requested that
a written reply to this correspondence be received within thirty (30)
days. As the project further develops, the Postal Service will
continue to keep your community informed via normal notification
procedures, and, if deemed necessary, arrange for a meeting."
Item 5.2. Letter dated March 25, 1991, from The Honorable John G.
Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, addressed to The Honorable F. R. Bowie,
Chairman, concerning the Commonwealth Transportation Board and Route 29 North,
was received as follows:
"Thank you for the copy of the presentation made to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board by Albemarle County on February 21 and the
additional points you addressed regarding that meeting in your letter
of February 28. I recognize that this is an issue of great importance
to the Albemarle Board and County citizens and I appreciate your
cooperation with us as the Board conducts its review.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 233
(Page 2)
I am sure that co~nents made by Transportation Board members regarding
Mr. St. John's reference to the Natural Bridge meeting in October
being unannounced were certainly not meant to be critical, but instead
to clarify the matter in which there seemed to be some misunderstand-
ing.
The meeting at Natural Bridge was a regular meeting of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board (CTB) at its regular meeting time. The
Board occasionally meets at locations other than in Richmond. This
meeting was announced in the 'Virginia Register' as are all Board
meetings. The CTB does not provide a notice of meetings to particular
jurisdictions or persons since it is an open public meeting.
Concerning the matter that Albemarle County was not allowed to provide
input before the decision was made, it should be noted, as indicated
in your letter, that you and Mr. Lindstrom were allowed to speak
regarding the Route 29 matter at Natural Bridge in October. The
public hearing on the matter had, of course, been held the previous
sun, her and the time for co~nent kept open after the hearing itself.
Study of the development of the 29 Bypass at Charlottesville has been
ongoing for the past several years. The County, the City and the
University of Virginia had representatives on a task force that was
deeply and directly involved as the study progressed throughout its
various stages to completion. The data, as it was developed and
collected, was reviewed with these task force members to receive their
comments and input regarding the information being considered.
As the study was completed and we were approaching the point where the
information would be presented to the public, the data was further
reviewed several times with County representatives on the task force
and also with other County staff members.
I thank you for your continued interest in this important transporta-
tion matter. I assure you that the Department and the Board will
continue to work through the many concerns to provide the most appro-
priate method of handling the traffic problems in the Charlottesville
area and Albemarle County, specifically in the Route 29 corridor."
Item 5.3. Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Highway Engineer, concerning a resolution adopted by the Board of Super-
visors requesting that the speed limit on 01d Brook Road be reduced, was
received as follows:
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors' resolution passed at
their February 13, 1991, meeting requesting the Department to reduce
the speed limit on Old Brook Road to 25 mph as originally posted. I
have reviewed this request with the District Traffic Engineer and we
must reject the Board's request.
For the Board's information the speed of traffic on Route 652 was
monitored at two locations on January 9, 1991. Station #1 was located
approximately 500 feet north of the intersection of Routes 652 and
1037. Station #2 was located 500 feet north of the intersection of
Routes 652 and 1439.
At Station #1 105 vehicles were observed. The 85th percentile speed
was 39 mph and 50 percent of the traffic was going 32 mph or faster.
At Station #2 45 vehicles were observed. The 85th percentile speed
was 40 mph and 50 percent of the traffic was going 34 mph or faster.
Upon receipt of the Board's resolution, I discussed the roadside
development and the speed study with the Traffic Engineer. While we
are both sympathetic to the concerns expressed by the Board and the
citizens in this area, we feel we would do those citizens a greater
disservice by lowering the speed limit. For the Board's information- I
have attached (on file) a number of articles and results from research
which confirmed for us that speed limit posting should reflmct the
motorists' desires unless accident data confirms a safety problem.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
234
Attachment #1 is a synopsis of the results of a research project
conducted by Purdue University which discusses speeds and speed limit
postings. Attachment #2 is information on a research project conduct-
ed by the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University.
These tables show that the posted speed limit has very little effect
upon the actual speeds of vehicles. Attachment #3 outlines the
results of studies conducted by our District Traffic Office along two
routes in Albemarle County. While it is not my intent to inundate the
Board of Supervisors with reams of information concerning this sub-
ject, I also have technical sun~naries from the Federal Highway Admini-
stration which recommends that speed limits should reflect actual
traffic speeds, particularly if minimizing accidents is a goal;
articles from a recent Public Work Magazine which discusses speed
limits and the myths surrounding them and a publication developed by
the California Institute of Transportation Engineers concerning speed
limits. All of these confirm that actual speed limit posting has very
little influence upon the speeds traveled by motorists and that speed
limits should be set at or near the 85th percentile speed if keeping
traffic accident rates low is a goal. If the Board desires this
information I will be happy to forward it to them."
Item 5.4. Letter dated March 21, 1991, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.,
P.E., State Location and Design Engineer, sending notice that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board rejected all four location alternatives on the proposed
Tabor Street (Route 691) or Park Road (Route 1204) Project #0691-002,234,C-501,
and decided that Alternative 5 which was proposed by Albemarle County would be
developed and presented at a Location and Design Public Hearing when funding
becomes available. The CTB also decided that in the interim, the two inter-
sections of Tabor Street (Route 691) at Route 240 and High Street would be
improved for better sight distance and turning radii. Received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.5. Letter dated March 18, 1991, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance
Manager, Department of Transportation, stating that the existing superstruc-
ture over Whiteside Branch, Route 693, will be repaired during the period of
April 1 through April 5, 1991, was received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated March 20, 1991, from Mr. J. A. Echols, Assistant
Resident Engineer, sending notice that the location and design features for
the Route 729 project (#0729-002,239,C-501), improvement of the intersection
of Routes 250 East and Route 729 at Shadwell, has been approved, was received
as information.
Item 5.7. Letters from the Department of Historic Resources:
a) Letters dated March 8, 1991, stating that ~WOOD and OLD RECTORY
will both be recommended to the State Review Board as being eligible historic
resources, were received as information.
b) Letter dated March 13, 1991, stating that the SOU~HWESTMOD%]TAINS
~HISTO~IC DISTRI~Twill be recommended to the State Review Board as being
an eligible historic resource, was received as information.
c) Letters dated March 15, 1991, stating that both WA~f]~R~RRRHAT~. FARM
and ARRO%~Rk])will be considered on April 17, 199i, for inclusion on the
Virginia Landmarks Register, were received as information.
Item 5.8. Report on services provided by JAUNT during the period of
October 1 through December 31, 1990, was received as information.
Item 5.9. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for March 12 and
March 19, 1991, were received as information.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
235
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-119. The Rocks. Public Hearing on a request
for a 43 lot Rural Preservation Development (10.2.2.28), and SP-90-120~ The
Rocks, for a bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek (30.3.5.2.1). Property in
SE quadrant of 1-64 & Rt 637. Zoned Rural Areas & Entrance Corridor Overlay.
TM74,P18,18A,18B&23. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on March 19 and March 26, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg sux~narized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property under review is a mixture of
pasture land and woodlands. There are currently three dwellings and
various farm buildings on the site. The lower portion of the site,
adjacent to Route 637, is in the flood plain of Ivy Creek. The
property then rises to the top of Bear Den Mountain and includes land
on the eastern slope of the mountain. The land between the stream and
the top of the mountain is rolling with moderate to critical slopes.
The steeper slopes and stream valleys are wooded. The property
parallels 1-64 for approximately 1.5 miles. The area proposed for the
development lots parallels 1-64 for approximately 0.6 miles and is
approximately 0.5 miles deep from 1-64. The property adjacent and to
the south is Rosemont which is currently being developed with single-
family houses. Other properties in the area are used for pasture or
hay with the steeper slopes remaining wooded.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing a 43-1ot Rural
Preservation Development. A description of the applicant's proposal
is included as Attachment E (on file). A total of 39 development lots
are currently proposed and four lots/dwellings in the preservation
tract are proposed as future family division lots/dwellings. The
average acreage of each development lot is 3.46 acres. The preserva-
tion tract contains 383 acres. A ll5-acre open space tract is also
proposed which will be for the benefit of the residents of The Rocks.
The applicant is proposing to install public roads to serve the
development lots. The applicant is requesting a special use permit
for a bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek in order to construct the
access road to the site.
Summary and Recommendations: During the initial review of the Rural
Preservation Development, staff recommended denial due to: (1) con-
cerns for visibility of the proposed family dwellings/lots from public
roads, and (2) the potential impact on the watershed of the access
road to the family dwellings/lots. The applicant subsequently provid-
ed additional information on lot siting and agreed to conditions
addressing road impact on water quality. After review of this addi-
tional information, staff believes its concerns have been addressed
and recommends approval of the applicant's request subject to condi-
tions.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan makes provision for
smaller, clustered rural residential lots as provided by the Rural
Preservation Development. It is further stated that 'a special use
permit shall be required for clustering more than 20 lots'. This
requirement allows the County to review developments approaching
Village scale.
SP-90-119 - Petition for 43 lot Rural Preservation Development: The
following is an analysis of the subdivision proposal for consistency
with Section 10.3.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which sets forth cri-
teria for Rural Preservation Development review:
10.3.3.2: The rural preservation development option is intended to
encourage more effective land usage as set forth in the comprehensive
plan than can be achieved under conventional development. To this
end, application for rural preservation development shall be reviewed
for:
a. Preservation of a~ricultural and forestal lands and activities}
The applicant's proposal will result in the protection of approx-
imately 77 percent of the site due to easements on the preserva-
tion tract and the provision of open space. These areas repre-
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
236
sent viable agricultural and forestal activities as evidenced by
their current usage. These areas currently receive land use
value taxation.
A comparison of this project to previously approved Rural Preser-
vation Developments is as follows:
Project Lo~ % Preservation/Open Space
The Rocks 43 77%
Quiet Woods 13 50%
Turner Mountain 7 58%
Landfall 7 89%
Beaumont 37 47%
Wrenson 30 50%
b. Water supply protection;
The proposed preservation tract includes a significant portion of
the entire Ragged Mountain Watershed. The entire development is
located within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. The applicant
has agreed to voluntarily comply with the regulations found in
the proposed Water Resource Protection Ordinance. The plan also
provides for significant areas of open space adjacent to Ivy
Creek and the road alignment has been designed to minimize stream
crossings wherever possible. The Watershed Management Official
has provided additional comments regarding the development's
impact on the watershed, and has provided comments intended to
directly address the access road to the family dwellings/lots (on
file). The Watershed Management Official states 'Incorporation
of the types of Best Management Practices outlined in this memo
and attachments can effectively mitigate any impacts on water
quality.' The applicant agrees with these recommendations and
staff will require appropriate conditions to insure water quality
protection.
c. Conservation of natural~ scenic or historic resources~
No official study has been prepared, but it is believed that the
remains of the stone house in which Edgar Allen Poe wrote The
Raven are located near the top of this property in the area
included in the preservation tract. Staff will recommend that
the protection of this site be provided in the preservation
easements in the event that the location of the structure is ever
verified. This protection shall be provided for by the standard
historic easement on the Rural Preservation Tract as may be
amended by the Recreational Facilities Authority. The layout of
the proposed development restricts all but a limited amount of
activity to the lower elevations of the site. This design will
result in a significantly lower level of visibility from 1-64 and
other public roads when compared to conventional development
which could result in development at much higher elevations which
would be visible from great distances.
More specifically~ in accordance with design standards of the
comprehensive plan and where deemed reasonably practical by the
commission:
Development lots shall not encroach into prime, important or
unique agricultural or forestal soils as the same shall be shown
on the most recent published maps of the United State Department
of Agricultural and Soil Conservation Service or other source
deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Ser-
vice~
This item will be discussed in detail later in this report.
e. Development lots shall not encroach into areas of critical slope
or flood plain and shall be situated as far as possible from
public drinking water supply tributaries and public drinking
water supply impoundments~
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
237
Significant areas of critical slopes are present on this site.
Large portions of development lots include these areas. Building
sites have been located so as to avoid encroachment onto critical
slopes by the dwellings or the access ways. However, the slopes
and soils located on the mountain side are more sensitive to
development and the proposed lot layout avoids these areas. No
lots, other than the open space, include any flOod plain lands.
Several streams are located on this site and are included in the
development lots. The applicant has field verified that all
septic drainfield areas are located 100 feet from any stream or
wetland area. The Open Space and Preservation Tract include
significant stream areas and the Open Space provides for signi-
ficant protection of Ivy Creek. The preservation tract provides
for the protection of a large portion of the Ragged Mountain
Watershed, approximately 202 acres, or 16 percent of that water-
shed.
Developmmnt lots shall be so situated and arranged as to preserve
historic and scenic settings deemed to be of importance to the
general public and natural resource areas whether such features
are on the parcel to be developed or adjacent to such parcel~
The potential historic value of this site has been discussed
earlier in this report. The development lots have been located
on the lower slopes of the site and this should reduce the
potential visibility from 1-64 and other public roads when
compared to other methods of development. This concentration of
development may increase visibility in the immediate area. As
seen from a distance, this lot layout should reduce visibility.
However, this site will be visible from 1-64 when travelling
eastbound. Visibility of the site from the westbound lane of
1-64 will be reduced by topography and vegetation.
Development lots shall be confined to one area of the parcel and
shall be situated so that no portion of the rural preservation
tract shall intrude between any development lots;
Development lots are confined to one area of the site. However,
the applicant is proposing four family dwellings/lots which would
be located at the top of Bear Den Mountain.
h. Ail development lots shall have access restricted to an internal
street in accordance with Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle$
Ail lots have been restricted to internal roads.
Section 10.5.2.1 related to issuance of a special use permit states
that: The Board of Supervisors shall determine that such division is
compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of
this ordinance, with reference to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of
division proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with
reference to the following:
The size~ shape, topography and existing vegetation of the
property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or
forestal production as evaluated by the United States Department
of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia
Department of Forestry;
The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production as evaluated by the United States Department of
Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed
of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service}
The applicant has stated that the site is comprised of 642.1
acres. There are approximately 188 acres of open land which are
currently being used for hay and pasture. The balance of 454
acres is forest land. The proposed rural preservation develop-
ment will insure preservation of all but 1.5 percent of the Class
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
238
II soils found on the site. Virtually all of the forested land
is to be included in the rural preservation tract. The majority
of the open land within the development tract is not suitable for
crop production due to slope, field size and shape. Grazing of
cattle on severe slopes has caused serious erosion problems.
Field evidence reveals evidence of sediment and nutrient loading
of Ivy Creek and tributary streams caused by overgrazing and
destruction of stream bank vegetation by cattle.
The historic commercial~ agricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950 to the extent that is reasonably available~
The applicant has stated that the property has been a cattle farm
since before 1950.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area~ the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the area.
For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to
be in an agricultural or forestal area if 50 percent or more of
the land within one mile of the border of such property has been
in commercial~ agricultural or forestal use within five years oS
the date of the application for special use permit. In makin~
this determination~ mountain ridges, ma3or streams and other
physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area
shall be considered~
Staff has determined that 64 percent of the land within one mile
of this property is in agricultural or forestal use. Therefore,
this site is deemed to be in an agricultural or forestal area.
In addition, another 10.3 percent of the land within one mile of
this property is in public ownership for the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir. Development has direct and indirect effects on
agricultural and forestal activities.
Staff does not intend to imply that this development will result
in negative effects. The County has experienced requests for
leash laws and leaf burning ordinances in rural subdivisions.
e
The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be
deemed to be located in a developed rural area if 50 percent or
more of the land within one mile of the boundary of such property
was in parcels of record of five acres of less on the adoption
date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain
ridges~ ma3or streams and other physical barriers which detract
from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered;
The development is not located within a developed rural area as
only 2.7 percent of the land within one mile was in parcels of
five acres or less on the adoption date of the ordinance.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A
property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximi-
ty to the area or use described:
Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary
as described in the comprehensive plan;
This site is located approximately four miles from the Urban
Area.
be
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community bound-
ary as described in the comprehensive plan~
This site is located approximately six miles from Crozet.
Within one-half mile roadway distance of a village as
described in the comprehensive plan.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
239
This site is located approximately five miles from the
Village of North Garden.
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital
improvements progra~ning in regard to increased provision of
services~
This development may generate the following school enrollments:
Meriwether Lewis Elementary School 22 additional students;
Henley Middle School - 11 additional students; and Western Albe-
marle High School - 13 additional students.
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will not generate
more students than could be generated by conventional develop-
ment.
The traffic generated from the proposed development would not~ in
the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (a)
occasion the need for road improvement; (b) cause a tolerable
road to become a non-tolerable road; or (c) increase traffic on
an existing non-tolerable road~
The proposed Rural Preservation Development will generate approx-
imately 430 vehicle trips per day. This is not greater than the
number of trips which could be realized by conventional develop-
ment. The current number of vehicle trips on this portion of
Route 637 is 2713 vehicle trips per day. Route 637 is currently
listed as non-tolerable.
With respect to applications for special use permits for land
lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed
of any public drinking water impoundment~ the following addi-
tional factors shall be considered~
The applicant has provided responses to the following:
The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as
related to filtration of sediment, phosphorus~ heavy metals~
nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water
quality for human consumption~
The 144 acres which is proposed to be developed into lots
and roads is currently in a poor quality vegetative cover.
The 114.9 acre open space is currently being grazed by
cattle and has some areas of severe erosion. The hay fields
on this parcel are in good condition effectively filtering
sediments and assimilating nutrients. The 382 acre rural
preservation tract is in forest which is the most beneficial
land use for water supply protection.
The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be
removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any
development~
The construction of roads will be the primary land disturb-
ing activity during the development of the site. This
activity will require the temporary disturbance of approxi-
mately 10.5 acres of land. The road system alignment has
been designed to minimize any negative environmental impacts.
c-- The amount of impervious cover which will exist after
development~
It is estimated that approximately 0.9 percent of the site
will be impervious after development.
The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area,
structure~ or drain field to any perennial or intermittent
stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the
proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or
impoundment;
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
240
Roads have been designed to minimize stream crossings.
Housing sites and drain fields have been located at least
100 feet from any stream or wetland. Any drain field which
appeared to be close to the 100 foot stream or wetland
setback was field verified for compliance with all ordinance
requirements. Ail lots have been field checked for adequate
building sites on slopes of less than 25 percent.
The type and characteristics of soils including suitability
for septic fields and erodibility~
Soil Service Inc., has conducted soil borings and located
suitable drain fields on each lot shown on the preliminary
subdivision plat. Soils on the steeper slopes have the
highest potential for erodibility. These areas are not
intended for, nor will they be developed.
fo
The percentage and lensth of all slopes subject to distur-
bance during construction or upon which any structure~ paved
area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area
shall exist after development;
Of the 10.85 acres impacted during the road construction,
approximately 0.3 acre, in isolated small patches averaging
1900 square feet each, is located on slopes greater than 25
percent.
The estimated duration and timing of the construction phase
of any proposed development and extent to which such dura-
tion and timing are unpredictable~
Although no timing or phasing plan has been established,
construction shall be scheduled so that grading operations
can begin and end as soon as possible. Sediment trapping
measures shall be installed as a first step in grading and
shall be seeded and mulched immediately following installa-
tion.
The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover
has been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit
hereunder~
The only activity in anticipation of this permit to take
place on site has been soil borings for the drain field
locations.
The extent of which the standards of Chapter 19.1~ et. seq.
of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the crea-
tion of artificial devices, which devices will:
Require periodic inspection an/or maintenance;
Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off
associated with any one hundred year or more intense
storm.
The two wet ponds shown on the preliminary subdivision plat
and erosion and sediment controls are the only proposed
artificial devices designed to meet the standards of Chapter
19.1, et. seq. of the Code of Albemarle. The wet ponds will
be designed to acconm~odate a minimum one hundred year storm
frequency event. Soil erosion and sediment control practi-
ces will be constructed and maintained to the standards and
specifications of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook. The minimal maintenance required will be guaran-
teed by the homeowner's association to be formed upon
commencement of the project. This development is exempt
from Chapter 19.1 due to the amount of impervious coverage.
This agreement represents voluntary compliance.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
241
Summary: The applicant has requested that four dwellings/lots be
allowed on the top of Bear Den Mountain in the Preservation Tract.
These dwellings/lots are intended for future family divisions. The
access to these proposed sites involves a road which will include two
additional stream crossings. The access road to the proposed sites is
in the approximate alignment of old roads on the property. Signifi-
cant portions of the alignment will involve new road construction.
The alignment of the road on the top of the mountain follows an old
public road. Two additional stream crossings are necessary for the
construction of the access road. As stated previously, with appro-
priate conditions, the impact of this road can be mitigated. The
location of the family dwellings/lots is the approximate location of
an old orchard and, therefore, additional clearing should be limited.
The applicant has agreed to limit clearing to that necessary for the
construction of dwellings and access roads. In addition, the appli-
cant has agreed to restrict the building types to earth tones. The
applicant has submitted sight studies which indicate that the family
dwellings/lots will not be visible from public roads. The family
dwellings/lots range in size from 2.05 to 4.3 acres.
The Zoning Ordinance allows the Planning Con~nission and Board of
Supervisors to authorize more than one dwelling in the Preservation
Tract or more than one Preservation Tract. The minimum size of a
Preservation Tract is 40 acres. The applicant is proposing a Preser-
vation Tract of 382.82 acres, which is equivalent to nine minimum
sized Preservation Tracts. Staff notes that suitable sites for the
proposed family dwellings/lots may be found on the lower slopes where
fewer stream crossings would be required. However, staff notes that
the most probable sites would be in the area noted as open space, as
limited areas exist outside of the open space or on the mountain top,
which are not in slopes of 25 percent or greater. The proposed family
dwellings/lots are not located within the Ragged Mountain Watershed.
Summary of Rural Preservation Development: Staff has identified the
following items which are favorable to this request:
1. Preservation of significant agricultural areas;
Protection of water supply resulting from fewer stream crossings
than would occur with conventional development, provision of open
space adjacent to Ivy Creek and the inclusion of a large portion
of the Ragged Mountain watershed in the Preservation Tract;
Concentration of development lots in areas less sensitive to
development;
Development lots are located adjacent to similar sized lots in
Rosemont. The Preservation Tract is located adjacent to similar
sized properties;
The Open Space and Preservation Tract are located in areas of
high visibility, thereby reducing the overall visibility of the
project;
The Preservation Tract allows for the protection of a potential
historic site;
The site has good access to Crozet and Charlottesville due to the
proximity of 1-64.
Staff has identified the following items which are unfavorable to this
request:
Development of the family dwellings/lots will intrude into the
rural preservation tract;
Concentrated development will give the appearance of village
scale development;
Due to the scale of development, it is reasonable to assume
increased demands for services and regulations of a urban type.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
242
The applicant has offered to plant ten trees per acre, use earth tones
for new dwellings and limit clearing to that necessary for roads and
dwellings. These items will help to reduce the overall impact of the
development. Development is of a scale that will give the appearance
of a Village. However, 'by-right' development may result in a similar
appearance and be more spread out over the site. The family dwell-
ings/lots will require additional clearing and stream crossings in the
watershed. Other more suitable areas at lower elevation, not requir-
ing stream crossings, would be more desirable for these dwellings/
lots. However, with the appropriate conditions, impact of these
dwellings can be mitigated. Much more intensive clearing for access
to lots in a conventional development is avoided with this design.
Staff opinion is that this request, on balance, provides a favorable
design alternative to conventional development, and does comply with
the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and provisions of Section
10.3.3.2. Therefore, staff recommends approval.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve SP-90-119~ staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preser-
vation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary
plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than
4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots shall qualify as 'Family
Divisions';
A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the develop-
ment lots. Trees shall be installed within two planting seasons
of the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
dwelling on the lot;
Dwellings shall be of earth tone materials and clearing shall be
limited to the minimum amount necessary for the construction of
access roads and dwellings.
SP-90-120 - Petition for bridge in the flood plain of Ivy Creek: The
applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow for a bridge to
be constructed in the flood plain of Ivy Creek. No other access to
the property is available which does not involve the crossing of the
Ivy Creek flood plain. The applicant's proposed crossing is located
in the approximate location of the existing bridge which provides
access to the existing houses on the property. The existing bridge
structure is inadequate for a public road and, therefore, must be
replaced in order for a public road to be built and accepted into the
state system. The Engineering Department has reviewed the request and
recommends approval. Staff opinion is that this request is consistent
with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of
SP-90-120 subject to the following conditions:
The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals
have been obtained:
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and
hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section
30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and
road plans."
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
243
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 19,
1991, unanimously recommended approval of both SP-90-119 and SP-90-120 subject
to the conditions as recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bowie asked why the applicant's offer to "use earth tones for new
dwellings" was not recommended in the conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg
said there was considerable discussion by the Planning Commission on the
meaning of "earth tone", and they decided that such a condition would not be
suitable because of various interpretations.
Mr. Bain asked what is meant by the condition reading "Not more than four
dwelling/lots shall be allowed in the preservation tract .... Ail dwell-
ings/lots shall qualify as Family Divisions". Mr. Cilimberg said the four
lots in the preservation tract must meet the requirements for a Family Divi-
sion in the Subdivision Ordinance. Although the lots subject to Family Divi-
sion are being specified, the actual division would have to occur the same as
any other family division. Mr. Bain asked if it makes any difference how
ownership is held for a family division; a limited partnership is not a
family. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the County Attorney address that issue.
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with this because in a family division, a
family member can sell the property after a year.
Mr. Perkins asked what size trees are to be provided on the development
lots. Mr. Cilimberg said the size of the trees was not specified, but require-
ments in the Zoning Ordinance will be used as the guide.
Mr. Bain asked how the preservation tracts relate to a "Mountain Top
Ordinance" a requirement which has been discussed in the past. Mr. Cilimberg
said there is currently no Mountain Top Ordinance, nor have any specific
provisions for mountain top protection been identified. He does not know if
this proposal would fit the concept of the proposed ordinance.
The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Hiram Ewald, came
forward. Mr. Ewald said Verulam Farm Limited Partnership consists of himself,
his brother, his sister and his mother. Also present tonight are Mr. Bob
McKee and Mr. Pete Bradshaw, both of whom worked on the plan. Mr. Ewald said
they have made every effort to comply with the proposed Water Resources
Protection Ordinance and to voluntarily include the proposed wetponds which
were intended to mitigate any development impact on Ivy Creek. He noted that
77 percent of the property will remain in permanent open space. He believes
that improving the bridge will enhance the quality of the water that goes
through the bridge. Currently cattle roam through the bridge and the creek
bank is crumbling.
Mr. Ewald said his family has owned this property for 20 years. They
thought the rural preservation tract would be ideal in addressing the Compre-
hensive Plan. The reason for proposing the family division was because
development of four regular lots would require a road built to State stan-
dards. In addition to being expensive, such a road would badly impact the
face of the mountain. They have agreed to construct the road to County
standards. He cannot speak to the future, but it is the intent that the four
family members live on the lots in the preservation tract. Mr. Ewald said he
thinks this is a good plan and the County gains a lot by leaving this land in
permanent open space.
There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney if restrictions can be put on the
"Family Division" through the special permit. Mr. St. John said he does not
know if "Family Division" status can be granted through a special use permit,
if the application does not qualify for that status. It was not his under-
standing that approval of the special use permit would guarantee family
division treatment of the lots. He interpreted the condition that approval of
the special use permit would create a preservation tract, along with the
creation of a small lot cluster. In order to divide the four lots, the
applicants will have to qualify as a family division. In his opinion a
partnership cannot be the grantor of a family division. If the partnership
holds title to the land, this cannot be done. It is unusual to have a family
division shown as part of a commercial subdivision. If these four lots are
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
244
actually for sale as part of the subdivision, even though'they qualified under
the family division, that would be a circumvention of the Ordinance and would
not serve the purpose of family division.
Mr. Bowie asked if approval of the special use permits means there is a
family division. Mr. St. John said he thinks that should be clarified. If it
is not the Board's intent that the four lots be created under the family
division provision then the condition should be amended. It is his opinion
that the first condition is ambiguous. Mr. Bowie suggested that a sentence be
added to the first condition that "Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee
approval of "Family Division". Mr. St. John agreed with the clarification.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was the intent of the staff that the proposed
family division be evaluated on the merits of a family division. Mr. St. John
asked if the four lots are shown on the plan before the Board. In response to
Mr. St. John, Mr. Bain replied "yes". They are shown because part of the
staff's objection was the location of the lots. The applicant has agreed that
the lots will be shown in accordance with the submitted plan. Mr. St. John
asked if this is the preliminary plat for approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the
preliminary plat was approved subject to approval of the special permit by the
Planning Commission and the Board. The preliminary plat is not before the
Board for approval. This plan before the Board meets the preliminary plat
requirements of showing the area and how open space would be delineated, the
lots and the preservation tract. He indicated on the plan the general area
for site building locations of the family division. Mr. St. John asked if the
Commission has already approved a preliminary plan of the family divisions
without knowing if the lots qualify for family division. Mr. Cilimberg said
he does not think so. In his opinion, that was not the intent of the Commis-
sion in their action. The special permit governs approval and development of
the preliminary plat. Mr. St. John said if the four lots qualify as family
divisions, they do not have to be shown on the subdivision plat; they are
exempt from being shown. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct and the lots are
only shown from a planning standpoint. The special permit specifies the
location on the plan.
Mr. Bowie suggested deleting the word "shall" in the last sentence of the
first condition to read: "All dwellings/lots must qualify as .... " He also
suggested adding a sentence to read: "Approval of SP-90-119 does not guaran-
tee approval of 'Family Division'." Mr. Bain agreed.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to support the request, but wants the issue
about the family divisions clarified.
Mrs. Humphris said the plan indicates a sight line from 1-64 and asked
who would have that view. Mr. Cilimberg said the view would come from the
west approaching 1-64. The property is visible at some elevations from 1-64,
approaching west from Ivy, but one of the high points on the preservation
tract is blocking the view of the house site.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she would prefer not to look across the
landscape and see more "white buildings" perched on the side of the mountain.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not know which house or how many houses might be
seen.
Mr. Bowie asked again why the applicant's offer of earth tones was not
accepted. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission could not identify colors that
would be acceptable. Mr. St. John did not think there is a problem with such
a condition because "you know what earth tones do not consist of".
Mr. Bain said he will support this request because it is better than the
alternative. He emphasized that as long as he is a member of the Board, he
will not support extension of water to this property. Encouraging this
development does not mean that he would support the extension of water. Mr.
Way agreed with Mr. Bain and said such developments should not expect water
service.
Mrs. Humphris suggested adding a fourth condition: "New dwellings shall
be of earth tones".
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
245
Mr. Perkins asked for a response to his previous question about the size
of the trees. Mr. Ewald said some of the home sites in the development area
are visible from the highway. They intend to plant ten trees an acre as a
buffer. They are amendable to suggestions about the size of the trees. Mr.
Perkins suggested two-inch caliber trees. Mr. Bob McKee suggested one and
one-half to two-inch caliber. Mr. Cilimberg said the Zoning Ordinance re-
quires street trees to be one and one-half inches to one and three-quarter
inches minimum caliber. The Zoning Ordinance requires that evergreen trees
for screening be four to five feet in height. Mr. McKee suggested that it
might be best to require the trees to be as per the provisions of the Ordi-
nance.
Mr. Ewald asked if it is the intent to require that trees be planted on
all 39 lots or just the lots that are open and visible from the highway. Some
of the lots are already wooded. Mr. Bain said the purpose of the trees is to
provide screening from the public. He thinks it should be addressed per lot.
Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think it is necessary to plant additional trees
on lots where there is sufficient screening. Mrs. Humphris said she does not
thinkthe recommended condition is appropriate. Mr. Way said he does not
interpret the condition to mean that ten trees must be planted on each lot.
The condition states: "A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided
.... " If the trees are already there, then no additional trees need to be
added. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the size of the trees should be in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg suggested
rewording the sentence to read: "A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be
provided on the development lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public roads,
i.e., 1-64 and Route 637." Mr. Perkins agreed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
approve SP-90-119 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission, with condition #1 modified to read: "... Ail dwellings/lots must
qualify as Family Divisions. Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approv-
al of Family Division;" condition #2 to read: "A minimum of ten trees per
acre shall be provided on the development lots in accordance with Section
32.7.9.5 of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from
the public roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637;" and adding a condition #4 to
read: "New dwellings shall be of earth tones." 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 conditions as approved are set out in full below:)
Not more than four dwellings/lots shall be allowed in the preser-
vation tract and shall be located as shown on the preliminary
plat. Lots shall be no less than 2.0 acres and no greater than
4.3 acres in size. All dwellings/lots must qualify as "Family
Divisions". Approval of SP-90-119 does not guarantee approval of
"Family Division";
o
A minimum of ten trees per acre shall be provided on the develop-
ment lots in accordance with Section 32.7.9.5 of the Zoning
Ordinance for the purpose of providing screening from the public
roads, i.e., 1-64 and Route 637. Trees shall be installed within
two planting seasons of the date of the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the dwelling on the lot;
Clearing shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary for the
construction of access roads and dwellings;
4. New dwellings shall be of earth tones.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-90-120 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals
have been obtained:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
a.
246
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design;
c. Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and
hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section
30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of bridge and
road plans.
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-91-02. Garrett & Eleanor Thomas. Public Hearing
on a request for a permanent sawmill on 5.314 ac zoned RA. TM26,P31C, located
on W side of Rt 673 approx 0.3 mi S of Rt 672 near Montfair. White Hall Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress March 19 and March 26, 1991.)
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 7:55 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the
following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is developed with a single-
family residence. Approximately six dwellings are visible to the west
of this site. The site under review is mostly wooded. Uncut and cut
timber are being stored on the site at this time.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant currently operates a temporary
sawmill on this site. Both cut and uncut wood are stored on site.
The area adjacent and to the west of the existing house is used to
store wood while uncut wood occupies the area between the state road
and the house. The applicant operates a 25 horsepower band saw which
is on a trailer. The applicant is proposing to construct a pole barn
between the house and the existing well in which the sawing operation
will be placed. The current operation is exposed to the weather. One
employee, other than the applicant, is proposed.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas of the
County. This type of use is considered to be a 'bona fide' agricul-
tural/forestal use and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Summary and Recommendation: The applicant is currently operating a
temporary sawmill on the site at this time. No permit is required or
has been issued for the current operation. No formal complaint has
been filed with the County. However, the Zoning Department has
received one call of concern. The caller did not lodge a complaint or
identify himself. The current sawmill operations do not meet the
minimum setbacks required by Section 5.1.15 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Those areas which would meet the required 100 foot setback found in
Section 5.1.15(a). The location of the saw in relation to other
dwellings does not meet the requirements of Section 5.1.15(b).
Section 5.1 states in part 'In review of any use by special use
permit, the Commission and Board of Supervisors may vary or waive any
provision of this section as deemed appropriate in a particular case.'
The saw is on a trailer and is very mobile and staff recommends that
it be relocated so as to comply with the provisions of Section
5.1.15(b). Staff opinion is that the saw should also meet the 100
foot setback for structures referenced in Section 5.1.15(a). Staff
has been able to find one precedent, SP-82-09 for Augusta Lumber, to
allow reduced setbacks for other items listed in 5.1.15(a). The
reduced setback in SP-82-09 was allowed due to the existing sawmill
use on site. Staff has reviewed the current request in a similar
manner and recommends that the existing storage areas for both cut and
uncut wood be allowed in areas closer than 100 feet to adjacent
properties. However, no storage shall be permitted closer than 25
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
247
feet to adjacent properties or 75 feet from the state road. This
setback is equal to the side and front building setback for the RA,
Rural Areas, district. In order to address the concerns of an adja-
cent property owner, the applicant has agreed to construct a six foot
high privacy fence adjacent to other lots where material is stored
less than 100 feet from those lots.
Access to this site is by Route 673 which carries 62 vehicle trips per
day along this section. Route 673 is listed as non-tolerable.
However, issuance of this permit should not result in a significant
traffic increase over current levels due to the existence of a tempo-
rary sawmill on-site. Staff notes that a majority of the traffic to
the site will be by truck. The existing entrance to the site does not
have the minimum required sight distance. However, adequate sight
distance can be obtained. Staff recommends that sight distance be
obtained.
No engineering information has been submitted to ensure compliance
with the noise limitation requirements of Section 4'.14. Staff recom-
mends that a certified engineer's report be submitted to the County
Engineer to verify compliance with the noise limitations of Section
4.14.
Staff opinion is that this use is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for the following
reasons:
The sawmill is currently operating on-site and this permit would
have no direct effect on the level of activity;
The use is consistent with the other uses in the Rural Areas
District;
3. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the following condi-
tions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall not be
located closer than 25 feet to any side lot line nor closer than
75 feet to Route 673. Any new construction, to include proposed
pole barn, or storage areas shall not be located closer than 100
feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within these setbacks
shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses,
provided that during the last three months of operation such
trees may be removed;
Where materials are stored less than 100 feet from a lot line, a
six-foot high privacy fence shall be installed;
The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be located not
closer than 600 feet to any dwelling on other properties in the
area and not closer than 100 feet to any lot line;
No sawing or operation of other processing machinery shall occur
between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/
wood products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the County Engineer
verifying compliance with the noise provisions of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant;
Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation."
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
248
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 5,
1991, by a 6:1 vote recommended approval of SP-91-02 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
(Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 8:00 p.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said the
applicant has relocated the sawmill so that it conforms with the recommended
conditions of approval which is beyond the 100 foot setback from any property
line. The applicant has also installed fencing on the property to the south
to screen stored timber.
Mrs. Humphris asked the necessity of condition #4 that "No loading/
unloading of wood/wood products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00
a.m.". Mr. Cilimberg said this language was duplicated from the Supplementary
Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance regarding sawmills. He assumes that it is
because sometimes due to business operations, timber is brought in during the
evening hours, especially after cutting timber all day.
Mrs. Humphris said she had read the Planning Commission minutes and
thinks the Commission's intent on the first condition was to clarify the
expiration of the permit by including a statement that said "At such times as
trees are removed within the buffer, this permit shall expire." She asked why
that was not in the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg said those words were not
included in the Planning Commission's motion for approval of this permit.
Mrs. Humphris said she would like to include the condition.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and the applicant, Mr. Garrett
Thomas, came forward. Mr. Thomas said everything is clear and he will answer
any questions Board members may have. It is not his intent to be doing any
work at midnight.
Regarding condition #5, Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Thomas if he had any
information concerning the noise level from the machine. Mr. Thomas said he
called the company that sold him the machine and they could not give him any
information. Mr. Perkins asked what kind of engine powers the machine. Mr.
Thomas said it is a two cylinder gas motor similar to most lawn mowers. The
blade does not make much noise. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Thomas if he will have
any problems getting a certified engineer's report. Mr. Thomas said he talked
to someone in the County Engineering Department and was told that there would
be no problem getting the report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there have been any complaints from adjacent
landowners. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no".
Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department requires that the report be
submitted by a certified engineer. They do not do the actual report. Mr.
Bowie then asked how someone gets a certified engineer's report. Mr. Cilimber
responded that the Engineering Department deals directly with the applicant.
Mr. Bowie again asked Mr. Thomas if he thought that would be a problem. Mr.
Thomas responded that he did talk with Engineering and they indicated that
they could do it. Mrs. Humphris asked if there have been any problems with
people meeting this requirement. Mr. Cilimberg said he is not aware of any
problems, but he does not deal directly with it, so he cannot say.
Mr. Thomas said he did visit all of his neighbors and asked if they had a
problem with his operation. They all signed a petition stating that they had
no problem with the request.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem with the application and will support
the request. If there is a problem with the engineer's report then that can
be dealt with at a later time.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-91-02 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
with the first condition amended to add the following statement: "At such
time as the trees are removed from within the buffer, this permit shall
expire." Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
249
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The conditions as approved are set out in full below:)
Existing lumber, logs, chips or timber storage shall not be
located closer than 25 feet to any side lot line nor closer than
75 feet to Route 673. Any new construction, to include proposed
pole barn, or storage areas shall not be located closer than 100
feet to any lot line. Trees and vegetation within these setbacks
shall be maintained as a buffer to adjoining properties and uses,
provided that during the last three months of operation such
trees may be removed. At such time as the trees are removed from
within the buffer, this permit shall expire;
Where materials are stored less than 100 feet from a lot line, a
six-foot high privacy fence shall be installed;
o
The use shall be limited to one saw which shall be located not
closer than 600 feet to any dwelling on other properties in the
area and not closer than 100 feet to any lot line;
No sawing or operation of other processing machinery shall occur
between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. No loading/unloading of wood/
wood products shall occur between 12:00 midnight and 7:00 a.m.;
Submittal of a certified engineer's report to the County Engineer
verifying compliance with the noise provisions of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Not more than one employee, other than the applicant;
Upgrading of the entrance in compliance with the comments of the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-07. Winifried Adler (Adwell Info Systems
Office). Public Hearing on a request for an extension of six months on a
permit to allow computer consulting, sales & service in existing single-family
residence located on W side of Rio Rd between Hillsdale & Old Brook Rds.
TM61,P129A. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress March 19
and March 26, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is requesting a six-month extension of
SP-89-07, which was approved on April 5, 1989, to allow computer consulting,
sales and service to be located in an existing single-family residence at the
intersection of Rio Road and Hillsdale Drive. Since the original approval,
Mr. Adler has been in the process of obtaining the necessary easements for
access, sight distance and sewer connections. These items have been resolved
and the final site plan is scheduled to be signed on April 4, 1991. Staff can
identify no change in circumstances since the original review of the special
use permit and therefore recommends approval of the extension request.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and the applicant, Mr. Winifried
Adler, came forward. Mr. Adler said he had tremendous problems with acquiring
certain easements. There is one neighbor who has been totally uncooperative.
He anticipates approval of the site plan on April 4, but wants the extension
in the event that something unforeseen occurs.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to grant a six
month extension of SP-89-07. 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.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
250
Mr. Way suggested that Agenda Item No. 11 be taken up at this time.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: ZMA-90-18. J. S. and Frances Barnett.
Proposal to amend proffer so as to allow installation of fence and plantings
instead of planting rows of pine trees. (Deferred from March 20, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the memorandum dated March 14 (set out in the
minutes of March 20, 1991) and the following memorandum dated March 28:
"This is an addendum to the memorandum to the Board of Supervisors of
March 14, 1991, for this site. The Architectural Review Board (ARB)
approved this applicant's request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
on March 25, 1991, and the Planning Commission approved the site plan
amendment on March 26, 1991.
During the ARB's review of this site plan, they considered the fence
proposed by the applicant, and required that it be stained a dark
color and that the proposed bar wire be deleted from its top. The
ARB also recommended the addition of ten deciduous street trees (oak,
ash or maple) at one and one-half inch caliper to replace the double
row of street shrubs planted feet five on center, staggered along the
site's frontage on Route 742, which was the applicant's original
proffer. The applicant was agreeable to this replacement, but both he
and the ARB were made aware that the change would require consent of
the Board of Supervisors.
Should the Board of Supervisors choose not to accept the ten trees as
a substitution for the shrubs, the applicant may rely on the original
proffered landscape plan of street shrubs only along Route 742."
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff is requesting an affirmation from the Board
that the proposed plan is consistent with the proffers.
Mrs. Humphris said the memorandum indicates that the ten deciduous street
trees will replace the double row of street shrubs. Mr. Cilimberg said the
plan is actually for a replacement of 20 shrubs, but the applicant will
continue to show some of the shrubs between street trees. The plan presented
tonight is the actual one before the County for approval. Mrs. Humphris
commented that the report is not accurate. Mr. Cilimberg said when the report
was written, the staff thought that was going to be the case, but when the
applicant later submitted his plan, it included the additional shrubs with the
trees.
The applicant, Mr. Barnett, stated he had no comments to add.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to affirm that
the plan as presented for ZMA-90-18 is consistent with the proffers originally
accepted on November 28, 1990. 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. 9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend the Albemarle
County Code, Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3 to set forth uniform requirements
for direct and indirect discharges into the wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems of the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority; to enable the ACSA and RWSA to comply with all applicable
State and Federal laws; and to provide for the protection of sewerage systems
and their respective receiving streams. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
March 19 and March 26, 1991.)
Mr. Jones said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) on March 13,
1991, requested the Board to amend the Albemarle County Code to add its
recently amended Sewerage User Rules and Regulations. At that meeting there
were several questions raised during the discussion on the proposed ordinance.
Responses to those questions are included in a letter (copy on file) dated
March 28, 1991, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, ACSA and Mr. George
W. Williams, Executive Director, RWSA. Mr. Brent is present to answer any
questions.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
251
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments from the public,
the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris said she originally asked a lot of questions about the
proposed regulations. Today she was invited to a meeting with Mr. Brent, Mr.
Williams and Mr. Gene Potter, Director of Operations at RWSA, and they were
helpful in explaining to her the rules and regulations. She understands a lot
better some of things that caused her problems.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt
an ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 19.I, Article I, Water and
Sewers, of the Albemarle County Code in Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3. 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:)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 19.1,
ARTICLE 1 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article 1 of Chapter 19.1 of the Albemarle County Code,
Sections 19.1-1 through 19.1-3 are hereby amended and re-enacted as
follows:
Part I. PREAMBLE
Section 1. Purpose.
This ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for direct and
indirect discharges into the wastewater collection and treatment
systems of the Albemarle County Service Authority ("ACSA") and Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority ("RWSA"); enable the ACSA and RWSA to comply
with all applicable State and Federal laws; and provide for the
protection of the sewerage systems and their respective receiving
streams.
Section 2. Scope.
This ordinance provides for controlling the quantity, character
and rate of discharge of sewage into the ACSA's and RWSA's sewerage
systems and the issuance of Industrial Waste Discharge Permits and
shall apply to all discharges, direct or indirect, into any part of
the sewerage system of the ACSA and RWSA.
Section 3. Authority.
This ordinance is authorized and required by Section 5.6 of the
agreement dated June 12, 1973 by and between the City of Charlottes-
ville, Albemarle County Service Authority, Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, paragraph
15.1 - 1250, Code of Virginia and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended.
Section 4. Definitions.
Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the follow-
ing words, phrases, and abbreviations used in these Regulations shall
be defined as fOllows:
APPROVING AUTHORITY - The Executive Director of the Rivanna Water
& Sewer Authority jointly with the Executive Director of the
Albemarle County Service Authority as appropriate, or their duly
authorized representative.
ACSA - Albemarle County Service Authority.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
252
BOARD - The Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority or the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County
Service Authority as appropriate.
B.O.D. (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) - The laboratory determination
of the quantity of oxygen by weight, expressed in parts per
million, utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter
under standard laboratory conditions in five (5) days at 20
degrees C. The laboratory determination shall be in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 136.
C.O.D. (Chemical Oxygen Demand) - The laboratory determination of
the oxygen equivalent expressed in parts per million of that
portion of the organic ~tter that is susceptible to oxidation by
the standard dichromate reflux method. The laboratory determina-
tion shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARDS - Industry-specific pollutant
discharge standards promulgated by the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA).
DOMESTIC SEWAGE - Waterborne wastes normally discharging from the
sanitary conveniences of dwellings (including apartments houses
and hotels), office buildings, factories and institutions, free
from storm surface water and industrial wastes.
ho
INDUSTRIAL WASTES - All waterborne solids, liquids or gaseous
wastes resulting from any industrial, manufacturing, trade,
business or food processing operation or process, or from the
development of any natural resource, exclusive of domestic
sewage.
INTERFERENCE A discharge which, alone or in conjunction with
other discharges, inhibits or disrupts the sewerage system, its
treatment processes, or sludge disposal, and is a cause of
violation of the receiving sewage treatment plant's discharge
permit.
j. PARTS PER MILLION - A weight to weight ratio.
ko
PASS THROUGH POLLUTANT - Any pollutant which is unaffected by the
normal sewage treatment processes that could impair water quality
in the receiving stream or cause a violation of the receiving
sewage treatment plant's discharge permit.
PERSON Any individual, association, partnership, corporatiOn,
municipality, State, Federal agency, or any agent or employee
thereof.
PERMIT - An Industrial Waste discharge Permit issued pursuant to
this Ordinance.
pH - The logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the hydrogen
ion concentration.
POINT OF DISCHARGE - The point at which waste is discharged to
the publicly owned sewerage system.
POLLUTANT Any man-made or man-induced material that alters the
physical, chemical, biological or radiological integrity of
water.
PUBLIC SEWER - Either sanitary or storm sewer in which all owners
of abutting properties shall have equal rights and is controlled
by public authority.
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL OR ISOTOPE - Any material containing chemi-
cal elements that spontaneously change their atomic structure by
emitting any particles or rays.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
253
s. RWSA - Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
SANITARY SEWER - A sewer which carries sewage and to which storm,
surface and ground waters are not intentionally admitted.
SEPTIC TANK WASTES - Sewage from domestic septic tank treatment
systems.
SEWAGE - A combination of water-carried wastes from residential,
commercial, institutional and industrial establishments, together
with such ground, surface and storm waters as may be present.
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT - Any arrangement of devices and struc-
tures used for treating sewage.
SEWER - A pipe or conduit used to collect and carry away sewage
or storm water run-off from the generating source to sewage
treatment plants or receiving streams.
SEWERAGE - The system of sewers and appurtenances for the collec-
tion, transportation, pumping and treatment of sewage.
SHALL AND MAY - "Shall" wherever used in this Ordinance will be
interpreted in its mandatory sense; "may" is permissive.
aa. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER - Any industrial discharger who:
1. is subject to categorical standards;
2. discharges a non-domestic wastestream of 25,000 gallons
per day or more;
3. contributes 5% or greater to the hydraulic or organic load of
the receiving plant; or
e
has a reasonable potential to affect the plant performance,
pass through of pollutants, contaminate sludge, or endanger
collection/treatment workers.
bb.
SLUG - Any discharge which in concentration of any pollutant or
in quantity of flow will cause a violation of the prohibited
waste discharges in Part II, Section 1. of this Ordinance.
CC.
SURCHARGE - The additional charge for treating sewage containing
concentrations of BOD and/or suspended solids in excess of 240
parts per million.
dd.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS - Solids that either float on the surface of, or
are in suspension in water, sewage, or other liquids, and which
are removable by laboratory filtering. Quantitative determina-
tion of suspended solids shall be made in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 136.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES - Any substance whether gaseous, liquid or
solid, of such character or in such quantity that when discharged
to the sanitary sewer will interfere with any sewage treatment
process, cause a hazard to any portion of the sewerage system,
constitute a hazard to any living organism, a hazard in the
stream or watercourse receiving the effluent from the sewage
treatment plant, or interfere with sludge disposal.
ff.
TRADE SECRETS - Any formula, plan, pattern, process, tool,
mechanism, material, compound, procedure, production data, or
compilation of information which is not patented, which is known
only to certain individuals within a commercial concern who are
using it to fabricate or produce a compound, an article of trade,
or a service having commercial value and which gives its users an
opportunity to obtain a business advantage over competitors who
do not know or use it.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
254
Part II. DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Section I. Prohibited Waste Dischar8es.
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into any
portion of the sewerage system, directly or indirectly, any pollutant
or wastewater which will interfere with the operation or performance
of the collection system or sewage treatment plant; constitute a
hazard to human life or health, interfere with or impede the disposal
of treatment by-products such as scums and sludges; pass through the
treatment system so as to violate any local, State or Federal stream
standard; or create a public nuisance. Discharges of the following
are expressly prohibited:
Any waste having a temperature greater than 150 degrees F at the
point of discharge or of such temperature and quantity to cause
the sewage treatment plant influent temperature to exceed 104
degrees F.
Any water or waste containing more than 100 parts per million of
fat, oil, or grease, as determined by procedure 5520 B. Partition
Gravimetric Method of the 17th Edition of "Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater," published jointly by
APHA-AWWA and WPCF. An analytic value of greater than 100 parts
per million shall require further testing utilizing procedure
5520 F. Hydrocarbons, and compliance will be determined based on
the two test results.
Any petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of
mineral oil origin in amounts that will cause interference or
pass through.
Any gasoline, benzene, naphtha or other hydrocarbon solvents or
oils, or other flammable or explosive liquids, solids or gases
with a closed cup flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F.
Any waters or wastes having a stabilized pH lower than 6.0 or
higher than 9.0 or having properties capable of causing damage to
structures and equipment of the sanitary sewerage system.
Any noxious or malodorous gas or substance capable of creating a
public nuisance, or any substance or compound, which, when
introduced into a reducing environment such as might exist in the
sewer system, might cause the evolution of a malodorous gas and
thereby create a public nuisance.
Any discharge of pollutants which result in the presence of toxic
gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity that may cause acute worker
health and safety problems.
ho
Any trucked or hauled wastes except as provided for in Part II,
Section 4. of this Ordinance.
Any waters or wastes having objectionable color which is not
removable by the existing sewage treatment plant processes.
Any waters or wastes containing BOD, COD, or suspended solids of
such character and quantity that unusual attention or expense is
required in the handling of such materials in the sewerage
system.
Any stormwater, surface water, ground water, roof run-off,
subsurface drainage, uncontaminated cooling water, or unpolluted
industrial process waters.
Any wastes containing any radioactive materials or isotopes of
such halflife or concentration as may exceed any limits estab-
lished by applicable State or Federal regulations.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
255
Any water added for the purpose of diluting wastes which would
otherwise exceed applicable maximum concentration limits set for
any pollutant at the point of discharge, but which would accumu-
late to undesirable quantities in the collection and/or treatment
systems.
Any wastes containing concentrations of phenols, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper, cyanide, iron, lead, mercury, nickel,
silver, zinc or other substances in excess of concentrations
which may be adopted by the Board.
o. Anyslug discharges.
Any wastes requiring the introduction of a quantity of chlorine
or any other compound beyond the range normally required for
sewage treatment purposes.
Any solid or viscous substances capable of causing obstruction to
flow in sewers or interference with proper operation of the
sewage treatment facilities.
Any lime sludges resulting from the pretreatment and/or removal
of metals.
Section 2. Construction and Interpretation.
The omission of any particular waste from the standards outlined
hereinabove does not imply that discharge of such waste to the sani-
tary sewer system will be permitted. Any liquid waste of peculiar
character and volume, or of toxic or unusual nature shall be subject
to review by the Approving Authority and standards deemed applicable
established by the Approving Authority. The requirements set forth
hereinabove are generally applicable but are not absolutely fixed.
Such requirements may be made more restrictive and more stringent by
the Board if a survey of the sanitary sewer system and/or analyses of
sewage treatment plant operating data, or standards set by the Vir-
ginia State Water Control Board for receiving streams indicate that
such action is necessary for the protection of the sewerage system.
Such requirements may be made more liberal only by Resolution of the
Board, duly adopted, and based upon satisfactory evidence and proof
that the discharge of a particular waste having concentration of
particular substance, compound, or element in excess of those outlined
hereinabove has no adverse effect on the sewerage system, sludge
disposal, or the quality of the receiving stream. No such Resolution
may allow contravention of any State or Federal regulation or standard.
Section 3. Notification of Violation.
Dischargers shall notify the ACSA and RWSA immediately by tele-
phone or in person upon discharging wastes in violation of this
Ordinance accidentally or otherwise. Such notification shall be
followed within five (5) days of the day of occurrence by a detailed
written statement to the ACSA and RWSA describing the causes of the
discharge and the measures being taken to prevent future occurrences.
Dischargers are required to take all reasonable counter-measures to
stop the discharge and to neutralize its effect, if possible.
Section 4. Acceptance of Off-Site Wastes and Septic Tank Wastes.
Wastes from sites not served by the public sewerage system may be
considered for disposal on a case by case basis. Any person request-
ing such disposal shall first obtain a Letter of Acceptance from the
Approving Authority by submitting the appropriate information con-
tained in Part III Section 2.a.1. of this Ordinance. A separate
request must be made for each discharge unless it can be demonstrated
that the wastes are routinely produced and such quality that indivi-
dual consideration can be waived. The Letter of Acceptance issued to
haulers of septic tank wastes shall be in the form of a Permit subject
to all the provisions of Part III, Industrial Waste Discharge Permits.
The conditions of the Letter of Acceptance may include, but need not
be limited to the following:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
256
Maximum permissible composite concentration of wastewater consti-
tuents;
Limits on rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow
regulation;
c. Requirements for inspection and sampling;
Requirements for recording, maintaining and reporting information
concerning the origin of each tank truck load and identification
of contributor(s);
e. Prohibition of discharge of certain wastewater constituents;
Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority
to insure compliance with this Ordinance.
Part III. INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PERMITS
Section 1. Permits Required.
Any person desiring to discharge industrial wastes into the
public sanitary sewer system shall notify the Approving Authority of
the nature and characteristics of their proposed wastewater discharge
prior to commencing said discharge. The Approving Authority may, upon
receiving notice of a proposed discharge, require application for a
Permit. It shall be unlawful for any significant industrial user to
discharge any industrial wastes, either directly or indirectly, into
the public sewerage system without first obtaining a Permit.
Section 2. Permit Applications.
Any person notified by the Approving Authority of the requirement
to apply for a Permit shall complete and file with the Approving
Authority the following information as appropriate:
me
Name, address, and telephone number of applicant and contact
person, and the name and current mailing address of the owner of
the premises from which industrial wastes are intended to be
discharged;
be
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code of both the indus-
try as a whole and any processes for which Federal categorical
pretreatment standards have been promulgated;
Ce
Wastewater constituents and characteristics including any pollu-
tants in the discharge which are limited by any Federal, State,
or local standards. Sampling and analysis will be undertaken in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 136;
d. Time and duration of the discharge;
Me
Daily maximum, daily average, and monthly average wastewater flow
rates, including daily, monthly, and seasonal variations, if any;
Description of activities, facilities, and plant processes on the
premises, including a list of all raw materials and chemicals
used at the facility which are or could accidentally or inten-
tionally be discharged to the sewerage system;
The site plans, floor plans and mechanical and plumbing plans and
details to show all sewers, floor drains, and appurtenances by
size, location and elevation;
he
Each product produced by type, amount, process or processes and
rate of production;
Type and amount of raw materials processed (average and maximum
per day);
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
257
Number and type of employees, hours of operation, and proposed or
actual hours of operation of the pretreatment system;
Whether additional operation and maintenance (O&M) and/or addi-
tional pretreatment is required for the user to meet all appli-
cable Federal, State, and local standards. If additional pre-
treatment and/or O&Mwill be required to meet the standards, then
the industrial user shall indicate the shortest time schedule
necessary to accomplish installation or adoption of such addi-
tional treatment and/or O&M. The completion date in this sche-
dule shall not be longer that the compliance date established for
the applicable pretreatment standard. The following conditions
apply to this schedule:
The schedule shall contain progress increments in the form
of dates for the commencement and completion of major events
leading to the construction and operation of additional
pretreatment required for the user to meet the applicable
pretreatment standards (sUch events include hiring an
engineer, completing preliminary plans, completing final
plans, executing contracts for major components, commencing
construction, completing construction, beginning operation,
and conducting routine operation). No increment referred to
above shall exceed nine (9) months, nor shall the total
compliance period exceed eighteen (18) months;
No later than fourteen (14) days following each date in the
schedule and the final date for compliance, the user shall
submit a progress report to the Approving Authority includ-
ing, as a minimum, whether or not it complied with the
increment of progress, the reason for any delay, and if
appropriate, the steps being taken by the user to return to
the established schedule. In no event shall more than nine
(9) months elapse between such progress reports to the
approving Authority; and
Any other information as may be deemed necessary to evaluate the
Permit application.
Ail applications must contain the following certification state-
ment and be signed in accordance with the signatory requirements of 40
CFR 403.12(1).
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for submitting false infor-
mation, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for
knowing violations."
Section 3. Processing and Issuance of Permits.
The Approving Authority will evaluate the Permit application and
determine the need for issuing a Permit. If a Permit is required, a
draft Permit may be issued within sixty (60) days after all data
required by this Ordinance has been furnished to and accepted by the
Approving Authority. The applicant shall then be allowed a thirty
(30) day comment period. Upon the expiration of the comment period,
or upon the expiration of ninety (90) days from the date the data has
been furnished and accepted, the Approving Authority shall issue or
deny a Permit. A Permit may contain appropriate restrictions.
Issuance of a Permit shall not relieve the discharger from complying
with all applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances promulgated by
other governmental authority, nor shall the issuance of a Permit be
construed as a representation by the Approving Authority that the
discharge permitted therein complies with such laws, regulations and
ordinances. No Permit is transferable.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
258
Section 4. Denial of a Permit.
Should the waste from an applicant's operations be deemed to be
inadmissible into the sanitary sewer system because of objectionable
character as defined by this Ordinance, or because of flow character-
istics incompatible with the best use of the receiving sewer, the
Approving Authority will not approve the discharge of such waste into
the sanitary sewer system until such person has employed, at his own
expense, methods and processes of pretreatment as will render the
waste admissible to the sanitary sewer system in accordance with this
Ordinance. The Approving Authority will not specify, suggest, or
recommend equipment, structures, or arrangements comprising the
pretreatment processes. The methods and procedures of the pretreat-
ment to be employed shall be reviewed and approved with the same
procedure as stipulated for Permit applications. Approval of dis-
charge of industrial wastes by any person will be given only on the
basis of performance of pretreatment processes, if pretreatment should
be required.
Section 5. Permit Conditions.
Permits shall include such conditions as are reasonably deemed
necessary by the Approving Authority to prevent pass through or
interference, protect the quality of the stream receiving the sewage
treatment plant's effluent, protect worker health and safety, facili-
tate sludge management and disposal, and protect against damage to the
sewerage system. Permits may contain, but need not be limited to, the
following:
Limits on the average and/or maximum rate of discharge, time of
discharge, and/or requirements for flow regulation and equaliza-
tion;
Limits on the average and/or maximum concentration, mass, or
other measure of identified wastewater constituents or proper-
ties;
Requirements for the installation of pretreatment technology or
construction of appropriate containment devices designed to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into
the sewerage system;
Development and implementation of spill control plans or other
special conditions including additional management practices
necessary to adequately prevent accidental, unanticipated, or
routine discharges;
Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and
sampling facilities;
Specifications for monitoring programs which may include sampling
locations, frequency of sampling, number, types, and standards
for tests, and reporting schedules;
g. Compliance schedules;
Requirements for submission of technical reports or discharge
reports;
Requirements for recordkeeping relating to wastewater discharges
and access thereto;
Requirements for notification of any new wastewater constituents
or of any substantial change in the volume or character of the
wastewater being introduced into the sewerage system;
ke
Requirements for the notification of any change in the manufac-
turing and/or pretreatment process used'by the discharger;
Requirements for notification of excessive, accidental, or slug
discharges; and
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
259
Other conditions as deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with
this Ordinance and state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
Section 6. Duration of Permits.
Permits shall be issued for a period of time not to exceed three
(3) years. An expired Permit will continue to be effective and
enforceable until the Permit is reissued if the failure to reissue the
Permit, prior to expiration of the previous Permit, is not due to any
act or failure to act on the part of the industrial user.
Section 7. Modification of Permits.
The terms and conditions of any Permit may be subject to modifi-
cation and change by the Approving Authority during the life of the
Permit to accommodate changed conditions and as local, State and
Federal laws, rules and regulations are modified or amended or as new
National Categorical Pretreatment Standards are promulgated. Permit
holders shall be informed of any proposed changes in their respective
Permits at least sixty (60) days prior to the effective date of
change, and shall be allowed a cox~ent period relating to any of the
proposed changes in their Permits within the first thirty (30) days
after issuance of such proposed changes by the Approving Authority.
The Approving Authority shall allow a discharger a reasonable period
of time to comply with any changes in the Permit required by the
Approving Authority unless otherwise required by emergency or govern-
mental regulations. Nothing in this Ordinance is intended to preclude
the Approving Authority from taking immediate action to temporarily
modify a Permit when there is imminent risk of injury to the sewerage
system or to the health and welfare of the public or to the environ-
ment.
Section 8. Separate Permits Required.
A separate Permit shall be required for each wastewater connec-
tion discharging, directly or indirectly, into the sewerage system.
For each discharger having multiple connections at a single plant or
facility, a single Permit will be required which may set forth specif-
ic effluent limitations and conditions for discharge from each sepa-
rate connection.
Section 9. Confidential Information.
Information and data on a discharger obtained from reports,
questionnaires, Permit applications, Permits and monitoring programs
and from inspections shall be available to the public or other govern-
mental agency without restriction unless the discharger specifically
requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Approv-
ing Authority that the release of such information would divulge
information, processes or methods of production entitled to protection
as trade secrets of the discharger. The physical and chemical charac-
teristics of a discharger's wastewater will, however, not be recog-
nized as confidential information or as a trade secret.
Section 10. Non-Transferability.
Permits are issued to a specific user for a specific operation
and are not assignable to another user or location.
me
In the event of any change in ownership of facilities from which
the discharge is permitted, the permittee shall notify the
succeeding owner of this Permit by letter with a copy forwarded
to the Approving Authority. The succeeding owner must apply for
a new Permit within thirty (30) days of assuming ownership and
comply with the terms of this Permit until a new Permit is
issued.
be
Any anticipated facility expansion, production increases, or
process modifications which will result in new, different or
increased discharges of pollutants must be reported to the
Authority:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
260
1)
If any changes will not violate the discharge limitations
specified in this Permit, the Permit may be modified to
specify and limit any pollutants not previously limited.
2)
If such changes violate the discharge limitations specified
in this Permit, this Permit will become void and a new
Permit application must be submitted.
Part IV. ADMINISTRATION
Section 1. Administration
Except as otherwise provided herein, the Executive Directors of
the ACSA and RWSA shall administer, implement and enforce the provi-
sions of this Ordinance. Any power granted or duties imposed upon the
executive Directors may be delegated by the Executive Directors to
persons in the employ of the ACSA and RWSA.
Section 2. Monitoring
The volume or quantity of industrial waste discharged by any
person into the sanitary sewer system shall be measured by one or
more of the following methods:
1)
If the volume of water used by any person in his industrial
or process operations is substantially the same as the
volume purchased from the municipal waterworks system, then
the volume of water purchased should be considered to be the
volume of waste discharged.
2)
If a substantial portion of the water purchased from the
ACSA is used for purposes that do not require the discharge
of such used water to the sanitary sewer system, such person
shall, at his own expense, either:
a)
install a meter(s) of design approved by the Approving
Authority on the water supply line(s) to his industrial
and/or process operations or,
b)
install a meter(s) of design approved by the Approving
Authority on the waste line(s) from his industrial
and/or process operations.
3)
The volume of water or waste flow, respectively, as measured
through said meters shall be considered to be the volume of
waste discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
If any person proposing to discharge industrial wastes into
the sanitary sewer system does not secure his entire water
supply requirements from the ACSA such person shall, at his
own expense, install a meter(s) of design approved by the
Approving Authority on the waste line(s) from his industrial
and/or process operations. The volume of waste flow, as
measured through said meter(s) shall be considered to be the
volume of waste discharged to the sanitary sewer system.
bo
Samples to determine the character and concentration of indus-
trial wastes discharged into the sanitary sewer system for
purposes of determining compliance with this Ordinance and
calculating surcharges, shall be collected by Authority personnel
as may be deemed necessary by the Approving Authority. The
methods used to determine the character and concentration of the
industrial wastes shall be in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136.
Industries wishing to include samples other than those regularly
scheduled may request the Approving Authority to do so. Costs
incidental to sampling and analyzing of wastes for purposes of
determining compliance with this Ordinances, or that are appli-
cable to surcharges shall be paid for by those persons discharg-
ing wastes into the sanitary sewers.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
261
A Permit holder may be required to construct, at his own expense,
a control manhole on the waste line(s) from his industrial and/or
process operations for the purpose of facilitating observations,
measurements, and sampling of the industrial wastes discharged
from such person's establishment. The control manhole shall be
constructed in a suitable and satisfactory location downstream
from any pretreatment facilities, holding tanks, or other ap-
proved works, and ahead of the point of discharge of such waste
into the sanitary sewer system. The design of the control
manhole shall be in accordance with the requirements of the
Approving Authority. The control manhole shall be maintained by
such person so as to be safe, accessible, and in proper operating
condition at all times.
Properly identified Approving Authority personnel shall be
allowed access at all reasonable times for purposes of inspection
and sampling and shall have the right to inspect and copy
records.
Section 3. Costs
A surcharge for treating wastes with BOD and/or suspended solids
concentrations greater than 240 parts per million may be ren-
dered. This surcharge shall be imposed as herein provided in
addition to any existing sewer service charges and to any sewer
charge imposed after the adoption of this Ordinance. The sur-
charge shall include:
l)
A charge covering the cost incurred by the RWSA in treating
the wastes in the sewage treatment plants; and
2)
A charge covering the cost incurred by the RWSA in sampling
and analyzing the discharge.
The surcharge, as set forth in Paragraph a. of this Section,
shall be shown separately on the regular bill rendered to the
proper persons each month by the ACSA. The dischargers shall pay
in accordance with practices existing for payment of sewer
charges.
The ACSA shall remit to the RWSA each month that part of the
surcharge attributable to the increased operating and maintenance
costs incurred by the RWSA in treating the waste.
The RWSA shall review, at least annually, the basis for determin-
ing charges and shall adjust the unit treatment costs to reflect
increases or decreases in wastewater treatment costs based upon
the RWSA's adopted annual budget.
Charges for the disposal of off-site and septic tank wastes as
provided for in Part II Section 4 will be paid by the Permittee
directly to the RWSA in accordance with the current schedule and
conditions contained in the Letter of Acceptance. Acceptance of
domestic septic tank wastes is further subject to the advance
purchase and render upon delivery for discharge, of a coupon to
the operator on duty.
Part ¥. VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
Section 1. Suspension of Permits.
The Approving Authority may suspend a Permit for a period not to
exceed sixty (60) days when suspension is necessary in order to
stop a discharge which, in the judgement of the Authority pre-
sents an imminent hazard to the public health, safety or welfare,
to the local environment, or to any portion of the sewerage
system.
Any discharger notified of a suspension of his Permit shall
immediately cease discharge of all industrial wastewater into the
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
262
sewerage system. In the event of a failure of a discharger to
comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the Authority shall
take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure compliance.
The Permit may be reinstated upon such terms and conditions as
may be required if a reinspection by Authority personnel reveals
that the effluent is again in compliance with terms and condi-
tions of the Permit.
Section 2. Revocation of Permits.
Permits may be revoked for just cause including but not limited
to:
Violation of any terms or conditions of the Permit or of any part
of this Ordinance or any other government regulations or dis-
charge prohibitions.
Obtaining a Permit by misrepresentation.
Failure to disclose fully relevant facts or to report significant
changes in wastewater volume, constituents or characteristics.
d. False statement or data in any required monitoring report.
Refusal of reasonable access to the discharger's premises for the
purpose of inspection or monitoring.
Failure to pay any and all costs as outlined in Section 4.
hereinbelow or Part IV Sections 2.b. and 3.a. preceding.
Section 3. Consequences of Revocation.
Before any further discharge of industrial wastewater may be made
by a discharger whose Permit has been revoked, the discharger must
apply for, and be granted, a reinstatement of the terminated Permit,
or a new Permit, as the Approving Authority may require, and pay all
delinquent fees, charges and costs occasioned by the violation.
Section 4. Criminal/Civil Liability.
Any person who willfully or negligently violates any provision of
this Ordinance may be subject to criminal penalties or a fine of up to
$1000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for up to twelve
months, or by both fine and imprisonment.
Further, any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance
or any condition or limitation of a Permit, or plan approval related
thereto, shall be financially responsible and liable to the ACSA and
RWSA, in addition to normal service charges and surcharges, for all
costs incurred by the ACSA and RWSA associated with the violation of
this Ordinance, including, but not limited to the following:
Cost of mileage and labor incurred in detecting and correcting
the violation.
be
Laboratory analysis costs associated with detecting and correct-
ing the violation.
Additional treatment costs caused by the violation or associated
with detecting and correcting the violation.
de
Costs of any additional equipment acquired or expended by the
ACSA and RWSA for detecting or correcting the violation.
Repair and/or replacement of any part of the sewage system
damaged by the violation.
Any liability, damages, fines or penalties incurred by the ACSA
and RWSA as a result of the violation.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
263
Other costs as are associated with the detecting and correcting
of the violation.
Part VI. SEVERABILITY
If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance
shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other
section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Resolution entitled "Resolution
Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of School Bonds of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, in the Maximum Amount of $19,070,000, to the Virginia Public School
Authority". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 19 and March 26,
1991.)
Item 10a. Adoption of Resolution entitled "Resolution Authorizing the
Issuance and Sale of School Bonds of Albemarle County, Virginia, in the
Maximum Amount of $19,070,000, to the Virginia Public School Authority".
Item 10b. Adoption of Resolution entitled "Resolution Providing for the
Issuance of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of 1991A, of Albemarle County,
Virginia, Heretofore Authorized to be Sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority, and Setting Forth the Form and Details Thereof".
Item 10c. Authorize Chairman to Execute Virginia Public School Authority
Bond Sale Agreement.
Mr. Jones said this is the first step the Board needs to take for issu-
ance of V.P.S.A. Bonds. The Board is required to adopt a bond resolution that
authorizes the sale of $19,070,000 in bonds. This amount includes the Spring
and Fall bond issues. The next action required by the Board is adoption of a
resolution authorizing the actual issuance of bonds in the amount of
$3,000,000 to V.P.S.A. Finally, the Board needs to authorize the Chairman to
execute the V.P.S.A. Bond Sale Agreement.
Mr. Jones said the Capital Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of
the V.P.S.A. Bonds for the following projects: 1) Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School; V. L. Murray Elementary School; Burley Middle School; Albemarle High
School; Hollymead-Library Roof; and Woodbrook-HVAC. In the event that the
total amount is issued in bonds, in about two years, the County's outstanding
debt will increase from $20,777,000 to $39,777,257. The annual debt service
will increase from $3.3 million to $5.4 million. Provisions for the first
year's debt were made in the approved 1991-92 budget for the $3,000,000 bond
issue. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, is present to answer any
questions.
Mr. Bowerman said he thought the principal and interest for the entire
$19,070,000 was included in the budget. Mr. Breeden said the principal and
interest for the $3,000,000 was included and also interest on the additional
$16,000,000 for the remainder of 1991-92 depending on when the bonds are
issued. Mr. Jones said the $3,000,000 issue has an interest payment of
$284,025, with a principal payment of $55,000. The interest on the remainder
is estimated at $560,000 based on the actual sale.
Mr. Bain asked if the bonds have been sold. Mr. Breeden said they will
be sold in the middle of May.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There was no one present to
speak on any portion of the bond issue. The public hearing was immediately
closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt a
"Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of School Bonds of Albemarle
County, Virginia, in the Maximum Amount of $19,070,000 to the Virginia Public
School Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
264
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The resolution as adopted is set out in full below:)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SCHOOL BONDS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $19,070,000
TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA:
1. The Albemarle County School Board has advised the Board of
Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Coun-
ty''), of the necessity to undertake capital projects for public
schools. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to do so
and to borrow money for such purpose and issue the County's general
obligation bonds therefor.
2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, there are hereby
authorized to be issued school bonds of the County in the maximum
amount of $19~070,000 to provide funds, together with other available
funds, to finance capital projects for public schools. The bonds
shall be sold to the Virginia Public School Authority, a state agency
prescribed by the General Assembly pursuant to Article VII, Section
lO(b) of the Constitution.
3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-186 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended, the Board hereby estimates that the average rate of
interest to be borne by the bonds is 7.5% per year and the amount of
interest charges required to repay and retire the bonds is
$18,658,000. In making this estimate the Board has assumed a 20-year
debt retirement schedule providing for approximately equal annual
principal payments.
4. The bonds shall bear such date or dates, mature at such time
or times not exceeding 40 years from their date, bear interest at such
rate or rates not to exceed the maximum rate of 9% at the time the
bonds are sold, be in such denominations and form, be executed in such
manner and be sold at such time or times and in such manner as the
Board may hereafter provide by appropriate resolution or resolutions.
5. The bonds shall be general obligations of the County for the
payment of principal of and interest on which its full faith and
credit shall be irrevocably pledged.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt a
"Resolution Providing for the Issuance of $3,000,000 School Bonds, Series of
1991A, of Albemarle County, Virginia, Heretofore Authorized to be Sold to the
Virginia Public School Authority, and Setting Forth the Form and Details
Thereof". 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 resolution as adopted is set out in full below:)
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $3,000,000 SCHOOL BONDS,
SERIES OF 1991A, OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HERETOFORE AUTHORIZED,
TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY, AND SETTING FORTH
'THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, by resolution adopted April 3, 1991, the Board of
Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County")
has determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue its general
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
265
obligation bonds in the maximum amount of $19,070,000 to finance
capital projects for school purposes, none of which bonds have been
issued and sold; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Public School Authority, a state agency
prescribed by the General Assembly of Virginia pursuant to Article
VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia (the "VPSA"), has
offered to purchase the County's $3,000,000 school bonds pursuant to a
Bond Sale Agreement dated as of April 5, 1991 (the "Bond Sale Agree-
ment''); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County has
determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an aggregate
amount not to exceed $3,000,000 and to issue its general obligation
school bonds for the financing of certain capital projects for school
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing after due notice, on
April 3, 1991, on the issuance of the Bonds, as defined below, in
accordance with the requirements of Sections 15.1-171.1 and 15.1-504,
Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code");
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. Issuance of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board has
determined previously that it is advisable~to contract a debt and
issue and sell general obligation bonds in the maximum aggregate
amount of $3,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for public school purposes. The Board hereby
provides for the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon
the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest
of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase the Bonds,
and to sell the Bonds to the VPSA at par upon the terms established
pursuant to this Resolution. The Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator, or either of them, are hereby authorized and directed
to execute the Bond Sale Agreement in substantially the form submitted
to the Board at this meeting, which is hereby approved, and deliver it
to the VPSA.
3. Details of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in registered
form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be
dated the date of their issuance and delivery; shall be designated
"School Bonds, Series of 1991A;" shall bear interest payable semi-
annually on June 15 and December 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"),
beginning December 15, 1991, at the rate or rates, and shall mature on
December 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the
amounts, established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolu-
tion.
Interest on each Bond shall be payable (a) from its date, if it
is authenticated prior to December 15, 1991, or (b) otherwise from the
June 15 or December 15 that is, or immediately precedes, the date on
which it is authenticated (unless payment of interest thereon is in
default, in which case such Bond shall bear interest from the date to
which interest has been paid). Principal and premium, if any, shall
be payable, subject to the provisions of Section 6, to the registered
owners upon surrender of the Bonds as they become due at the principal
corporate trust office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, the
Registrar. Subject to the provisions of Section 6, interest shall be
payable by check or draft mailed to the registered owners at their
addresses as they appear on registration books kept by the Registrar
on the first day of the month of the interest payment date. Princi-
pal, premium, if any, and interest shall be payable in lawful money of
the United States of America.
4. Award of Bonds; Interest Rates. The County Administrator is
hereby authorized and directed to award the Bonds to the VPSA at a
price of par and at an interest rate or rates established by the VPSA,
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
266
provided that no such interest rate or rates shall be more than
one-tenth of one percent (1/10 of 1%) over the annual rate to be paid
by the YPSA for the corresponding maturity of the bonds to be issued
by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), the proceeds of which will be used to
purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that no interest rate on the
Bonds shall exceed nine percent (9%) per year. Principal of the Bonds
shall be payable in installments in years and amounts as set forth on
Exhibit A (at end of this document); provided, however, that the
County Administrator is hereby authorized to award the Bonds to the
¥PSA in accordance with a principal payment schedule different from
that set forth in Exhibit A as the VPSA may propose, provided that
such schedule shall include for annual payments in the years 1991
through 2011, inclusive. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as
described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence the same as
having been approved and authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of Bonds When Owned by VPSA. For as long as the YPSA
is the registered owner of the Bonds, the Bonds shall be in the form
of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form
attached hereto as Exhibit B (on file). Upon 20 days written notice
from the VPSA, the County shall deliver, at its expense, Bonds in
marketable form in denominations of $5,000 or any integral multiple,
as requested by the VPSA, in exchange for the temporary typewritten
Bond. Such Bonds in marketable form shall be in substantially the
form of Exhibit B hereto, with such changes as shall be necessary or
appropriate for the Bonds to be in marketable form, as are not incon-
sistent with the terms of this Resolution and as may be approved by
the County officials executing such Bonds.
6. Payment to ¥PSA; Paying Agent and Registrar.
a. For as long as the YPSA is the registered owner of the
Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on
the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at
or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on the applicable
Interest Payment Date and Principal Payment Date, or, if such date is
not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of
Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. (Richmond, Virginia, time) on
the business day next preceding such Payment Date; and
b. Ail overdue payments of principal, and interest to the
extent permitted by law, shall bear interest at the applicable inte-
rest rate or rates on the Bonds.
c. Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bond (the "Registrar").
7. Prepayment or Redemption. The principal installments of the
Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before December 15, 2000, and
the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be
exchanged that mature on or before December 15, 2000, are not subject
to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The
principal installments of the Bonds held by the YPSA coming due after
December 15, 2000, and the definitive Bonds that mature after December
15, 2000, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the County's
option prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any
date on or after December 15, 2000, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments
to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set
forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or
redemption:
December 15, 2000 to December 14, 2001, inclusive 103%
December 15, 2001 to December 14, 2002, inclusive 102%
December 15, 2002 to December 14, 2003, inclusive 101%
December 15, 2003 and thereafter 100%
Provided, however~ that while the VPSA is the registered owner of
the Bonds or of the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds may be
exchanged, the County shall not call the principal installments of the
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
267
Bonds for prepayment or call the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds
may be exchanged for redemption, prior to their stated maturities as
described above without first obtaining the prior written consent of
the VPSA. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given
by the Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more
than ninety nor less than thirty days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption. Notice of prepayment (but not the requirei
ment that the VPSA give its prior written consent to prepayment or
redemption) may be waived by the owner of a Bond to be prepaid.
8. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be signed by the manual
or facsimile signature of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board,
shall be countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the
Clerk of the Board and the Board's seal shall be affixed thereto or a
facsimile thereof printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of
such signatures are facsimiles, no bond shall be valid until it has
been authenticated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or
employee of the Registrar and the date of authentication noted there-
on.
9. Pledse of Full Faith and Credit. For the timely payment of
the principal of and the interest on the Bonds provided for by this
Resolution as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of
the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any
of the Bonds shall be outstanding, unless other funds are lawfully
available and appropriated for timely payment of the Bonds, the Board
shall levy and collect in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation
sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of
and the interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest shall
become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate and
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in
the County.
10. School Board Approval. The Clerk of the Board is hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution
to be presented to the County School Board. The Bonds authorized
hereby shall not be issued by the County until the County School Board
shall have adopted an appropriate resolution consenting to the issu-
ance of the Bonds.
11. State Non-Arbitrase Program~ Proceeds Agreement. In accord-
ance with the requirements of the VPSA, the Board hereby determines
that it is in the County's best interests to participate in the State
Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds, and hereby author-
izes and directs the County Treasurer to take such action as shall be
necessary or desirable therefor. The appropriate officers of the
County are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a
Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of
proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants
in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, Public Financial Management,
Inc., as investment manager, and Central Fidelity Bank, as depository;
provided, however, that such proceeds shall be invested in such manner
that none of the Bonds will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of
Section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, includ-
ing regulations applicable to the Bonds (the "Code"). The Proceeds
Agreement shall be in such form as shall be approved by the County's
bond counsel.
12. Maintenance of Tax-Exemption. The County hereby covenants
that it shall not take or omit to take any action the taking or
omission of which will cause the Bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" within
the meaning of Code Section 148, or otherwise cause interest on the
Bonds to be includable in the gross income for Federal income tax
purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law. Without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, the County shall comply with
any provision of law that may require the County at any time to rebate
to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the invest-
ment of the gross proceeds of the Bonds. The County shall pay any
such required rebate from its general funds.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
268
13. Use of Proceeds Certificate. The appropriate officers and
agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to execute a
Use of Proceeds Certificate or Certificates setting forth the expected
use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such
covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from
gross income of interest on the Bonds or on the YPSA Bonds. The Board
on behalf of the County, covenants that the proceeds from the issuance
and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in
such Use of Proceeds Certificate and other Certificates and that the
County shall comply with the other covenants and representations
contained therein. Furthermore, the Board on behalf of the County
covenants that the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code
so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain
excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. Such
Certificates may also provide for any elections such officers deem
desirable regarding rebate of earnings to the United States for
purposes of complying with the provisions of Code Section 148.
14. Restrictions on Private Use. The County covenants that it
will not permit the gross proceeds of the Bonds to be used in any
manner that would result in (a) 5% or more of such proceeds being used
in a trade or business carried on by any person other than a govern-
mental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(b), (b) 5% or more of
such proceeds being used with respect to any "output facility" (other
than a facility for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of
Code Section 141(b)(4), or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used
directly or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other
than a governmental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(c);
provided, however, that if the County receives an opinion of bond
counsel to the County with respect to the Bonds, and bond counsel to
the VPSA with respect to the VPSA Bonds, that compliance with any such
restriction is not required to prevent interest on the bonds of both
issues from being includable in the gross income for Federal income
tax purposes of the registered owners thereof under existing law, the
County need not comply with such restriction.
15. No Sale of Bonds of Same Issue. The County covenants that
it will not, without the Authority's consent, sell or deliver any
general obligation bonds which are part of the same common plan of
financing (and paid for from the same source of funds) as the Bonds
between the dates that are 31 days prior to the date of sale of the
VPSA Bonds and 31 days after the Closing Date.
16. Filing of Resolution: Publication of Notice. The appropri-
ate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and direct-
ed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the
Circuit Court of the County and, within ten days thereafter, to cause
to be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the
County a notice setting forth (a) in brief and general terms the
purposes for which the Bonds are to be issued and (b) the amount of
the Bonds.
17. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers,
employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such
action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable
in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds, and any such
action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
18. Repeal of Resolutions in Conflict. Ail resolutions or parts
thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
19. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immedi-
ately.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
EXHIBIT A
Principal Repayment Schedule
Year Amount Year Amount
1991 $ 55,000 2001 $140,000
1992 60,000 2002 150,000
1993 65,000 2003 165,000
1994 75,000 2004 180,000
1995 80,000 2005 195,000
1996 90,000 2006 215,000
1997 95,000 2007 235,000
1998 105,000 2008 260,000
1999 115,000 2009 285,000
2000 125,000 2010 310,000
269
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to author-
ize the Chairman to execute the Virginia Public School Authority Bond Sale
Agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
(The agreement as adopted is set out in full below:)
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
BOND SALE AGREEMENT
dated as of April 5, 1991
AYES:
NAYS:
Name of Jurisdiction:
Principal Amount:
Amortization Period:
Albemarle County
(the "Local Unit")
$3,000,000
20 Years
Sale Date: Not earlier
than April 30, 1991 nor
later than May 2, 1991.
Closing Date: On or
about May 23, 1991.
The Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") hereby offers to
purchase your general obligation School bonds in the Principal
Amount set forth above from the proceeds of VPSA's bonds, the
sale of which is scheduled to take place on the Sale Date.
You represent that on or before the Sale Date, your local govern-
ing body will have duly authorized the issuance of your bonds by
adopting the resolution in the form attached hereto as Appendix B
(the "local resolution") and that your bonds will be in the form
set forth in the local resolution. Any changes that you or your
counsel wish to make to the form of the local resolution and/or
your bonds must be approved by VPSA prior to adoption of the
local resolution by your local governing body.
VPSA's commitment to purchase your bonds is contingent upon
YPSA's receipt on the Closing Date, of (a) a certified copy of
the local resolution, (b) approving legal opinions from your bond
counsel in form satisfactory to VPSA as to (i) the validity and
exclusion from gross income for Federal and Virginia income tax
purposes of the interest on your bonds, (ii) the conformity of
the terms and provisions of your bonds to the requirements of
this Bond Sale Agreement including the exhibits hereto, and (iii)
the due authorization, execution and delivery of the Bond Sale
Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement (defined below) and the
enforceability of the Proceeds Agreement, (c) an executed agree-
ment, among VPSA, you and the other local units simultaneously
selling their bonds to YPSA, Central Fidelity and Public Finan-
cial Management, Inc. (the depository and investment manager,
respectively for SNAP), providing for the custody, investment and
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
270
disbursement of the proceeds of your bonds and the other general
obligation school bonds, and the payment by you and the other
local units of the allocable, associated costs of compliance with
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any costs
incurred in connection with your participation in the State
Non-Arbitrage Program (the "Proceeds Agreement"), (d) an executed
copy of the Use of Proceeds Certificate in the form attached
hereto as Appendix C, (e) a transcript of the other customary
documents not listed above, and (f) the proceeds of YPSA's bonds.
4. This Bond Sale Agreement shall take effect on April 5, 1991.
Mr. Bowie said this is the last bond issue that he is willing to support
without going to a general bond referendum.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation Request: Agnor-Hurt Elementary
School.
Mr. Jones said the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School is estimated to cost
$6,816,000 which does not include Berkmar Drive improvements. Funding for
this school is included in the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond
issue along with funding for Berkmar Drive ($950,000) and Recreational Faci-
lities ($35,000). The School Board received favorable bids which were
approximately $1.50 per square foot less than the recently completed Cale
Elementary School. This low bid allows the project to absorb the original
underestimate on land purchase costs and still be within the amount approved
in the Capital Improvement Program budget. Since there has already been an
appropriation in the amount of $1,735,000 made for this project, the Board is
requested to approve an additional $5,081,000. The additional amount needed
for the Berkmar Drive improvements will be requested after acquisition of
right-of-way and design approval is complete, so more accurate cost figures
are available.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the
following resolution approving an appropriation in the amount of $5,081,000 to
fund construction of the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School:
FISCAL YEAR: 90/91
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
FUNDING FOR AGNOR-HURT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
CONSTRUCTION.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900060215312300 PROF. SERVICES-ARCH. & ENG.
1900060215312365 CIP COORDINATOR
1900060215580000 MISC EXPENSES
1900060215800200 FURNITURE & FIXTURES
1900060215800605 CONSTRUCTION
1900060215800670 UTILITIES
1900060215800750 LAND ACQUISITION
1900060215999999 CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$ 322,884.00
40,352.00
7,500.00
220,000.00
3,086,000.00
40,000.00
1,153,394.00
210~870.00
$5,081,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900041000410500 LOAN PROCEEDS
TOTAL
$5,081,000.00
$5,081,000.00
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.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Governor's Early Retirement Program.
Mr. Brandenburger said Governor Wilder's one-time early retirement
program for State employees has been approved by the General Assembly. The
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
271
program can be adopted by Local Governments and School Divisions in the
Virginia Retirement System, but all costs will be borne by the locality
through an increase in their contribution rate starting in July, 1992.
Mr. Brandenburger said the basic feature of the program allows
on full benefits, (no reduction for early retirement) by giving eligible
personnel an additional five years of service credit and lowering the minimum
age to 50. Thus a person can retire at 50 years of age and 25 years of VRS
service instead of 55 years of age and 30 years of service. This criteria
must be met as of September 1, 1991~ In addition to the lifetime benefit, a
$100/month stipend is paid until age 62. Applications must be submitted
between April 1 and June 30, 1991, with retirement occurring on either July
1st, August 1st, September 1st or October 1st.
Mr. Brandenburger said there are eight general government persons eligi-
ble. If all eight retired, the annual maximum cost increase would be $35,827.
There is a net annual savings of $26,854 to the County as replacement staff
would be hired at a lower or entry-level salary. The actual savings would be
even greater because this program would be in lieu of the benefits paid under
the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Program (VERIP). Retirees would still
receive the one-time retirement payment of $200 per year for each year of
service with the County. The staff recommends that the Board adopt the
program for Local Government with the April 1 to June 30 eligibility window.
Mr. Bowie asked who pays the $100/month stipend. Mr. Brandenburger said
that is part of the State's program, but the County will incur the cost.
Mr. Bain asked how many of the eligible employees will actually take
advantage of the program. Mr. Brandenburger said six of the eight employees
indicated that they were interested in the program. Mr. Brandenburger said
the School Board, at its last meeting, also adopted the program. During the
discussion, some individuals raised a concern about health insurance. In this
program, an individual will receive retirement benefits from the State. An
individual who retires is eligible to remain in the County's health insurance
program as an actual member for a maximum of 18 months. Once an individual
has completed that time frame or reached age 65, they are no longer eligible
to be a member of the County's health plan. Under the County's VERIP an
individual is provided, in addition to a stipend, an amount equivalent to the
County's contribution towards health insurance for up to five years. For
example, this year the County contributed $900 toward each individual's
insurance and therefore the retirees received that $900 stipend. This propo-
sal does not accommodate any health insurance obligations, either in the way
of offsetting premiums or mandating participation in the health plan. The
School Board will address the issue of health insurance as a separate issue.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt
the following resolution approving the Governor's Early Retirement Program for
Albemarle County local general government employees:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
does hereby elect to provide the Early Retirement Program approved by
the 1991 Session of the General Assembly and the Governor to its
eligible employees;
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors agrees to accept all liability for any current or future addi-
tional employer contributions and any increases in current or future
employer contribu[ion rates resulting from its election to provide the
benefits of the Program to its employees;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Super-
visors elects to allow its eligible employees to apply for benefits
under the Program from April 1, 1991, through 3une 30, 1991;
NOW, THEREFORE, WE, Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, and Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the Board,
are hereby authorized and directed in the name of the Board to execute
any required contract in order that said eligible employees of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors may participate in the Early
Retirement Program as provided for in the Code of Virginia. In
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
272
execution of any contract which may be required, the seal of Albemarle
County shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk, and said officers
of the Board are authorized and directed to pay over to the Treasurer
of Virginia from time to time such sums as are due to be paid by the
Board for this purpose.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 14. B~scnss~on,--Besert-S~orm-Wetcome-Home-Parade=
(Moved to April 10).
Agenda Item No. 15. Statement: Preallocation Hearing on Primary,
Interstate, Etc., Highways.
Mr. Bowie said he previously received information from the Virginia
Department of Transportation on the criteria necessary to have a State Secon-
dary road designated as a primary highway. There are nine criteria outlined,
but the road does not have to meet all of the criteria. The Meadow Creek
Parkway meets at least seven of the criteria. The proposed statement contain~
the sentence: "We would also ask that Meadow Creek Parkway from the Route 250
Bypass to Route 29 North be evaluated for development as a primary road." He
would suggest that the County itself do the evaluation and ask that the road
be considered as a primary road. He suggests that there be an attachment to
the statement with the criteria and the County's analysis of the criteria.
Mr. Bowie suggested that change be made and the Board review the draft again
at its' April 10 meeting. The other Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Proclamation Designating the Week of April 7
through April 13, 1991, as National County Government Week.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following proclamation:
WHEREAS, county government is the oldest form of local government
in the United States; and
WHEREAS, Virginia is the birthplace of county government, with
the first counties in America being Virginia's eight original shires
that were established in 1634; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has been in existence for two
hundred forty-seven years; and
WHEREAS, ninety-eight percent of the nation's population and two-
thirds of Virginia's population live in counties; and
WHEREAS, county governments employed more than 1,900,000 people
and spent almost $103,000,000,000 last year to provide a wide range of
services for the benefit of people of the United States; and
WHEREAS, county governments are often the last available resource
for providing emergency and long-term services for the poor, the
homeless, immigrants, refugees, the disadvantaged and other segments
of society; and
WHEREAS, over the past thirty years county governments have
assumed increasing responsibility for the administration and financing
of health, welfare, justice, transportation, housing and community
development programs; and
WHEREAS, county governments have also been assigned a greater
role in solving area-wide problems dealing with air pollution, water
pollutiOn, solid waste disposal, airports, transit systems, regional
parks and other issues;
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting) 2'73
(Page 42)
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick R. Bowie, Chairman, on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby desig-
nate the week of APRIL 7 T~ROUG~APRIL 13, 1991, as N~TIONAL
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. 15b. Discussion on Procedures for Public Hearing on
Budget.
Mr. Bowie proposed that the Board use the same guidelines for public
comments used at the initial public hearing on the budget, for the public
hearing on April 10. There was no objection from other Board members.
Agenda Item No. 16. Approval of Minutes: February 6, February 13,
February 20 and March 6(N), 1991.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 6, 1991, and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of February 13, 1991, pages 28 to End, and
found a couple of typographical errors.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of February 13, 1991, pages 14 (#16) to
27, and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of February 13, 1991, pages 1 to 14
(#16), and found one typographical error.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of February 6, 1991, pages 23 (#8) to 35,
and February 20, 1991, pages 10 (#8) to end, and found both sets of minutes to
be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, 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, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on-the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Bowie said a letter has been received from the Chairman of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission requesting the Board to appoint a
person to the Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional
Environment (TJSPARE). He suggested that this item be added to appointments
on April 10.
Mr. Perkins said in a letter dated March 11, Secretary of Transportation,
John Milliken, requested the County to look at its Six Year Road Plan and
scale down or eliminate projects due to budgetary cuts. He thinks the Board
should considering requesting that the Millington Bridge Project (Route 671)
be scaled down, if the residents in the neighborhood agree.
Mr. Bowie commented that the letter from Secretary Milliken was distrib-
uted to the Board on March 20. The letter asks the Board to consider anything
that can be delayed or deleted that would help save Secondary Road funds. It
is his feeling that the funds should be allocated to projects in priority
order until funds run out.
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
274
Mrs. Humphris reminded the Board that April 6 is the Seventh Jefferson
Country Annual Clean Up Day and Board members have been invited to help pick
up trash on the road to the Ivy Landfill. She intends to participate. Mr.
Brandenburger commented that he received a call today from CAC3 and was told
that only three persons had indicated interest and that if no further interest
is shown, the clean up would possibly be cancelled. Mrs. Humphris said she
still is willing to participate. Mr. Perkins indicated that he would be
participating in recycling in Crozet.
Mrs. Humphris said at the last Board meeting, district appointees to the
E-911 Road Naming Committee had been discussed. Since that time it has been
brought to her attention that there are two names who would possibly not be on
anybody's list. She suggested that the Board consider adding two at-large
members to the Committee. These people are Mr. Lawrence Rogers, a long time
employee of the Postal Service, who knows a lot about County roads, subdivi-
sions and names, who might help avoid conflicts between City and County names;
and the other name is Mr. Howard Newlon, a recent retiree from the Virginia
Highway Research Council. Mr. Newlon has coauthored a book on historic names
of Albemarle County roads.
Mr. Bowie said appointments to the Committee are to be made on April 10.
He has no problem adding these additional names. The other Board members con-
curred.
Mr. Perkins said a suggested name given to him was Mr. Richard Martin of
the Police Department, who probably knows the roads better than anyone else in
the County.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Executive Session: Sale and/or Lease of County
Property.
In addition to sale and/or lease of County property, Mr. Bowie requested
adding personnel to discuss a specific individual.
Mr. St. John requested legal matters be added to the Executive Session t¢
discuss the Bargamin case.
At 8:58 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to
adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel (2.1-344.A1), sale
and/or lease of property (2.1-344.A3) and legal matters (2.1-344.A7). Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 9:15 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offere~
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following Certification of
Executive Session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
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
April 3, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
(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.
275
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn. At 9:18 p.m., there being no further
business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN