1990-10-31 adjOctober 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 2L2
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 31, 1990, at 6:45 P.M., Meeting Room 11, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David Po Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICER PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. la. The meeting was called to order at 6:50 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2a. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman, to adjourn into executive session to discuss specific identifiable
personnel under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344.A.1. 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. 1. The meeting was reconvened into open session at 7:33
P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor. In addition to Board members present,
the following officers were present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.;
County Attorney, George R. St. John; and Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald S.
Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. Bowie presented a proclamation to Mr. Dale Adler proclaiming the
month of November, 1990, as Alzheimer's Disease Month and encouraged the
citizens of Albemarle County to participate in the ceremonies and activities,
thereof. He thanked Mr. Adler for being present at the Board meeting and for
the work the Alzheimer's Association has done in the community.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris,
to certify the afternoon executive session by adopting the following resolu-
tion. 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.
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
(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.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 13
(Page 2)
Ms. Terry Hale, of North American Exploration, said in June, 1990, she
started helping Mr. Michael Shifflett with his special permit (SP-90-24) for
installation of a bridge across the Doyle's River in northwestern Albemarle
County. When this request came before the Planning Commission on September 4,
she felt they had complete information which included a hydrogeologic study
prepared by Muncaster Engineering in July. The Commission approved the
special permit with four conditions. One of the conditions was "Department of
Engineering approval of bridge design". Earlier there had been discussions of
getting a certified bridge design drawn for Mr. Shifflett, but he already owns
the materials and nobody wanted to draw a certified design using his materi-
als. They then discussed the problem with the Engineering Department and
received verbal approval to get Mr. Shifflett's design evaluated by a struc-
tural engineer. She asked several times what the standards for certification
were, but was told that an engineering firm would know what was required. On
September 19, the request came before the Board of Supervisors and was ap-
proved subject to the four conditions of the Planning Commission. The Engi-
neering Department approved the hydrogeologic study, VDoT issued an entrance
permit, and the erosion control permit was issued.
Ms. Hale said Mr. Mark Osborne, of Gloeckner & Osborne, evaluated Mr.
Shifflett's bridge design. Mr. Osborne looked at the site, the materials and
talked with Mr. Shifflett about how the bridge would be built. Mr. Osborne
also prepared a load evaluation of the bridge design which determined how much
safe load the bridge could carry. Mr. Obsborne informed Mr. Shifflett that he
had done a good job with the design and said "the design met the need for
which it was intended and that it was sufficient to carry cars and light
trucks". This information was then submitted to the County Engineering
Department and she was surprised to hear that this was not considered a
certified design. She again asked what the standards for certification were.
During the summer when she was trying to find someone to certify Mr.
Shifflett's design, she talked to every engineering firm in Charlottesville
and several firms in Richmond. One individual said they did not want to
certify the design because Albemarle County does not have specific certifi-
cation requirements for bridges. In summary, the Engineering Department said
the bridge design had to meet YDoT standards. Mr. Jeff Echols of ¥DoT said
the standards require the bridge to carry 40 tons. She does not think the
requirement is fair, nor should it apply to Mr. Shifflett. If the standards
do apply Mr. Shifflett should have been told this back in April. Ms. Hale
said she is before the Board requesting that it remove this requirement from
Mr. Shifflett's special use permit.
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Moring has said to him that he is concerned about
the County's legal liability if an accident should occur as a result of the
bridge design.
Mr. St. John said the County is immune from that kind of liability.
Also, he is not aware of anything in the County's ordinances saying a bridge
built must carry 40 tons. This is the first he has heard of this problem and
he wants to review the ordinance. This has never been a requirement before.
In certain situations, bridges have been built to suit the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris said when the Board originally heard the request for the
special permit, there was discussion about all the other people who could have
access to the bridge. At that time Mr. Shifflett stated that the bridge would
be available to those persons who wanted to use it. Mr. Shifflett addressed
the Board and said the bridge is for his own personal use and will not serve
anyone else. The engineer approved his design for three and one-half tons and
the only vehicles to cross the bridge will be cars.
Mr. Bowie suggested that staff get together with Mr. Shifflett and
provide a report back to the Board on November 7. There was no further
discussion.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 on the Consent
Agenda and to accept the remaining items 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.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 14
(Page 3)
Item 5.1. Statements of Expense from the State Compensation Board for
the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional
Jail for the Month of September, 1990, were approved by the above recorded
vote.
Item 5.2. Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Agreement. (The proposed
agreement was approved by City Council on October 15. Section 4.3 includes
the amendment made on October 3 as well as the amendment added by City
Council. The Chairman was authorized to sign the following Solid Waste
Organizational Agreement by the vote recorded above:)
THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 5th day of November, 1990,
by and between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision
of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("the County") and THE CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, a municipal corporation within the Commonwealth
of Virginia ("the City"),
WITNES SETH :
WHEREAS, the City and the County jointly own a tract of
approximately 300 acres of land situated on State Route 637 in
Albemarle County, Virginia, on which is currently being operated
a solid waste depository known as the Ivy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department of the City is cur-
rently operating such Ivy Landfill for the joint use and benefit
of the City and the County, such landfill serving as a depository
area for solid waste generated within the City and County; and
WHEREAS, in the interest of efficient operation of such
current landfill depository, acquisition and operation of future
landfills or other depositories, recycling facilities or disposal
alternatives, the parties have determined to create an Authority
pursuant to Chapter 28, Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, (the Act) to be known as the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this agreement to
provide for the creation of such Authority and for the acquisi-
tion by it of certain existing facilities, the construction of
new facilities and the financing, operation and maintenance of
all such facilities, with the ultimate goal of acquiring, financ-
ing, constructing and/or operating and maintaining a regional
garbage and refuge disposal system(s) as defined in Section
15.1-1240(k) of the Act and which may include other jurisdictions
either as parties or by contractural agreements, all in compli-
ance with all State and Federal mandates for reduction, recycling
and disposal of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the parties recognize that this agreement will be
used to facilitate the obtaining of interim financing and the
issuance of revenue bonds by such Authority to finance a portion
of the cost of such acquisition, construction and operation.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual
covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
ARTICLE I.
Definitions, Warranties and Term
Section 1.1. Definitions:
"Act" shall mean the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act
(Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Sections 15.1-1239 et seq., Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended).
"Authority" shall mean the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, a
public body politic and corporate to be duly created pursuant to
the Act.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 2L5
(Page 4)
"Bonds" shall mean revenue bonds issued by the Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority to obtain funds, together with other available
funds, to pay the cost of the project and shall include any note
or other obligations issued for such purpose.
"City" shall mean the City of Charlottesville, a municipal
corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia and shall include the
City Council as its governing body.
"Cost" when used with respect to the project shall have the
meanings specified in Sections 15.1-1240(m) and (n) of the Act.
"County" shall mean Albemarle County, a county of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and shall include the Board of Supervi-
sors as its governing body.
"Parties" shall mean the City and the County as parties to
this agreement.
"Political Subdivision" shall mean the Authority, the City
and the County.
"Project" shall mean the facilities to be acquired by the
Authority pursuant to Article III and Article IV, whether by
purchase or otherwise and the facilities or services to be
provided by the Authority pursuant to Article V.
Section 1.2. Representations and Warranties. Each of the
parties represents and warrants that it has full power and
authority to enter into and perform all provisions of this
agreement.
Section 1.3. Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be in
full force and effect from the date of its execution by all
parties until June 30, 2030, provided any Bonds issued by the
Authority have been paid in full or provision made for their
payment and if not, this agreement shall continue until the Bonds
shall have been paid or provision made for their payment. After
June 30, 2030 (or such later date as provided above), this
agreement may be terminated by either of the parties hereto or
the Authority, but no such termination shall be effective until
two years after written notice of such termination has been given
to each of the other parties.
ARTICLE II.
Creation and Operation of Authority.
Section 2.1. Creation of Authority. The parties agree to
take all action needful and necessary to create a solid waste
authority, pursuant to the Act, including holding the necessary
hearing and adoption of a resolution as set out in Section
15.1-1243 of the Act, which resolution shall include Articles of
Incorporation as set out in Section 15.1-1242, such articles to
be as attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Section 2.2. Operation of Authority. A fifth member of the
Board of Directors mutually acceptable to the parties shall be
jointly appointed by the City Council and County Board of Supervi-
sors, as follows: the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the County
Board of Supervisors and the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of the City
shall nominate a Chairman of the Board of Directors and a Chair-
man of the Advisory Committee for election by each of the govern-
ing bodies. The parties agree to make their employees available
to serve on the Board of Directors, as set out in the Articles of
Incorporation. Each of the parties further agrees to appoint
members to the Advisory Committee, as set out in Article VIII
below, and to take all other action needful and necessary for the
continued operation of the Authority.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 5)
Section 2.3. Public Body. The Authority is a political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia and as such is
subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and
other laws applicable to such public bodies. Ail meetings of its
Board of Directors, other than Executive Sessions as provided by
law, shall be open to the public and public comments to the Board
shall be provided for on the agenda.
16
ARTICLE III.
Existing Facilities.
Section 3.1. Ivy Landfill. The parties hereby agree to
sell to the Authority the real estate located on State Route 637
in Albemarle County which currently constitutes the Ivy Landfill,
together with all fixtures and improvements attached thereto, for
a total consideration of $1.00. The parties further agree to
transfer and assign to the Authority, for a total consideration
of $1.00, all of the equipment, inventory and personal property
currently used in connection with the operation of the Ivy
Landfill. Ail such property, real and personal, shall be trans-
ferred to the Authority in its current, as is condition.
Section 3.2. Transfer of Personnel. Ail personnel cur-
rently employed by the City for the purpose of operating the
joint City and County solid waste disposal facilities, including
the Ivy Landfill, shall perform work exclusively for the Autho-
rity. They may or may not formally become employees of the
Authority, but in any event, their past and future retirement
benefits shall equal or exceed what they now have under the
present City retirement system. Costs of such retirement bene-
fits, and any changes therein, shall be shared on an equitable
basis among the Authority, the City, and County in a manner to be
agreed upon by the parties.
Section 3.3. Settlement of Transfer. The conveyance,
transfer and assignment of the land and facilities set out above
shall be consummated as soon as possible after the legal creation
of the Authority. At such closing, the Authority shall pay the
agreed purchase price and the City and County shall deliver a
deed, assignment and/or bill of sale transferring such land,
equipment and facilities.
ARTICLE IV.
New Facility.
Section 4.1. Additional Facilities. The Authority will
acquire, develop and/or complete the facilities and capital
projects set out on Exhibit 2 attached hereto. In addition, the
Authority will develop and carry out such additional projects and
facilities as may be authorized by the governing bodies of the
Parties hereto and any additional jurisdictions which may subse-
quently become a participating member.
Section 4.2. Payment for New Facility. The obligation of
the Authority to provide such new facilities as are described in
Section 4.1 is limited to the funds available to it from time to
time for such purpose. The Authority shall have no source of
funds nor be under any obligation to provide funds except as set
out in Article VII or as set out in Sections 4.3 and 5.3 below.
Section 4.3. Specific Facility. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 4.1, in the event either the City or the
County (a) determines the need for additional facilities, (b)
agrees the other party shall have no obligation to pay for such
facility through "tipping" fees or otherwise, and (c) specifi-
cally requests the same, the Authority shall provide such reques-
ted facilities at the sole cost of the City or the County, as the
case may be. Once in place, the operation will be the responsi-
bility of the Authority. Costs of such operation shall be borne
effectively, through tipping fees or otherwise, only by the
County or City (or the residents of such jurisdictions) which
directly use the facility.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 6)
ARTICLE V.
Obligations of Authority.
Section 5.1. Acquisition and Operation of Facility. The
Authority shall as soon as practical after its inception and the
transfer of all land and facilities to it, acquire and take over
the operation of the existing Ivy Landfill.
Section 5.2. Collections. The Authority shall not, either
directly or indirectly, collect solid waste within the City or
the County, but may set up transfer stations for such waste and
transfer between facilities and shall be the sole provider for
disposal, recycling or regeneration of such solid waste.
Section 5.3. Sale of Bonds. When needed for acquisition of
new facilities, including expansion of the existing landfill or
creation of a new landfill, the Authority shall issue and sell
Bonds pursuant to the Act in an amount which, together with other
available funds, will be sufficient to pay the cost of construct-
ing, acquiring, and placing in operation such additional equip-
ment or facilities; provided, however, that no long term debt,
defined as any indebtedness which will not by its terms be repaid
in five (5) or less years, shall be issued without the approval
of the governing bodies of the parties hereto. Nothing contained
in this agreement shall require the Authority to issue such bonds
and any such bonds shall be issued upon terms deemed reasonable
by it. Such bonds shall not constitute an obligation of either
the City or County.
Section 5.4. Acceptance of Solid Waste. The Authority
shall be the sole designed entity to accept and dispose of all
solid waste generated within the City or County and delivered to
it at its designated points of delivery by either public or
private haulers, in accordance with rules and regulations adopted
by the Authority from time to time. The Authority will accept no
solid waste generated outside of the City or County without the
consent of both the City and County. The Authority shall be
under no obligation to accept solid waste in excess of the
capacity of the facilities of the Authority for disposal or
recycling of the same.
Section 5.5. Operation of the Authority. The Authority
shall adopt and enforce such rules and regulations as may be
necessary or desirable to insure the efficient operation and
maintenance of its facilities and compliance with applicable
regulations and orders of regulatory bodies. The Authority shall
further conduct its operations in an efficient and economical
manner, making all necessary and proper repairs, replacements and
renewals which are consistent with good business and operating
practices for comparable facilities and in accordance with
applicable standards of regulatory bodies.
Section 5.6. Development. The Authority shall be expected
to develop rules, regulations and procedures as may be necessary
to comply with State and Federal mandates and procedures as to
recycling, reuse and other alternative uses and methods of
disposal for solid waste.
ARTICLE VI.
Obligations of City and County.
Section 6.1. Sole Agency. The City and County agree the
Authority shall be the sole provider of any landfill, transfer
stations or other solid waste disposal facilities, including
recycling and solid waste energy generation, ~or all solid waste
generated within the City and County. Ail collectors and haul-
ers, public or private, shall deliver solid waste to the points
of delivery designated by the Authority.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 7)
18
Section 6.2. Capacities. The City and County recognize
that the capacity of the Ivy landfill or any other disposal site
or facility of the Authority is limited and that allocation of
capacity may have to be made from time to time to avoid overload-
ing. Each of the parties agree to cooperate with the Authority
to (a) reduce or limit the amount of solid waste delivered to the
Authority (b) find and provide alternative methods of disposal,
and/or (c) acquire and commence operation of a new landfill or
other disposal or recycling facility.
Section 6.3. Observance of Regulations. The City and
County each covenant and agree to observe and to cooperate with
the Authority to enforce all reasonable rules and regulations
respective to the use of the services and facilities furnished by
the Authority or as legally required by any other authorized
regulatory body.
Section 6.4. Prior Agreement. By agreement dated November
27 and December 11, 1974, the parties entered into an agreement
for the joint use of the Ivy landfill, which agreement was
confirmed by an Order of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Case No. 782-C, entered on December 11, 1974. The parties agree
this agreement supersedes the 1974 agreement and further agree to
jointly petition the Court and request recision of the final
Order entered in Case No. 782-C.
Section 6.5. Additional Parties. The City and County
recognize it may be advantageous to allow additional parties to
join the Authority, pursuant to Section 15.1-1248 of the Code or
pursuant to contractual or operational agreements with the
Authority and agree to enter into discussions with any political
subdivisions so interested.
ARTICLE VII.
Rates and Charges.
Section 7.1. Fixing of Rates. The Authority shall fix and
determine from time to time the charges for handling and dispos-
ing of solid waste, including reserves for closing and monitoring
the existing landfill and acquisition of any future landfill,
recycling or energy creation facilities. Such rates shall be
established at such levels as may be necessary to provide funds,
together with any other funds that may be available, sufficient
at all times to pay (a) the cost of operation and maintenance of
the project and facilities, including debt services attributable
to any facilities to be constructed or acquired by the Authority,
(b) reserves for such purposes, and for replacements and improve-
ments to such equipment and facilities, and (c) principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds as the same become
due, and reserves therefor.
Section 7.2. Payment of Charges. The City currently
operates a solid waste collection service within its jurisdiction
and expects to continue to operate such service. Payment of
charges for disposal of the solid waste collected by the City,
upon delivery to designated delivery points, shall be on such
periodic payment basis as may reasonably be agreed to between the
Authority and the City. The County does not currently operate
such a collection service and does not expect to operate such a
service. The Authority shall charge private parties who collect
and haul solid waste from the County's jurisdictional area to the
designated delivery points upon such reasonable business basis as
may be determined by the Authority. Such charges may be in the
form of monthly or other periodic charges to approved regular
contract haulers and cash payments by other haulers not on the
approved list.
Section 7.3. Debt Service Charges. The Board of Directors
of the Authority shall set such rates and charges from time to
time as may be necessary to amortize all indebtedness of the
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 19
(Page 8)
Authority and for such reserve funds as may be prudent to antici-
pate new facilities and future bond issues.
ARTICLE VIII.
Advisory Committee.
Section 8.1. Establishment. There shall be established a
Citizens Advisory Committee, to consist of nine members. The
members shall be citizens of the City or County or any other
political subdivision which becomes a party to this agreement,
who hold no other municipal office and shall be appointed as set
out in Section 8.2 below.
Section 8.2. Appointment and Term. The Committee shall
consist of three members appointed by the City, three members
appointed by the County, two members appointed by the University
of Virginia, and the ninth member to be the Chairman and to be
appointed as set out in Section 2.2 above. Initially, three
members, one each by the City, County and University, shall be
appointed for a one year term and the remaining five for a two
year term. Thereafter all members will serve terms which shall
be for two calendar years. The term of the Chairman shall be
concurrent with the term of the Chairman of the Board of Direc-
tors. Ail members shall be eligible for one reappointment for a
second term. Members shall serve without compensation, but shall
be reimbursed by the Authority for any actual cost incurred in
connection with their duties.
Section 8.3. Officers and Staff. The Chairman of the
Committee shall be as set forth in Section 8.2 above. The
Committee shall elect a Vice-Chairman from their group for a term
of one year. The Executive Director of the Authority or his
designee shall serve as staff to the Committee and perform such
duties as are appropriate, including the keeping of proper
minutes of the Committee. Anyone designated by the Executive
Director to perform duties for the Committee shall report to and
be subject to the supervision of the Executive Director in the
performance of such duties.
Section 8.4. Vacancies. Vacancies occurring in the Advi-
sory Committee for any reason shall be filled by appointment by
the party which appointed the member no longer serving.
Section 8.5. Status and Duties. The Advisory Committee
shall be an advisory body having the duty of advising the Board
of Directors of the Authority on all matters pertaining to solid
waste disposal and use, including recycling, energy generation
and other alternative uses. The Board of Directors of the
Authority shall give significant weight to recommendations made
by the Advisory Committee.
Section 8.6. Duty of Chairman. In addition to the provi-
sions of Section 8.5, it shall be the duty of the Chairman to
serve as a non-voting member of the Board of Directors of the
Authority and to attend the meetings of such body. In the event
the Chairman cannot attend such a meeting, the elected Vice-
Chairman shall attend.
ARTICLE IX.
Miscellaneous.
Section 9.1. Amendment. It is recognized by the parties
hereto that this agreement will constitute an essential part of
the Authority's financing plan and after any Bonds have been
sold, this agreement cannot be amended, modified, or otherwise
altered in any manner that will impair or will adversely affect
the security afforded for the payment of the principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds, but this agreement
may be modified or amended only with the consent of the parties
hereto, the Authority and the trustee pursuant to any bond issue,
given in accordance with the resolution or indenture under which
it has been designated.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 20
(Page 9)
Section 9.2. Books and Records. The Authority shall keep
proper books and records in accordance with generally accepted
accounting practices and shall make them available for inspection
at all reasonable times by the political subdivisions through
their duly authorized agents. The Authority shall cause an
annual audit of its books and records to be made by an indepen-
dent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year
and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the
governing bodies of the City and County.
Section 9.3. Successors and Assigns. This agreement shall
be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by
the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
Section 9.4. Severability. If any provision of this
agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect any other
provision hereof.
ARTICLE X.
Purpose and Binding Effect of Agreement.
Section 10.1. Initial Purpose. The parties enter into this
agreement to evidence their mutual agreement to take all action
needful and necessary to form the Authority and, upon ratifica-
tion by the Authority, to abide by the operating provisions set
out herein.
Section 10.2. Binding Effect. Except for the purposes set
out in Section 10.1, this agreement shall have no effect and
shall not be binding upon the parties unless and until the
Authority (a) is duly organized pursuant to the Act and (b) by
action of its Board of Directors has expressly ratified and
confirmed the provisions of this agreement and agreed to abide by
them, which action shall be evidenced by causing this agreement
to be executed on its behalf.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto cause this agreement
to be executed and their seals to be affixed and attested by
their duly authorized officers, all as of the date first above
written.
Exhibit I is the Articles of Incorporation of Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority and is set out in full in the minutes of August 1, pages 16 to 17.
EXHIBIT II
CAPITAL PROJECTS - RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
The City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County agree that the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority will complete the following capital
projects and fund them through tipping fees or otherwise.
Ivy Landfill - Ail additional engineering and construction
of new cells, closing of existing cells and such additional
improvements as required by the Department of Waste Manage-
ment.
B. Future Landfill - Acquisition of new land for future cells.
Composting Facility - Design and construction of a yard
waste composting facility.
Recycling Facility - Provide either through construction and
operation or through contractural arrangement a facility to
handle recyclable materials and provide for their resale.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 10)
E. Transfer Stations Study proposed locations for transfer
stations which serve both the city and the county.
F. Wood Chipping - Further study the economic feasibility of
establishing a wood chipping operation.
G. Inert Landfill - Acquire and/or develop a landfill for
disposal of inert materials.
21
Item 5.3. Request to Have Roads in Hickory Ridge Subdivision Taken into
the State Secondary System of Highways. (In a letter dated July 6, 1988, Mr.
William S. Edwards, a resident of 4685 Pelham Road in Hickory Ridge Subdivi-
sion, requested that the roads in Hickory Ridge be accepted for public mainte-
nance. Mr Edwards stated that Hickory Ridge PUD was approved with proposed
public roads, but currently they were being privately maintained. The follow-
ing resolution was adopted by the above recorded vote:)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following roads in Hickory Ridge:
Pelham Road
Beginning at Station 10+00, a point common to the center-
line of Pelham Road and the edge of the pavement of State
Route 665, thence in a northwesterly direction 3060.25
feet to Station 40+60.25, the end of the cul-de-sac.
Martingale Lane
Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the center-
line of Martingale Lane and the edge of pavement of Pelham
Road, thence in a westerly direction 446.16 feet to
Station 14+71.16, the end of the cul-de-sac.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-
of-way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 554, pages 51, 53, 55 and 57.
Item 5.4. Request from CAC3 for Pavement Improvement of the Access and
Parking Area for the McIntire Recycling Collection Center, approved as reques-
ted in the following letter dated October 23, 1990, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor,
Jr.:
"The Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC3) has
requested the County and City to share in the improvement of the access
and parking area for the McIntire Recycling Collection Center. The bids
obtained by CAC3 range from $3,900 to $13,370.
It is the staff opinion that pavement improvements to the site are
needed. The extent of those improvements should be kept to a minimum,
i.e., patching - prime and seal. This will give CAC3, the County and
the City a chance to determine over the next 18 to 24 months how inten-
sively the recycling centers will continue to be used.
Staff recommends that we join with the City in making improvements to
the McIntire Recycling Center's access and parking area by providing
minimal improvements at this time, and requests your authorization to
advise CAC3 accordingly."
(Mrs. Humphris said at the last Clean Community Commission meeting, Mrs.
Judith Mueller, City Public Works Director, announced that the City of
Charlottesville is opening a manned paper and aluminum center in Seminole
Square Shopping Center. She thinks that it may be necessary to reconsider
paving improvements at the Recycling Center. Mr. Bowie said the improvements
recommended only includes patching the potholes which he thinks should be
done. Mr. Tucker said that is correct.)
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 22
(Page 11)
Item 5.5. Request from Schnabel Engineering Associates, Richmond,
Virginia, dated October 17, 1990, for a central well permit for the proposed
Ashley Inn at the intersection of Route 616 and 1-64. This request was passed
to the County Engineer without comment.
Item 5.6. Letter Dated October 5, 1990, from Mr. 3. A. Echols, Assistant
Resident Engineer, enclosing a copy of the 1989-90 Secondary Budget, Albemarle
County, Fiscal Summary~ received as information.
(Mr. Bain asked if staff verified the numbers in the report with the
approvals made by the Board to the projects. Mr. Agnor replied "no". Mr.
Bain felt the numbers should be verified before the November 14 meeting.)
Item 5.7. Letter dated October 18, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, stating that traffic volumes on Route 734 are inadequate to
monitor for determining a speed limit, but that a maximum safe speed of ten
miles per hour will be posted on a curve at the intersection of Routes 734 and
1807, was received information.
Item 5.8. Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, Report on
Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1990, received as information.
Item 5.9. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for October 2, 1990,
received as information.
Item 5.10. Proposed 1991-92 Budget Preparation Calendar, received as
information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated October 24, 1990, from Mr. W. Clyde Gouldman,
II, re: Sale of 418 4th Street, N.E., property, received as follows:
"Enclosed (on file) is a letter dated October 16, 1990, from Preston
Morris advising us that he cannot accept the City's offer to sell the
418 4th Street, N.E. property.
We began negotiating with Mr. Morris in December of 1989. Although
the proposed purchase price of $115,000 was acceptable, the City
wanted some assurance that the building he intended to build would be
suitable to the neighborhood. The offer was extended several times by
either the City and Mr. Morris for various reasons until May, 1989,
when the City accepted Morris' offer 'as outlined by [Morris]' A
sales contract was drafted and presented, but Mr. Morris did not sign
it."
(Mr. Bowie suggested that the County Attorney meet with the City Attorney
and offer the property to the City for $57,500, the County's one-half interest
in the property.)
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-90-07. Unisys Corporation (Deferred from August
1990.)
Mr. Bowie noted a letter dated October 6, 1990, received from Mr. George H
Gilliam, representing Unisys, requesting that ZMA-90-07 be referred back to
the Planning Commission for consideration of new material.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to refer
ZMA-90-07 back to the Planning Commission for consideration of new material,
at the request of the applicant. 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.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 23
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-76. Thomas H. Pritchett, Estate (owner),
Walter Lee Pritchett (applicant). Public hearing to consider a request for a
single-wide mobile home on property approx, one-fourth mile on private ease-
ment off west side of Rt. 600, approx. 0.7 mile south of intersection of Rts.
747 and 600. Property zoned Rural Areas. Tax Map 33, Parcel 35 (part of).
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 16 and Octo-
ber 23, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report:
"Character of Area: The property is surrounded by heavy vegetation on
three sides. The property itself contains mostly pastureland and a
few scattered trees. The property slopes downward from the private
road. Due to off-site vegetation and on-site slope, the mobile home
will not be visible from any other dwellings. The mobile home will be
visible from the private road, but will not be visible from Route 600.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This parcel is located in Rural
Area II of the Comprehensive Plan. As a goal, the Comprehensive Plan
proposes to 'Discourage rural residential development other, than
dwellings related to a bona fide agricultural/forestal use
Staff Comment: Three letters have been received regarding this
petition. In regard to the first letter, the 'dump' is not located on
the applicant's property. The second letter complains of represen-
tations by a real estate company that mobile homes would not be
allowed in the area. The third letter complains as to issues of road
maintenance. Family divisions (unless a private road has already been
approved) are exempt from road upgrading and maintenance requirements.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, staff
recommends the following conditions.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
The issuance of a permit shall be subject to the following
conditions which shall be met by the applicant prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy and which shall thereafter
be complied with:
Ce
Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die.
Mobile home is for occupancy of Walter Lee Pritchett and his
family only."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-76 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the right-of-way issue expressed by one of the
adjacent property owners. Mr. Keeler said there is no maintenance agreement
on this roadway. The property was a family division which is exempt from the
private road requirements for maintenance agreements.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant was
present and then if anyone was present in opposition to the application. No
one responded in opposition.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 24
(Page 13)
Ms. Linda Mennace, niece of Mr. Pritchett, said Mr. and Mrs. Howell
(adjacent property owners) are not maintaining the road. They have
right-of-way access and gravel only their portion of the road. Ms. Mennace
said there is nothing wrong with the road and they have been maintaining their
portion.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-90-76 subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission:
The issuance of a permit shall be subject to the following
conditions which shall be met by the applicant prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy and which shall thereafter
be complied with:
a. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable require-
ments for district in which it is located;
Ce
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
de
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the reasonable satisfaction of the zoning administrator and
approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of
Health, if applicable under current regulations;
Se
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or
screening to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of
the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be
maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die;
fo
Mobile home is for occupancy of Walter Lee Pritchett and his
family only.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-77. Marthe Robin Catholic School Corporation
(applicant), Albemarle County (owner). Public hearing on a request to operate
a private school with 180 to 200 students [10.2.2.5] in the old Greenwood
School Building on 6.2 acres zoned Rural Areas. Possible expansion of the
building and maximum enrollment of 400 students is proposed as Phase Two.
Property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Rts. 691 and
690. Tax Map 54, Parcel 54. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 16 and October 23, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is the location of the old Greenwood
School which is no longer used. Adjacent to the north is a country
store. Other properties in the area are developed with single-family
residences.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to renovate the
existing building as part of Phase I of the school. Total enrollment
in Phase I is to be 180 to 200 students which is comparable to the
number of students present at the school when it was operated by the
County. The applicant has submitted a description of the request as
well as a justification. Phase I will be used for elementary and/or
middle school students. Phase II may be designed for use as a high
school. Total enrollment upon completion of Phase II would be 400
students.
Planning and Zoning History: The site was operated by the County as a
public school until the early 1980's. The school was established in
the 1920's.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 25
(Page 14)
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in the Rural Areas as desig-
nated by the Comprehensive Plan. While this use is not generally
supportive of agriculture it does not represent the introduction of a
new use into this area. Staff opinion is that this request is not in
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan due to the previous use of the
site as a public school.
S,,mmary and Recommendation: The applicant has submitted a sketch plan
with this application. In addition, the applicant has submitted
information regarding the suitability of the existing structure for
use as a private school. This information indicates that substantial
renovations will be required prior to occupancy. These renovations
will bring the building into compliance with the current building
code. The applicant anticipates that a new septic system will be
required as well as studies and improvements of the water supply
system.
The sketch plan submitted by the applicant indicates new structures as
Phase II. Additional parking is anticipated as well as additional
landscaping and screening in Phase I. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has stated that the existing entrance on Route 691 has
inadequate sight distance. Due to the fact that this is an existing
entrance used when the school was operated by the County, staff does
not recommend improvements at this time. However, the entrance must
be improved or closed at the time of any expansion. The existing
southern entrance on Route 690 is inadequate to accommodate two way
traffic due to limited width. Staff has discussed this item with the
applicant who is agreeable to widening the access to a minimum of 20
feet to allow for two way traffic. This road is part of the Virginia
Department of Transportation's system (Route 9003) which should be
abandoned prior to use of this facility as a private school.
Enrollment will not be greater than the enrollment when the school was
operated by the County (for Phase I). However, trip generation may be
greater if buses are not used. The applicant is unable to state at
this time if buses will be used. Routes 690 (part) and 691 are
currently non-tolerable. The portion of Route 690 between this site
and Route 250 is tolerable. Staff opinion is that a majority of
traffic to the site will use Route 250 and Route 690 to access the
school.
The school anticipates growth and the possibility of high school
students. Should this site be used as a high school there will be
inadequate parking provided. The applicant is proposing 20 additional
spaces as part of Phase I improvements.
Staff has reviewed the permitted uses of the RA district and recom-
mends that a consideration be the extent to which Rural Area uses
could reasonably be anticipated to be established on this site. Staff
opinion is that zoning should provide a reasonable use of land and
recommends that this building could be devoted to few if any other
Rural Area uses. A private school would appear to be an appropriate
use.
Staff opinion is that the applicant has submitted a convincing argu-
ment for this permit by citing the County's use of the building as a
public school. However, staff is unable to recommend approval of
Phase II at this time due to a lack of information regarding the site~s
ability to support additional septic area. Staff has received no
comments from adjacent property owners as of the time of the prepara-
tion of this report. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends
approval subject to the following conditions.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Use shall be limited to Phase I (200 students);
Use shall not commence without approvals from the appropriate
state, local and federal agencies;
Existing entrance on Route 691 shall be improved or abandoned
upon expansion of the school beyond the limits of Phase I;
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 26
(Page 15)
4. Staff approval of site plan for improvements to Phase I. Site
plan shall be in general compliance with plans dated 9/14/90."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-77 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff. Mr. Keeler noted that the plans are dated "10/5/90"
instead of "9/14/90". Mr. Bowie suggested Mr. Keeler initial the correct
plans. Mr. Keeler concurred.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. He then asked if the applicant
was present and if anyone was present to speak in opposition to the applica-
tion. No one responded in opposition.
Mr. Kurt Wassenaar, representing the applicant, said the plans have been
revised and the applicant has no objection to the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. The applicant has investigated the building and
plans to bring it up to current Building Code standards. This is a positive
alternative for the County, both in providing educational opportunities not at
taxpayers expense, but also as a way to utilize an existing building. Mr.
Wassenaar said the applicant understands that there are a lot of unexplored
issues and that plans for Phase II will come before the Board at another time.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-90-77, subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission with a change in date on condition #4:
1. Use shall be limited to Phase I (200 students);
Use shall not commence without approvals from the appropriate
state, local and federal agencies;
Existing entrance on Route 691 shall be closed until sight
distance is improved according to VDOT recox~endations;
Staff approval of site plan for improvements to Phase I. Site
plan shall be in general compliance with plans dated 10/5/90 and
initialled RSK.
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. SP-90-81. Lighthouse Baptist Church. Public hearing
on a request for a 150 seat church (10.2.2.35) on five acres zoned Rural
Areas. Property on west side of Rt. 785 approx, seven-tenths mile north of
Rt. 649. Tax Map 32, parcel 23HI. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on October 16 and October 23, 1990.)
(Before beginning the staff report, Mr. Way requested that the staff
improve the quality of maps in the staff reports.) Mr. Keeler summarized the
following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The property is currently undeveloped. There
are no dwellings visible from the site on the western side of Route
785 and two dwellings are visible on the eastern side of Route 785.
Slopes are moderate to gently rolling.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150
seat church~ The church will conduct two Sunday services (morning and
evening), Bible study (Wednesday) and choir practice (Sunday evening).
The applicant has stated there shall be no day care, play areas or
cemetery. No letters of objection have been received.
Planning and Zoning History: This property was created by exempt plat
in 1979. Subsequent attempts to further divide the parent tract were
disapproved by the Planning Commission due to poor road conditions.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 27
(Page 16)
Since that time, Route 785 has been improved by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation. Due to this improvement and the infrequent
peak use of the facility, staff does not believe the road will be
adversely affected by this development.
Comprehensive Plan: Discourage rural development other than dwellings
related to a bona fide agricultural/forestal use. Since July 12,
1989, the Planning Commission has approved three new churches in the
Rural Areas ranging in size from 400 seats to an 800 seat capacity.
Churches have been considered based on their consistency with the
character of the Rural Area.
S,~mmary and Recommendation: Staff opinion is that certain uses such
as churches, day care and schools contribute to the well-being and
moral fibre of the community. In this posture, staff review is
limited to issues of physical development while other considerations
of appropriateness of the use to a given location is a matter of
legislative discretion.
Prior to this application, the Planning Commission denied two previous
subdivisions on the parent parcel of this tract based on the poor
condition of Route 785. Since last spring, this road has been upgraded.
This area had been reviewed for inclusion in Hollymead for urban
development. This area may experience further development.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the
church will not adversely affect the existing road and is consistent
with the character of the Rural Area and recommends approval of
SP-90-81. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
2.
3.
4.
Administrative approval of site plan;
Any future or expanded uses including day care shall require an
additional special use permit;
Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system
area not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 150 people;
Clearing of trees shall be for construction purposes only and all
remaining trees of three and one-half inch caliper shall be
maintained, especially along Route 785."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
1990, by a vote of 5-1, recommended approval of SP-90-81 subject to the
conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Keeler said an issue at the Planning Commission meeting was the
traffic generation from the church. VDoT made the following comment: "The
existing five acre lot would generate ten vehicle trips per day for a single-
family dwelling unit, while a 150 seat church would generate 75 vehicle trips
per day on Sunday. Route 785 was upgraded based on current zoning of proper-
ties and changes of this nature could make Route 785 become non-tolerable."
Mr. Bowie asked how 75 vehicle trips on a Sunday morning could make a road
non-tolerable. Mr. Keeler said he thinks VDoT is saying that if the County
continues to increase traffic by allowing special permits for changes in use
along the roadway, the road could become non-tolerable. Mr. Keeler said it is
the staff's opinion that this use is compatible to the existing zoning.
Mr. Bain asked what is the width of pavement on Route 785. Mr. Keeler
responded approximately 18 feet.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant was
present and if anyone was present to speak in opposition to the petition. In
addition to the applicant, there were several persons present in opposition.
Mr. Mike Henderson, Pastor of the church, addressed the Board. This is
basically a new church and averages about 32 persons in church each Sunday.
28
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 17)
Addressing a petition presented at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr.
Henderson said this is not a large church. The fact that the road is a
dead-end should not be an issue. It is his opinion, and this has been veri-
fied by several professionals, that the land is suitable for the church.
Mr. Dave Hines, a resident of Route 785 directly across from the proposed
site, addressed the Board. The subject parcel covers the length of the front
of his parcel. Mr. 01lie Fitzgerald, owner of the lot beside his property is
also in opposition to this petition. Mr. Hines said he is concerned about the
runoff from the church parking lot. The runoff will all come down into his
creek. He made a statement at the Commission meeting that he has been flooded
out three times. His property will be devastated if he gets a lot of runoff
from a parking lot. He has lived at this location for some time and knows
what the runoff can do. He was also told at the Commission meeting that
someone from the staff would come out and look at the situation, which to date
has not occurred. It was also stated that the property would be marked off.
Nothing has been done. He has walked the road and has seen no markers, red
tape or anything visible. He walks the road and rides a bike on it. Right
now none of the other lots on the Pritchett property have been developed. He
thinks that eventually there will be quite a bit of development. There have
been problems with people pulling up and parking in the lot. He understands
that for the day care center that will be another special permit, but that is
added traffic. There is also traffic coming from Northwood Trailer Court.
This church would make the third church within three-quarters of a mile. He
asks that another location be found for this church and that someone come out
and look at the land concerns he has mentioned.
Mrs. Norma Hines said in response to a statement made by Mr. Henderson,
that there are at least five houses visible to the church site.
Mr. Paul Proffitt, a member of Lighthouse Baptist Church, said churches
tend to be a family activity and most of the time there are several people in
a car. Therefore, the traffic will be reduced immensely. He is sure the
traffic will be less than the projected 75 vehicle trips.
Ms. Etta Campbell, a member of Lighthouse Baptist Church and resident of
Northwood Trailer Court, said she never had a problem going in or out of the
trailer court. She has never had a problem with traffic coming home from
church.
Mr. Newell Coble, a resident of Route 785, said the road is not suffi-
cient for the traffic that will be generated by this church. He asks Board
members to drive the road and see its condition.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Keeler said when the final site plan is submitted, the staff will
contact Mr. Hines and meet with him on the site to investigate what, if any
effect, the church will have on drainage. Part of the church property drains
toward Mr. Hines property and part of the church property drains away. It
will depend on the site plan and how the church proposes to handle stormwater.
One of the problems is that YDoT has not removed the silt fence which tends to
channel runoff directly into the drainage area. Interrupting, Mr. Hines
commented that the silt fence was removed two floods ago. Mr. Bowie asked
that this concern be addressed.
Mrs. Humphris asked where the petitions are that were mentioned. Mrs.
Hines handed to the Board (on file) petitions signed by the residents along
Route 785 in opposition to the request. The signatures do not include
residents of Northwood Trailer Court or the housing development at the end of
Route 785.
Mr. Bain said he voted against the last request for a church in the rural
area. He thought the request was too large for its location. He thinks it is
time to look at some criteria for churches in the rural areas. There need to
be some standards in the Supplemental Regulations to cover the proliferation
of churches in the rural areas.
Mrs. Humphris said she is also becoming concerned about the proliferation
of churches in the rural areas. Up until now, there has not been much commu-
nity opposition to churches. She agrees that churches will continue to grow,
but does not know if the burden of this thinking by the Board should fall on
this church.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 29
(Page 18)
Mr. Bowie said he is familiar with Route 785 and until tonight did not
know that there was any objection to the request. It seems to him that
everybody in the area is opposed to the building. This is the first time that
there has been this much objection. In light of the objections, he would like
to look at the lay of the land.
Mrs. Humphris offered motion to defer SP-90-81 to November 14 to allow
Board members time to look at the property and discuss the drainage issues.
Mr. Way commented that the reason there is no comment from the staff on
drainage issues is because that is done during the site plan review. He sees
this request as being treated differently than other requests. Mrs. Humphris
said she is concerned about what approval of this church would do to the
neighborhood. Mr. Way said he is prepared to support the request, but does
not object to the deferral. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-82. Free Union Country School. Public
hearing on a request to amend SP-88-33 in order to increase enrollment from 48
to 55 students in a private school (10.2.2.5) on 2.0 acres zoned Rural Areas.
No additional buildings are proposed. Property located on west side of Rt.
601 approx. 700 feet southeast of intersection of Rts. 601 and 665. Tax Map
29, Parcel 15D. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 16 and October 23, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler summarized the following staff report:
"Staff Comment: The Free Union Country School was approved by the
Board of Supervisors in 1984 (SP-84-19). A subsequent amendment was
approved in 1988 which increased enrollment from 35 to 48 students
(SP-88-33). The planning staff approved the site plan administra-
tively. The existing facility is of a scale and design consistent
with the rural character of Free Union. No additional buildings are
proposed. Staff is unaware of any problems or complaints about the
existing school. The existing septic system was designed to accommo-
date the proposed expansion, however, expansion beyond the current
request may require additional septic field area. Currently, the site
is served by 15 parking spaces. With an enrollment of 55 students and
five teachers, the number of required spaces is 17. Staff will
recommend that two additional spaces be provided. The addition of
seven students may increase total traffic volumes on the site. Route
601 is currently non-tolerable, however, staff does not view the
increase as a substantial increase which would result in an unsafe
condition. Staff is unable to identify any additional concerns
arising from this amendment. Staff recommends approval subject to
amending Condition 3 and adding new Condition 5:
If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department,
this approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section
5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of
Section 5.1.6 shall be met;
Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated and
is non-transferable;
Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of
the Site Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall, in no
case, exceed-~r~y-e~gh~-~48) fifty-five (55) students;
Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum
Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers;
Staff approval of site plan amendment adding a minimum of two
parking spaces.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-82 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff. Mr. Keeler suggested that condition #5 be amended
as follows: "... parking spaces, if required."
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 30
(Page 19)
Mr. Bain asked how much more the facility can be increased. Mr. Keeler
said the second septic system of the facility is near capacity. Mr. Bain
asked if the facility can be increased further. Mr. Keeler replied "yes", by
acquiring an easement from the adjoining property owner. The increased
enrollment is due to adding additional grade levels.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned about increasing the enrollment. It has to
do with the area. The issue is how large the Board is going to allow the
school to grow. This is the second request for an increase. When it approa-
ches capacity, the applicant can purchase some more land and he feels it will
continue to grow. This is a land use decision. The Board did not want to put
a public school in that area because of the watershed. He questions whether
it is okay to allow expansion of this private school, but not put a public
school out in the same area. Mr. Bowie said he does not have a problem with
the enrollment being increased by seven.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. He asked if the applicant was
present and if anyone was present in opposition to the request. There was no
one present in opposition.
Mr. David Ashcom, representing Free Union School, said in the six years
of the school's existence, they have asked for one increase. The school is
parent-run and they have attempted to respond to economic and student require-
ments. They want to maintain a certain teacher-student ratio which is self-
limiting. They feel that they can address the needs economically and acade-
mically with 55 students.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris said she understands the comments made by Mr. Bain. If
this application had to do with construction, she would be concerned. She
thinks the application is deserving of approval. Mrs. Humphris then made
motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-90-82 subject to the following
conditions recommended by the Commission and condition #5 amended to add the
words "if require":
If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department,
this approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section
5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ail other requirements of
Section 5.1.6 shall be met;
Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and
is non-transferable;
Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of
the Site Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall, in no
case, exceed fifty-five (55) students;
Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum
Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers;
Staff approval of site plan amendment adding a minimum of two
parking spaces, if required.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He also does not know if he
would support the request if it were for new construction or to increase the
size more than requested.
There being no other comments, 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. 11. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2.1-4 (j), Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the
Code of Albemarle by additions to Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal
District. Additions consist of 19 parcels located in three areas of Rt. 20
South. The proposed time period is the same as for the original district, or
10 years from April 20, 1988. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 16
and October 23, 1990.)
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 31
(Page 20)
"Location: The proposed addition is located in three areas of Route
20 South: near Sowell Branch, at Carter's Bridge and near Keene.
Acreage: The proposed addition contains 3,692.364 acres in 27 par-
cels. The existing district contains 7,969.72 acres. With this
addition, the Carter's Bridge District will contain 11,662.08 acres
and will be the largest district in the County.
Time Period: The proposed time period is the same as for the original
district, or 10 years from April 20, 1988.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the proposed district
is being used for pasture, crops, hay and forestry.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The use
value taxation program is a good indication of the actual use of the
properties. Only two of the 27 parcels containing 14.24 acres, are
not enrolled in the program. Approximately 1884 acres are being used
for agriculture, 1782 acres are being used for forestry, and 12 acres
are non-qualifying because of dwellings.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: There are 13 dwellings
in the proposed addition.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: The proposed addition is
located in areas of large farms and scattered dwellings.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed addition is
located in Rural Areas IV and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
growth areas are the Urban Area, a distance of about three miles
north, Scottsville Community, a distance of about two miles south, and
North Garden Village, and distance of about four miles west.
Environmental Benefits: Part of the addition lies within the Totier
Creek water supply watershed. The remainder lies within the Hardware
River watershed. The Hardware River traverses the addition. Route 20
South is a Virginia Byway and a County Scenic Highway. This is an
important area for turkey and other wildlife. Conservation of wooded
areas protects water quality.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Advisory Committee Recommendation: The Advisory Committee at its
meeting on September 24, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of
additions to the district."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 2,
1990, unanimously recommended additions to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/
Forestal District totaling 3692.364 acres.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no one present to
speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4 (j), Chapter 2.1,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of Albemarle by additions to
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4(j) of the Code of Albemarle be, and the
same hereby is, amended to add additional parcels to the "Carter's
Bridge Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 21)
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
32
(j) The district known as the "Carter's Bridge Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties:
Tax map 101, parcels 55A and 60; tax map 102, parcels 17A, 17B, 17B1,
17D, 18 and 20 (part); tax map 112, parcel 3, 15, 16, i6C, 16D, 16E,
16F, 17, 18H, 20 (part), 21, 33A and 37D; tax map 113, parcels 1, 1Z,
2, 3, 6A, 11 and llA; tax map 114, parcels 21, 25, 30, 51, 55, 56, 67,
67B, 69 and 70; tax map 115, parcel 10; tax map 122, parcels 4, 4A, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 12N, 33, 33A and 36; tax map 123, parcels 2, 34 and
59; tax map 124, parcel 11.
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. lla. VDOT Conference Report.
Mr. Bowie said he attended the October 24 meeting of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board in Lexington when it received recommendations for Route
29 North. Normally the Transportation Board does not allow public comments,
but it suspended its rules to allow him to speak on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, from Piedmont Environmental Council, to
speak on behalf of the citizens. In addition to Mrs. Hnmphris, a group of
Albemarle County citizens were present at the meeting.
Mr. Bowie said he reiterated that the Board could not legally participate
in efforts to preserve land for any designated bypass, even if it were so
inclined. He has written a letter to Secretary John Milliken thanking him for
his courtesy in allowing public comments at the meeting. At a subsequent
meeting, Mrs. Constance Kinchloe, Commissioner, Culpeper District, asked him
for a more thorough explanation of the Board's position. He explained in a
letter to Mrs. Kinchloe some factors about the County's Zoning Ordinance,
by-right development and cluster provisions.
Mr. Bowie said at the Highway Conference, the Governor, Secretary of
Transportation and the Highway Commissioner, all alluded to the need for local
government to pick up the costs of roads. The conference was a good meeting
and he got the opportunity to speak to several Transportation Board members
about the local situation.
Agenda Item No. llb. Resolution on Route 29 North.
Mrs. Humphris said following the location and design public hearings on
June 27, 28 and 29, 1990, and subsequent extension of public comments until
August 15, 1990, this Board, as well as the citizens, had been waiting for
VDoT staff recommendations to the Commonwealth Transportation Board concerning
the Route 29 North traffic dilemma. The County had been told that the recom-
mendation would probably be made in October, but there was also a rumor that
it would be delayed until November or December. Much to her surprise, she was
approached by reporters on October 18 asking if the Board was aware that the
VDoT staff had made its recommendation available to the Commonwealth Transpor-
tation Board on October 4. It took all of October 18 and October 19 before
the media could get YDoT to acknowledge that this recommendation had been made
available to the Transportation Board and, therefore, should have been made
public. It seems that some pressure had to be brought to bear by the media
upon public officials to get them to make available pages 31 to 37 of the
document (the pages concerning the recommendations). At that time, Mr. Robert
Tucker received a copy of the pages by fax, as did people in the City and
University. There was no indication given to any of the people concerned in
this community that this matter would be before the Transportation Board for a
final decision on October 24. Telephone calls to Richmond elicited many
different responses as to whether a decision would or would not be made and
whether citizens would be allowed to speak to the Transportation Board. More
than 100 Albemarle County citizens turned out at Natural Bridge for the
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 33
(Page 22)
meeting. The Secretary of the Transportation Board called upon Mr. Jack
Hodge, Chief Engineer for YDoT, to provide a summary of the report. The
summary was of such a quality that when Mr. Hodge finished one of his Board
members said in effect "Mr. Hodge do I understand that you are recommending
both Alternatives 9 and 10"? That was the clarity of the presentation. Mr.
Hodge also made a comment during his presentation implying that the University
of Virginia favored Alternative 10. When she asked Mrs. Kinchloe about that
following the meeting, Mrs. Kinchloe said ¥DoT had recently received a commu-
nication from President Casteen to that effect. Mrs. Humphris commented to
Mrs. Kinchloe that the County was unaware of any such communication. She has
since talked with Vice Presidents Ray Haas and Leonard Sandridge and they said
there was no such communication. Six phone calls to Richmond elicited a fax
of President Casteen's August 15 communication to VDoT on the University's
position and there is no mention of the University taking a position favoring
Alternative 10. After that meeting, she was so disturbed by the poor presen-
tation by the VDoT staff that she felt moved to write a resolution. The
recommendations made by Mr. Hodge does not bear out the results of the Sver-
drup study and there was a total lack of clarity in the presentation to show
what the Draft Environmental Impact statement really says. She hopes the
Board will adopt the resolution she proposes. She feels it is important that
this Board go on record about the document and about Mr. Hodge's presentation.
Mrs. Humphris then read the proposed resolution and moved for its adoption.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it was Mrs. Humphris' opinion that Transportation
Board members had adequate information about the proposal. Mrs. Humphris said
she was totally disillusioned about the amount of information the Trans-
portation Board seemed to have on the project. It seems that although the
Board members were provided the position paper with the recommendation on
October 4, their questions indicated that there were some problems. One Board
member told Mr. Hodge's that he did not understand his recommendation. Mr.
Hodge proposal was that VDoT do Alternative 10 and allow Albemarle County to
restrict access by allowing entrance from the north and exit from the south,
with no access in between. Mr. Hodge felt that would solve the County's
problem of development at interchanges in the corridor. It is her opinion
that the recommendation shows a total lack of understanding of the problem.
She feels there is a need for a better presentation of the data to the Trans-
portation Board. To go from the DEIS to a recommendation that includes
Alternative 10, is the most stupid thing she can possibly imagine. There is
not a fact in this document which gives Alternative 10 any basis. The DEIS
states that if the State were to spend $109 million to add Alternative 10, it
would raise the level of service on Route 29 North from a Level B, which is
highly acceptable to a Level A. The recommendation is ridiculous and she
hopes this Board is able to communicate that to the members of the Transpor-
tation Board before it meets in Manassas on November 15 to make a final
decision. She does not think the Transportation Board is equipped with the
correct information on which to make an appropriate decision.
Mr. Way asked about the accuracy in the proposed resolution that the City
and University are all in agreement. Mrs. Humphris said the statement says
that the study provides a solution to which all three bodies agree. Ail agree
to improvements on Route 29 North and all agree with the Meadow Creek Parkway.
At the last policy meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the City
agreed to have the Meadow Creek Parkway in the Unified Planning Work Program,
if the County agreed to remove the segment that runs from Preston Avenue to
the bypass. Mr. Way said he is concerned that there could be a real hassle if
the City does not agree with the wording of the entire resolution. Mrs.
Humphris suggested deleting the language from the resolution "and with which
Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia
all agree". Mr. Bowie suggested adding the following language in that section
"... for the benefit of the Albemarle/Charlottesville area and through traffic
from the areas ....
Mr. Bowie suggested in the first paragraph adding the words "... similar
to Alternative 10 or any other bypass".
Mr. Bain asked about the accuracy of the statement that it is legally
impossible for the County to restrict further develOpment on any proposed
right-of-way. Mr. St. John said the statement is accurate. Also the comments
made by Mr. Bowie are accurate.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 34
(Page 23)
Mr. Bain said if roadways are shown in the Comprehensive Plan, at the
time development is proposed, can land for the roadway be reserved or does the
right-of-way have to be purchased at that time. Mr. St. John said if a road
is shown in the Comprehensive Plan, in order to even reserve the right-of-way,
the centerline of the road must be defined in order to get the outer bounda-
ries of the right-of-way. (Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 9:19 P.M.) Even
when that is done, there is a limit on what can be reserved. Since this
project is not proposed until the year 2010, the time element alone, in his
judgment, makes any reservation of this area legally unsupportable. (Mr.
Bowie returned to the meeting at 9:21 P.M.)
Mr. Perkins suggested changing the word "Charlottesville Reservoir" to
"South Fork Rivanna Reservoir".
Mr. Bain suggested changing the word "publicize" to "forward".
There being no further comments, 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.
(Following is the adopted resolution:)
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County unanimously
opposes Alternative 10 western bypass and has opposed all predecessor
alignments similar to Alternative 10 or any other bypass; and
WHEREAS, the entire 5.4 miles of Alternative 10 lie within
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the determination of the Board of Supervisors to protect
the watershed of the major drinking water supply for 80,000 Charlottes-
ville and urban Albemarle County residents has been upheld in both
State and Federal courts; and
WHEREAS, the construction of Alternative 10 would be a fundamen-
tal violation of the County's long-standing court tested policy for
protection of the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir; and
WHEREAS, it is unconscionably unfair to continue to hold the
residents of western Albemarle County hostage to the possibility of
the construction of a road which data from the Virginia Department of
Transportation's own consultant demonstrates to be unnecessary both
now and in the year 2010; and
WHEREAS, it appears that there are no funds available at any time
in the foreseeable future to purchase right of way and construct such
a road; and
WHEREAS it is legally impossible for Albemarle County to restrict
further development on any proposed right of way, even if the Board of
Supervisors were to support the construction of such a road; and
WHEREAS, the Sverdrup study does provide a solution that solves
the Route 29 North traffic dilemma for the benefit of the Albemarle/
Charlottesville area and through traffic from the areas to the north
and south of it at a reasonable cost.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that at its meeting on October 31,
1990, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors did resolve to re-
spectfully request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to take the
following actions:
Accept all staff recommendations in the "Position Paper,
Route 29 Corridor Study," October 4, 1990, except those
regarding Alternative 10.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990)
(Page 24)
35
Terminate all further consideration of any bypass or ex-
pressway so that homeowners and others in the community are
not indefinitely held hostage by a speculative project with
no documented need.
Fund the acquisition of right of way and construction for
the grade-separated interchanges at Hydraulic, Greenbrier
and Rio Road intersections with Route 29 in the current Six
Year Primary Road Plan.
Fund the acquisition of right of way and construction of the
Meadow Creek Parkway in the current Six Year Primary Road
Plan.
RESOLVED FURTHER, that the County of Albemarle will forward this
resolution to the Secretary of Transportation, the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, the City of Charlottesville and the University
of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. llc. Designate Board Representative to Vote at the
Annual VACo Business Meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to appoint Mr.
Bowie as the voting delegate and Mr. Bain as the alternate delegate, to cast
votes at the YAco 1990 Annual Meeting. 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. 12. Authorize the Chairman to Sign a Deed for the
Exchange of the Urban School Site Property.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize the
Chairman to sign the following deed for the exchange of the urban school site
property and the Whitewood Road property:
THIS DEED OF EXCHANGE, made this day of , 1990,
by and between the COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Grantor,
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, Grantee; and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
Grantor and the COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Grantee~ all
of whose addresses are the County Office Building, 401McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901,
WITNE S SETH .'
That for and in consideration of the public benefits and govern-
mental services to be provided by the exchange of the parcels conveyed
hereby, the County School Board of Albemarle County does hereby GRANT,
BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY WITH SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the
County of Albemarle, the following parcel of land:
Ail that certain tract or parcel of land in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District of Albemarle County
containing a total of 22.709 acres, more or less, and
consisting of Tax Map 61, Parcel 28 containing 20.937 acres,
and Tax Map 61, Parcel 29A, containing 1.772 acres.
This is the property conveyed to the School Board by the follow-
ing transactions:
A) A deed to the School Board of Charlottesville, District No.
5, of the County of Albemarle by deed of John W. Fishburne, et al.,
dated May 9, 1919 of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 170, Page 145; and
B) A deed of exchange between David J. Wood, Jr., et al., and
the Albemarle County School Board (also designated the County School
Board of Albemarle County) dated May 5, 1971 of record in said Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 487, Page 610. The entire acreage conveyed
hereby, being 22.709 acres, more or less.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 36
(Page 25)
And in further consideration of the public benefits and govern-
mental services to be provided for by this exchange, the County of
Albemarle does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY WITH SPECIAL
WARRANTY unto the County School Board of Albemarle County, all that
certain tract or parcel of land containing 19.536 acres as shown on
plat of Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, dated September 11, 1990,
captioned "Subdivision Plat of 24.969 Acre Parcel Owned by the County
of Albemarle, Virginia" and designated "New TP 95A" on said plat,
which plat is to be recorded herewith as a part of this deed. The
property hereby conveyed is a portion of the property conveyed to the
County of Albemarle by deed of William W. Stevenson, Trustee, et al.,
dated October 5, 1990, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1124, Page 54.
The conveyance of "New TP 95A" to the County School Board of
Albemarle County, is made subject to the requirements of paragraph 4C
of a certain option dated July 3, 1990, which provisions provide that
the County shall provide an easement for a commercial entrance or
sight distance for a commercial entrance, as well as access easements
for water and sewer, over "New TP 95A" for the benefit of Tax Parcel
91 at such time as Parcel 91 is developed; however, these easements
shall be located along the boundaries of the property so as not to
interfere with use of the property for public purposes including, but
not limited to, a public school.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: September 5, September 12,
September 19, and October 3, 1990 (Afternoon).
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of September 12, 1990, pages 15 - 30 (Item
#17), and found them to be satisfactory with one typographical error.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of September 12, 1990, pages 1
and found them to be satisfactory.
14,
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of September 12, 1990, pages 30 (Item #17)
to the end, and found them to be satisfactory. Mr. Bowie said at this meeting
the Board forgot to certify the executive session until later in the after-
noon. He suggested that a notation be added on page 36 that the executive
session was certified on page 44 of the minutes.
Mr. Way had read the minutes of September 19, 1990, pages 13
found them to be in order.
end, and
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of September 19, 1990, pages 1
and found them to be in order.
12,
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, 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. 14. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board.
Mr. Agnor said in consideration of revenue shortfalls, the staff is
deferring the appointment of the Fire and Rescue Coordinator until January,
1991. This has been discussed with the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue
Association and they are in agreement with the decision.
Mr. Bowerman said the Charlottesville District appointee, Mr. Mark
Osborne, to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board, has submitted his
resignation, effective October 31, 1990. Mr. Osborne is moving since he has
taken a job in Washington, D.C.
October 31, 1990 (Adjourned from October 29, 1990) 37
(Page 26)
Mr. Bowie commented that the Rivanna District appointee, Mr. Sam Craig,
to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board has also submitted his resig-
nation.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been surprised by the amount of publicity
coming forth about opposition to the pledge bond referendum. The Richmond
Times Dispatch was accurate when it stated that "we are voting to give away
our right to vote". Mr. Bowie said the Clerk's office has started receiving
letters from other Chairs in the state saying they are in agreement with this
Board's position.
Mr. St. John asked if he is to contact the City Attorney to offer the
County's interest in the Fourth Street property to the City for $57,500. Mr.
Bowie said the County in good faith agreed with the sales contract. Since
that sale did not go through, if the City is in agreement, then proceed.
Ms. Neher, Clerk to the Board, said today was the deadline for applica-
tions for the Architectural Review Board. The Clerk's office has received
approximately 20 applications. Next week is the deadline for applications for
the Housing Committee and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Mr. Bowie
suggested that Board members come to the Clerk's office, review the applica-
tions and make a list of applicants they support for discussion on November
14.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to November 7, 1990, at 3:00 P.M., Room 7.
At 9:34 P.M., Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
adjourn to 3:00 P.M. on November 7. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN