1990-11-14 vember 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 63
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 14, 1990, at 9:00 A.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, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mrs. Humphris asked that Items 5.4 and 5.6 be discussed with Highway
.ers. Mr. Way asked that Item 5.8 be discussed with Highway Matters.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
Items 5.1, 5.2 and 5.2a on the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining
items for information. Roll was.called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Request to have Roads (Mill Creek Drive, Quail Crossing, Bryan
Court, Gristmill Drive and Spring Mountain Road) in Section 3 of Mill Creek
Subdivision accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways. At the
request of Mr. Mark Hutchison, Craig Builders, in a letter dated September 7,
1990, the following resolution was adopted by the above shown 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 Mill Creek Section 3:
Mill Creek Drive
Beginning at Station 16+64.91, a point con,non to the
centerline of Mill Creek Drive and the centerline of
Gray Stone Court, thence in a northwesterly direction
1418.48 feet to Station 30+83.39, the edge of pavement of
Gristmill Drive.
Quail Crossing
Beginning at Station 0+10.00, a point co~on to the
centerline of Quail Crossing and the edge of pavement of
Mill Creek Drive at Station 27+23.78, thence in a northerly
direction 288.08 feet to Station 2+98.08, the end of the
cul-de-sac.
Bryan Court
Beginning at Station 10+00, a point common to the centerline
of Bryan Court and the edge of pavement of Gristmill Drive
at Station 20+35.50, thence in a northerly direction 347.46
feet to Station 13+57.46, the end of the cul-de-sac.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
64
Gristmill Drive
Beginning at Station 13+00, at the end of pavement, travel-
ing in a southwesterly direction 850 feet to Station 21+50,
the end of pavement.
Spring Mountain Road
Beginning at Station 7+70, the edge of the cul-de-sac on the
west side of Gristmill Drive Station 13+64.18, thence in an
easterly direction crossing Gristmill Drive and continuing
for a total distance of 720 feet to Station 14+90, the edge
of the cul-de-sac. Also, the cul-de-sac starting at Station
12+71.06 and 0+00, thence in a southeasterly direction 180
feet to Station 1+80, 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 1005, pages 114-128; Deed Book 1039,
page 565; Deed Book 1074, page 476; Deed Book 1098, page 307; and Deed
Book 1110, page 522.
Item 5.2. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for
the Monthof October, 1990, for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail were approved as presented by the
above recorded vote.
Item 5.2a. Request to have Graemont Drive in Graemont Subdivision
accepted into the State System of Secondary Highways. At the request of Ms.
Toby Zakin, Zakin Construction Company, in a letter dated October 5, 1989, the
following resolution was adopted by the above shown 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 road in Graemont Subdivision:
Graemont Drive
Beginning at Station 10+25, a point common to the edge of
State Route 660 and the centerline of Graemont Drive, thence
in a southerly direction 4,555 feet to Station 55+80, 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 990, pages 203-208 and Deed Book 1106,
page 124.
Item 5.3. Letter dated October 15, 1990, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel,
Highway Commissioner, stating that roads in Earlysville Forest, Section 9,
were added to the Secondary System as of October 11, 1990, was received as
follows:
"As requested in your resOlution dated November 15, 1989, the follow-
ing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective October 11, 1990.
ADDITIONS
LENGTH
EARLYSVILLE FOREST - SECTION 9
Route 660 (Earlysville Forest Drive)
1587 to Route 743-North
From Route
0.75 Mi
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Route 1588 (Carriage Hill Drive) - From Route 660
to 0.21 mile Northeast Route 660
Route 1589 (Beaver Creek Road) - From Route 660
to 0.18 mile Southwest Route 660
Route 1590 (Buckhorn Trail) - From Route 660
to 0.07 mile West Route 660
Route 1591 (Quail Ridge Circle-West) - From Route
660 to 0.21 mile Southeast Route 660
Route 1591 (Quail Ridge Circle-East)
660 to 0.21 mile Southeast Route 660
From Route
0.21 Mi
0.18 Mi
0.07 Mi
0.21 Mi
0.21 Mi"
65
Item 5.4. Letter dated November 1, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, attaching the monthly update of VDoT's "Current Projects
Construction Schedule," received for information.
Item 5.5. Letter dated November 7, 1990, from Mr. John G. Milliken,
Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, acknowledging receipt of
resolution concerning Route 29 North, received for information. (In his
letter, Mr. Milliken states that the Transportation Board will consider all
comments as it reviews the many issues and concerns regarding the improvement
of the Route 29 corridor.)
Item 5.6. Letter dated November 7, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, regarding speed limit on Route 660 north from its
intersection with Route 676, received for information. (In his letter, Mr.
Roosevelt states that he reviewed Route 660 north from its intersection with
Route 676 to determine if a reduced speed limit was feasible. The Department
monitored speeds along this route and found that the 85th percentile speed on
straight sections of the road was 55 mph. It was also found that almost 12
percent of the traffic was exceeding the statutory 55 mph speed limit and four
percent was exceeding 60 mph. Based upon these findings, the Department does
not believe it is feasible or prudent to reduce the speed limit along this
section. The Traffic Engineer also monitored the numerous curves along this
route and determined that additional maximum safe speed signs should be added.
He is, therefore, directing his sign crew to install additional maximum safe
speed signs.)
Item 5.7. Letter dated November 2, 1990, from Mr. David R. Gehr, Assis-
tant Chief Engineer, VDoT, noting a change in the Primary System re: Old
Route 20 (Project No. 0020-002-S20, C-501), received as follows:
"Change in the Primary System made necessary by relocation and con-
struction on Old Route 20, Project: 0020-002-S20, C-501, in Albemarle
County was confirmed by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on
October 24, as shown on the attached sketch (on file) and described as
follows:
SECTIONS DISCONTINUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950
CODE OF VIRGINIA:
Section 1 - Old location of Old Route 20, located north of the new
location, from Station 13+00 to Station 23+00 0.19 Mi."
Item 5.8. Letter from Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer, dated Novem-
ber 5, 1990, entitled "Entrance Road at the Woolen Mills and East Market
Street Alley," received for information. (In his letter, Mr. Moring said the
Engineering Department will continue to work with the residents of this area
to try and establish a privately funded, self sufficient snow removal opera-
tion to prevent the recurrence of the need for emergency removal.)
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Item 5.9. Letter dated October 25, 1990, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell,
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer with the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources, stating that Mount Falcon has been requested to be placed
on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic
Places. Mr. Mitchell states that at the December 11, 1990, meeting of the
Virginia Landmarks Board, his staff will make a recommendation that the
property is not eligible for such status. He solicits comments from the
Board of Supervisors.
Item 5.10. Letter dated November 5, 1990, from Mr. James Christian Hill,
National Register Assistant, State Historic Preservation Office, Virginia
Department of Historic Resources, stating that Piedmont is being considered
for inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of
Historic Places, was received for information.
Item 5.11. Letter from Senator John W. Warner, dated November 1, 1990,
in reply to the Board's resolution re: eliminating or restricting state and
local income and property taxes as a deduction on federal income tax returns,
received for information.
Item 5.12. Notice dated November 1, 1990, from the Superintendent of the
Shenandoah National Park, stating that portions of the Skyline Drive will be
closed from dusk until 8:00 a.m. during hunting season because of illegal
hunting pressure, was received for information. (The notice indicates that
from November 11, 1990, through January 5, 1991, the Skyline Drive between
Front Royal (Mile 0) and Thornton Gap (Mile 31), and between Swift Run Gap
(Mile 65) and Rockfish Gap (Mile 105), will be closed daily between dusk and
8:00 a.m. The section of the Drive between Thornton Gap (U. S. Route 211) and
Swift Run Gap (U. S. Route 33) will remain open 24 hours per day, weather
permitting).
Item 5.13. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
dated November 8, 1990, re: Monthly Review of General Fund Revenues~ received
for information. (Mr. Agnor reported that there does not appear to be any
changes or trends developing other than those already reported.)
Item 5.14. Memorandum dated November 2, 1990, from Mr. Patrick K.
Mullaney, Director, Parks & Recreation, re: County Office Building Lawn
Chemicals, received for information.
Item 5.15. Development Activity Report for 1989 as prepared by the
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development, received
for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: September 5 and October 10,
1990.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of October 10, 1990, pages 18 (#19) to
the End, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, 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. 7a. Highway Matters: Federal Express Site Plan, Clarifi-
cation of Condition.
Mrs. Amelia M. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, presented the following
staff report:
14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
67
"Discussion of this item is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors in
October, based on a request by Wendell Wood. At issue is whether the
current cul-de-sac entrance onto Route 29 shall be closed at this
time. Mr. Wood does not agree with staff's interpretation of a site
plan condition imposed by the Board, and therefore requests clarifi-
cation from the Board as to the intent. This item is before the Board
as an enforcement procedure in which there is an appeal of my deter-
mination of violation.
The matter before the Board is one of interpretation of a current
condition, and not a proposal to amend the condition. If the Board or
the applicant seeks amendment to this prior approval, staff recommends
that it follow the routine procedure for site plan amendments. This
would include review by relevant agencies and notification of adjacent
owners prior to public hearing.
A brief history follows:
Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings Site Plan was denied
by the Planning Commission on November 20, 1984, due to the fact
that the proposed access does not reflect the approved service
road. The Commission stated that, in order to be approved, the
plan need show egress only from the cul-de-sac on the applicant's
property and separate ingress from the center of the service
road.
Federal Express Site Plan was approved by the Board of Supervi-
sors on December 19, 1984, on appeal from the applicant. It was
approved subject to several conditions, of which #9 is in conten-
tion. Relevant conditions include:
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of cul-de-sac and temporary ingress/egress;
No additional access from this property to the cul-de-sac
and no additional direct access to Route 29 shall be permit-
ted;
Access as approved on the Federal Express Site Plan shall be
deemed as temporary to Route 29. At such time as alterna-
tive access is provided (i.e., service road), the temporary
access to Route 29 shall be modified, subject to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approval, to
permit egress only to Route 29 or to close it permanently.
Should the property owner fail to comply with this condition
within ninety days of the provision of such alternative
access, the Zoning Administrator shall request the Highway
Department to close the temporary access entirely.
At issue is whether the development has 'alternative access... (i.e.,
service road)' and, therefore, the current entrance of the cul-de-sac
onto Route 29 shall be closed. It is the applicant's position that
the service road is not complete which would permit access to a
crossover on Route 29.
It is my opinion that the alternative access referenced is access to
another entrance, one which is shown on the approved service road
plan. The Department of Planning and Community Development and the
Virginia Department of Transportation concur with this conclusion.
The Federal Express site is at the end of the road and developed
first. In lieu of requiring this developer to build the entire road,
he was allowed access at his frontage from the terminus or cul-de-sac.
It was recognized that this would be a temporary arrangement with
conditions #8 and #9 which limited additional future access to the
cul-de-sac. The future arrangement was to be either a) modification
to permit exit-only; or b) closing the entrance completely. It is the
Virginia Department of Transportation's recommendation that the
cul-de-sac be closed completely."
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
68
Mrs. Patterson noted a letter, dated July 26, 1990, from the Resident
Highway Engineer which states: "I note that as part of the Auto Mart site
plan and other site plans in this area, additional construction of the service
road and alternate access to the cul-de-sac have been provided. It is the
Department's position that the temporary access constructed by Federal Express
should now be closed. I request that you initiate action as a part of the
approval of the Federal Express site plan and have the property owner remove
this access.
Mr. Wendell W. Wood, the owner, addressed the Board. Mr. Wood presented
to the Board a petition signed by the tenants of the Express Center requesting
that the existing entrance not be altered. Mr. Wood said seven years ago when
he applied for this development, the concept of how the area would be deve-
loped had not been laid out. Also, when the service road concept was first
discussed, the idea was to have service roads up and down Route 29. This
entire area was basically controlled by himself and another individual which
made it easier for the Commission to deal with the aspect of service roads.
This is the only property on Route 29 "saddled" with this concept. It is
unfair for him to be saddled with this when the plan has not been implemented
for everybody else on Route 29. This property has 2500 feet of road frontage
on Route 29 and he is now being told that there can be only one entrance and
exit. The original road design was prepared when there were no businesses on
the property. The final design should depend on how the property is deve-
loped. Tenants currently occupy 77,000 square feet. There is additional
~by-right development on the property and an additional 32,000 square feet to
be developed. There are many flaws to the proposed plans. If he had have
known about this condition at the time of site plan approval, he would never
have accepted it. This condition would require the bulk of the traffic to
drive south to go north. There is no logical concept to the thinking that
this is a solution to the problem. If there is any realm of possibility that
this is a good plan, it is when the service road gets up to the existing
Hilton Heights Road. Two of the tenants have tractor trailers that come daily
to their businesses. The service road is not adequate to handle the traffic
that would be served just by this site to go up and make a U-turn to get back
onto Route 29. He asks Board members to go out to the property and drive the
traffic pattern being proposed and then make a decision in a proper fashion.
The proposed traffic pattern is unsafe. Most of the traffic occurs at the
southern end of the property, yet they are being asked to enter at another
location. The proposal places an economic hardship on the tenants. These
tenants should not have the burden of a concept that has not been implemented
on any other property in the County. He asks that the Board leave the
entrance and exit as it exists.
Mr. Mick Adams, of Federal Express Corporation, said he questions the
safety of closing the cul-de-sac. He has 40 vehicles arriving at three
various times during the day. The majority of the vehicles come and leave at
9:00 a.m. and go through the same sequence at 3:00 p.m. and then all come in
at 4:00 p.m. Tractor trailers are also constantly arriving and leaving. He
is concerned about his customers and the fact that Federal Express is growing.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Adams if he felt that a signalized interchange for
north and southbound traffic would provide Federal Express with safe and
convenient access. Mr. Adams said he is concerned about the amount of traffic
on the side road and there is no way to know what that traffic impact will be.
Mr. Joe Gamma, Owner of Classics Gymnastics Center, located in the
Express Center, said he has a problem with the proposed plan. Between 50 and
100 cars come to his business on a daily basis. The majority of his business
is done between 3:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. He is concerned about the exit along
with the traffic of Federal Express coming and going. The service road is not
parallel to Route 29 and a person would have to make greater than a 90 degree
turn. It is not a safe situation.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens if a person wants to go south on Route 29.
Mr. Gamble said the people go north and then make a U-turn.
Mr. Clint Cox, one of the tenants at Antiques Mall, said a lot of his
business comes from tourists on Route 29. The way the plan is proposed, a lot
of people will miss the signs and road before getting to his entrance. He
thinks this would cause an increase in accidents .from people making sudden
stops and trying to figure out how to get into the property. His business
depends a lot on drive-by and tourist traffic.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 69
(Page 7)
Mr. Mike Wood, Operator of Antiques Mall in the Express Center, said the
mall area is considerably congested at this time. There is already lots of
traffic. Any kind of future development will magnify the problem.
Mr. John Powell, manager of Domino's Pizza, a tenant, asked what will
happen in the future and if some of these plans can be delayed? Visibility is
a problem for these businesses. Domino's has approximately 200 to 250
deliveries daily and double that on weekends. Cars already park on both sides
of the access road in front of Auto Mart. Safety is a major concern. It is
inconvenient to go south, to go north, and then to go back south. He asks
that consideration be made for future development and that the Board delay the
plans.
A person who did not identify himself from Charlottesville Products, a
tenant for five years, said not only is the loss of business to the present
tenants an issue, but also safety. If this plan is implemented now, it would
be terribly unsafe. If the whole internal road is completed up to the Real
Estate III Building then it may make more sense to consider an entry at that
point, but right now the proposal is totally unsafe. A deceleration lane in
the southbound lane of Route 29 at the Sheraton intersection should be consi-
dered. He thinks that nothing should be done right now until further studies
have been completed.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said Mr. Wood made the
statement that this road plan was adopted before there was any development on
the site. He thinks that is good planning, that the plan be developed based
on access so that everybody knows what the access will be. The reason this
plan was adopted was to keep this section of Route 29 from having seven or
eight separate commercial entrances and creating further congestion. The plan
was adopted to allow for one access point at the crossover. Admittedly, the
connection to the crossover has not yet occurred and will not until these
vacant properties develop. He was interested to hear the comments about the
high volumes of traffic on this road and the congestion that is already
occurring. That is why the Department feels the access point at the cul-de-
sac should be closed. Certainly if it is not closed, it should be modified to
be an exit only. There is traffic from Auto Mart and the Garden Patch that
must go north first before going south, and they are going to exit the pro-
perty at the cul-de-sac if there is an exit there. If at the same time there
is heavy traffic making a right turn into the site at that same cul-de-sac,
there will be conflicts between right turns from Route 29 and the traffic
trying to get to the exit off of the service road. That could be resolved by
making that an exit only at the cul-de-sac and having an entrance/exit at the
temporary connection. He is not sure that the access at the cul-de-sac can be
modified to keep people from using it as an entrance, but an attempt can be
made with signage and a physical barrier.
Mr. Roosevelt said conditions along Route 29 have gotten worse, as far as
traffic volumes are concerned, since this issue was considered in 1984. The
reason for this concept is even stronger today than in 1984. The Department
wants to cut down the number of access points all along Route 29 in order to
allow traffic to flow smoother and to cut down on the overall congestion.
Mr. Roosevelt said he recox~ends that the entrance be closed at this time
and that all traffic come through the other entrance. He is willing to see if
an exit only will work, but if accidents occur, it will also need to be
closed. At the time the service road is connected back to the crossover and
the traffic signal installed, the safest thing to do would be to close the
access at the cul-de-sac and bring all of the traffic to that signalized
intersection to have access to Route 29.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is anything to gain with regard to safety at
this time until the service road is completed back to the intersection. Mr.
Roosevelt responded "yes", by making the access at the cul-de-sac an exit
only. If it is left as an entrance, there will be conflicts between the
traffic trying to use the service road, and then traffic trying to leave Auto
Mart and the Garden Patch. Then there will be the people who have gone by the
site and will attempt to make a U-turn back onto the service road. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the service road is a public road. Mr. Roosevelt replied
"yes", but it is not a State road. Mr. Bowerman asked if the road could have
signage that is enforceable which precluded parking. Mr. St. John replied
"yes".
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
7O
Mr. Bain asked if the road is being built to its ultimate design as it is
built. Mr. Roosevelt replied "yes" the road is supposed to be built for the
traffic anticipated to come from the properties it serves. It was designed
with the idea that there would be no parking on the road.
Mr. Ernie Gordon, a resident of Georgetown Road, interruped the meeting
to say that his wife has a statement to make to the Board. They had missed
"Other Matters from the Public" and asked to address the situation at Hessian
Hills. Mrs. Gordon said she is upset that the contractor doing the work at
Georgetown and Barracks Roads is using the corner for a dump site. The
contractor is not working. She does not drive and has to use the transit bus
service. She cannot get to the bus stops anymore on Georgetown Road because
the contractor has all of his equipment in front of the stop area. On Novem-
ber 4, the Highway Department informed her that it would take three more weeks
to complete the work. On November 11, they stated it would be another four
weeks. The contractor is not working. In addition, the traffic is terrible.
Due to the noise, she cannot even hear when she is on the telephone. She
cannot sleep. The contractor is now using Georgetown Veterinary clinic for
storage of his machinery. At the conclusion of Mrs. Gordon's comments, Mr.
Bowie said the Board would discuss the situation under Other Highway Matters.
Returning to the discussion concerning the Federal Express site plan, Mr.
Bowie said he remembers that in 1984 it was the Board's intent that the access
be controlled at the southern end of the property near Real Estate III. The
cul-de-sac entrance would be closed when the light was installed at the
southern entrance near Real Estate III. The Board allowed the temporary
entrance as the property was being developed. As he voted for the request,
the entrance at the cul-de-sac would be closed and become an exit only. The
plan slowed a slip ramp allowing northbound egress only from that cul-de-sac.
The Board's minutes support that and it is as he remembers and voted. They
have 90 days to make the entrance egress only or close it. He will support
exit only, but it seems that was the intent at the time this was approved. He
sees no reason to change the condition.
Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with Mr. Bowie. This has been an approved
plan for six or seven years. Everybody should have known what the development
plan was for that area. A couple of inaccurate statements have been made.
Ail of the recent development along Route 29 from Seminole Square, and Fashion
Square to Branchlands, has controlled access. This is a long standing posi-
tion on the part of the county and Highway Department. As far as bypassing
something and turning around to go back, the Marriott Hotel is on Route 29
with an entrance hundreds of feet south of its location which works if you do
not speed and you pay attention to what you are doing.
Mr. Bowie said when this request first came before the Board, the Board
had this same discussion and the same points were made. Because of the safety
issue, he thinks the road should be egress only and if that does not happen
then close it entirely.
Mr. Bowie asked how much time is needed to make the road egress only.
Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks it can be modified in 30 days. If it has to be
closed, there are legal steps that must be taken.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to
reaffirm the original condition on the Federal Express Site Plan as follows:
"Access as approved on the Federal Express Site Plan shall be deemed
as temporary to Route 29. At such time as alternative access is
provided (i.e., service road) the temporary access to Route 29 shall
be modified, subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation approval, to permit egress only to Route 29 or to close it
permanently. Should the property owner fail to comply with this
condition within ninety (90) days of the provision of such alternative
access, the Zoning Administrator shall request the Highway Department
to close the temporary access entirely."
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 71]_
(Page 9)
AYES: Messrs. Baim, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Timberwood Parkway Agreement.
Mr. Cilimberg said Mr. Gerald Fisher, Secondary Roads Engineer, has
revised the Timberwood Parkway Agreement based on the County Attorney's
concerns about obligating future Boards of Supervisors to paying for road
improvements. Mr. St. John has commented that he feels the language, particu-
larly that under Section A.7., satisfies his concerns. Mr. Cilimberg said he
recommends that the agreement be approved by this Board, forwarded to VDoT for
their review and approval, and then approved by the Attorney General's office.
Mrs. Humphris said there are statements in the proposed agreement to the
effect that "The County will assure the completion of the street's interme-
diate and complete development .... "and then "Guarantee all costs incurred in
the street's intermediate and complete development .... " She asked if this is
still obligating future Boards of Supervisors to come up with local monies to
do this.
Mr. St. John said this latest draft of the agreement does not satisfy his
concerns. He has the same concerns expressed previously, but this is the best
the County will get out of VDoT. He sent the original draft back to VDoT
which included a phrase stating that the County's obligations monetarily are
subject to future appropriations. That has been a standard clause in every
past agreement and has been accepted by VDoT. VDoT will no longer accept
these agreements with that clause. Instead, Paragraph 7 states "Affirm that
the County's obligations pursuant to this agreement, the performance of which
obligations may be subject to certain statutory or constitutional requirements
.... " That is a vague reference to the Virginia Constitution that absolutely
says the Board cannot enter into a valid contract to spend money or oblige
itself to spend money beyond the current fiscal year. This is a purposely
vague statement that VDoT insists on having in the agreement instead of his
language. In his opinion, the words mean the same thing. He believes this
agreement is the best the County will get. The Board can be sure that no
future Board of Supervisors will be required to appropriate one cent under
this agreement. He does not like this language, but it does protect the Board
as it is written.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the road will be built. Mr. St. John said if the
Board approves the agreement, the road will be accepted into the State System.
The road is already built. Mr. Cilimberg said the road is already constructed
and built to various design requirements by VDoT based on traffic. The road
has been designed and constructed to handle the entire Forest Lakes develop-
ment that would access the road as approved. The only increase in traffic
that can be foreseen to occur on Timberwood Parkway would be if it were
connected to Proffitt Road or if it were connected into Hollymead as a through
road and then started generating traffic from other locations outside of
Forest Lakes. Mr. St. John said the Board can control the increase in traffic
through its police power. The Board has control over if and when it becomes a
through road. Unless some developer is willing to pay to upgrade the road,
then the Board would not allow any development that would result in it becom-
ing a through road.
Mr. St. John said this agreement was written so that the Board would
commit itself not to allow this to become a through road. YDoT would not
accept that because it was only concerned with traffic counts. If the
County's estimate of the traffic on the road is wrong, then the Board has
incurred an obligation that the Constitution says it does not have to fulfill.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mr. St. John and thinks the Board is pro-
tected. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
authorize the Chairman to sign the following Subdivision Street Requirements
Agreement for Forest Lakes Subdivision:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
72
SUBDIVISION STREET REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT
FOREST LAKES SUBDIVISION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 19 , by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, herein after referred to as the "COUNTY",
and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, an administrative
agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia, herein after referred to as
the "DEPARTMENT";
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has adopted a
regulation entitled Subdivision Street Requirements pertaining to the
acceptance of subdivision streets into the secondary system of state
highways; and
WHEREAS, subject to the applicable provisions of Section 2.2 of
the aforenoted regulation, a street may be considered for acceptance
into the secondary system of state highways prior to its completion in
full compliance with the standards and related criteria for the
projected traffic resulting from the complete development of all land
to be served by the subject street; and
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the appropriate administra-
tive agencies of the COUNTY, a plan for the development of certain
lands lying in Albemarle County, designated as the Forest Lakes
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, this plan proposed the construction of a roadway faci-
lity identified on the plan as Timberwood Parkway, (herein after re-
ferred to as "street"), whose alignment is to be located along 3675
linear feet between stations 11+25 and 54+11 as shown in roadway plans
approved_by the DEPARTMENT with access to be restricted to those
intersections as shown in the plans, and which the COUNTY and the
DEPARTMENT have mutually agreed, pursuant to Section 2.1 of the
Subdivision Street Requirements is functionally classified as either a
collector or arterial street; and
WHEREAS, the traveled way of this roadway facility, upon complete
development pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Subdivision
Street Requirements, shall provide four or more lanes of motor vehic-
les, exclusive of turn lanes, parking lanes, etc; and
WHEREAS, the developer of this land has proposed the phased
development of the aforenoted street; and
WHEREAS, said street occupies an alignment which the COUNTY
believes should ultimately be extended for general public benefit,
beyond the particular benefit of the subject development; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY believes that it is in the public interest
that said street be accepted into the secondary system of state
highways notwithstanding its initial construction to a lesser standard
than that prescribed for "complete development" (streets) by the
Subdivision Street Requirements: and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY agrees that the design and approval of the
plans for this street shall be in accordance with the procedures
prescribed in Section 2.2(c) of the Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is willing to consider the acceptance of
subject street upon appropriate resolution by the COUNTY and the
execution of an agreement assuring the timely subsequent improvements
of said street in accordance with applicable standards of the Subdivi~
sion Street Requirements for "complete development" (streets).
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, the parties do hereby agree as follows:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
73
A. The COUNTY will:
Agree to three phases of development of subject street:
Initial, Intermediate, and Complete. For purposes of this
agreement, the following definitions will apply:
a. Initial development shall i~clude two lanes plus
turning lanes, with rural shoulder, on a dedicated
right-of-way of 120 feet, located in the right-of-way
so as to provide one-half of the complete four-lane
divided street. Pavement structure of the Initial
development shall be noted on plans approved by the
DEPARTMENT.
be
Intermediate development shall involve the improvement
of the pavement structure of the Initial development,
in order to provide, at a minimum, a Category VI
pavement structure throughout the length of the Initial
development, as defined by the 1990 Subdivision Street
Requirements of the DEPARTMENT.
Complete development shall consist of a four-lane
divided street plus turning lanes, with rural
shoulders, on a 120-foot right-of-way, and with a
minimum of a Category VI pavement throughout, as
defined by the 1990 Subdivision Street Requirements of
the DEPARTMENT.
Assure the construction of improvements to the street to
achieve its:
Intermediate development phase within twelve (12)
months of receiving written notification from the
DEPARTMENT that conditions as hereinafter prescribed in
item A.5.a., necessitate the Intermediate development
of the street.
Complete development phase within two (2) years of
receiving written notification from the DEPARTMENT that
conditions as hereinafter prescribed in item A.5.b.,
necessitate the Complete development of the street.
Guarantee that all costs incurred in the street's interme-
diate and complete development, including construction,
right-of-way, engineering, utility adjustment, and other
costs, shall be provided from funds other thmn those derived
from state revenue sources administered by the DEPARTMENT.
e
Assume sole responsibility for the collection and mainte-
nance of any funds provided, either voluntarily or pursuant
to its requirements, for the required completion of the
street's development.
Agree that the determination as to when the street's Inter-
mediate and Complete development is required shall be exclu-
sively that the DEPARTMENT, based on the following stan-
dards:
Intermediate development shall be required when traffic
volume as determined by the DEPARTMENT exceeds 4,000
Average Daily Traffic (ADT).
be
Complete development shall be required when either of
the following events occurs, as determined by DEPART-
MENT:
(1) The street's traffic exceeds 8,000 ADT, OR
(2) The street is incapable of permitting a minimum
service level of "D" to be maintained.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agree that with the exception of the street's roadway, all
other applicable provisions of the Subdivision Street
Requirements including public services, drainage easements,
and administrative procedures shall apply to this street's
acceptance.
Affirm that the County's obligations pursuant to this
agreement, the performance of which obligations may be
subject to certain statutory or constitutional requirements,
shall be performed in good faith and in the spirit of this
agreement.
B. The DEPARTMENT will:
Accept said street into the secondary system of state
highways upon its construction to the Initial phase of
development in accordance with approved plans, in accordance
with applicable provisions of the DEPARTMENT'S Subdivision
Street Requirements, and as herein provided.
2. Advise the COUNTY:
As to its determination, pursuant to item A.5.a.,
regarding the requirement to proceed with the street's
Intermediate development.
Upon DEPARTMENT'S determination that construction of
Intermediate development of this street has been
completed in accordance with applicable provision of
this agreement.
3. Advise the COUNTY:
As to its determination, pursuant to item A.5.b.,
regarding the requirement to proceed with the street's
Complete development.
Upon DEPARTMENT'S determination that construction of
Complete development of this street has been completed
in accordance with applicable provision of this agree-
ment.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerm~n, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Report: Traffic Light at Intersection of Routes
240/250.
Mr. Roosevelt said in response to a request from the Board at its Septem-
ber meeting, he collected accident data on the intersection at Routes 240/250,
known as the Brownsville intersection. He looked at accident data from County
and state police files from January 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. He also sent
the information to his Traffic Engineer. He determined that the Department
did a traffic signal study at this location in May, i990, and that information
is still accurate. The Department has reviewed the traffic signal study, the
additional accident data and run a speed limit study on Route 250 and at his
request video taped the intersection between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:30
a.m. and between the hours of 3:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The two major warrants
considered for a traffic signal are a comparison of the vehicles on Route 250
versus the vehicles on Route 240 and Route 635. The Department found that the
volumes did not meet either of the two major warrants. The warrants require
that during at least eight hours of the study period there be 420 vehicles per
hour on Route 250 while at the same time there are 105 vehicles on the side
streets. Only during three of the twelve hours studied did the volumes meet
that warrant. The Department also looked at the congestion warrant which
increases the volume on Route 250 to a requirement of 630 vehicles per hour
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
but drops the volume on the side streets to 53 vehicles. None of the hours
studied met that warrant. There were no hours on Route 250 where the volume
exceeded 630 vehicles an hour. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:21 a.m.)
The original traffic study which looked at accidents over a two-year period
showed three accidents of which only one of those would have been preventable
by a traffic signal. The additional five accidents that State police and
local police sent him broke down this way: two of them were rear end colli-
sions that occurred with traffic trying to turn left into the Food Basket; one
was an angle accident with someone pulling out of Route 240 being hit by a
vehicle on Route 250; one was a left turn from Route 250 into Route 240 being
hit by the traffic on Route 250 and the fifth accident involved someone
running from the police and it actually occurred on Route 240. Those were the
only accident reports that were sent to him. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the
meeting at 10:24 a.m.) The warrant for a signal indicates there should be
five angle-type accidents in a year to meet the warrant. The Department does
not feel the accident warrant was met.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Department did a traffic signal study and moni-
tored traffic at six different locations between a point just west of the
entrance to Western Albemarle High School to a point east of the Food Basket.
They found that the 85th precentile was traveling at 48 mph. The 50th precen-
tile speed varied from 42 mph to 45 mph. He has discussed this with the
Traffic Engineer and he is recommending to the Commonwealth Transportation
Board that the speed limit on this section of road be reduced to 45 mph from a
point west of the entrance to Western Albemarle High School to a point east of
the Food Basket entrance. However, on the question of the traffic signal,
they do not feel that the volumes warrant a signal nor do the accidents that
have occurred warrant a signal. Mr. Way previously raised the issue that the
signal study may have been done on a day when an accident occurred east of
this point and that may have affected the volumes for the signal. He looked
at the hourly volumes for both the side street and Route 250, increased those
volumes ten percent to take into account the effect of an accident and still
was able to meet only the three original hours. He was unable to make any
additional hours meet the warrants. He believes that the traffic signal study
is an accurate indication of the traffic volumes going through the intersec-
tion. The video tapes are available for anyone to see. The tapes were very
interesting. He found that during the four and one-half hours taped that
there were 18 different occasions when traffic made some unusual moves in
order to get into or out of the Food Basket entrance. The moves that were of
most concern to him were the people eastbound on Route 250 who got into the
left turn lane for Route 240 and then continued straight through into the
oncoming left turn lane and turned into the Food Basket entrance. That
occurred six times during the four and one-half hours. He asked the Traffic
Engineer to look at the possibility of remarking the left turn lane westbound
on Route 250 in order to create a left turn lane into the Food Basket but
unfortunately the entrance is too close to the intersection and would reduce
the left turn lane for Route 635 beyond the point where it would be useful.
At the moment he does not believe anything can be done to create a left turn
lane for the Food Basket. He does not believe that a traffic signal at this
location would have stopped any of these unusual moves. After reviewing the
video tapes, he saw no problems with traffic entering and exiting the roadway
during the time periods that were taped.
Mr. Perkins said there was another accident at this location in October.
It is hard for him to believe that the intersection does not deserve a stop
light when there is a new light at the Farmington/Ednam intersection on Route
250. He has never seen more than three cars backed up at Farmington, but has
seen as many as 15 or 20 cars on Route 240 trying to get out onto Route 250.
Mr. Roosevelt said the day the Department did the study at Farmington the
data collected met the warrants. He cannot argue that there appears to be
light traffic at the Farmington intersection. The Department has always
attempted to use the warrants as their guide for installing traffic signals.
Board members may be correct that the traffic volumes today at the Farmington
entrance would not meet the warrants. If nothing else, the intersection
proves that the Department should not install a signal when the warrants are
not met because a signal is not a solution to all of the traffic problems.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is willing to run a signal study at that intersection
every six months.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
76
Mr. Bain asked that the Highway Department review its policy regarding
the use of flashing signal lights and look particularly at the light at the
intersection of Route 250 with Farmington and Ednam. If a light went in at
the Route 250 and Route 240 intersection, he thinks it should be a flashing
light. He also asked who makes the determination to install flashing signal
lights and can there be exceptions to the policy. Mr. Bain then offered
motion to get the above requested information. Mrs. Humphris 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.
At 10:30 a.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
10:49 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 7d. Other Highway Matters.
Mrs. Humphris said it was her understanding that the improvements at the
intersection of Georgetown and Barracks Roads were supposed to be completed by
November 1. Every day when she travels by that location, nothing is happen-
ing. All of the equipment is just sitting there. On Georgetown Road, a curb
has been built that is much higher than the road. She asked what is going on.
Mr. Roosevelt said the contractor is not making the progress on that
project that had been anticipated. The Department has to take the responsi-
bility for not being able to get them to move faster. There have been some
unanticipated construction problems. One of the problems was a drainpipe that
came out of Hessian Hills and drained under Barracks Road which turned out to
be in a different location than that shown on the plans. The contractor has
been unable to replace that pipe within the easement that was purchased so
they had to go to a work order which delayed the installation of the pipe and
the drop inlet at the road. That is not the only reason the work at George-
town and Barracks is not going any faster than it is. Both locations are
under one contract and the contractor is pursuing the project at one location
or the other every day, but he is not making the progress he should be making.
He should be 70 or 80 percent complete even with the shutdowns the Department
have given him, but last week he was at 31 percent. He will get with the
contractor and see if his schedule can be compressed to at least get to the
point where they have filled in the big ditch at the intersection As far as
the use of the property, the majority of the land at the intersection is a
construction easement; it is land that belongs to the apartments that they
have a construction easement on. When this question came up two months ago,
he checked with the contractor and told him that unless he had permission from
the apartment owners to store his equipment at that location that he would
have to move. To his knowledge, the contractor has worked out a written
agreement with the owners. He has an agreement to store the equipment there
during the course of his construction. He will check into the problem about
the bus stop to see whether anything that is being done makes it not feasible
to get to the bus stops. He does not believe there are any bus stops located
within either project area, but he will check into that. If there is a
problem, he will see if the bus company can temporarily relocate the bus stop.
Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the curb. Mr. Roosevelt said
the reason for the curb is to get the water to flow properly to the drop
inlets. In order to get the water to run in the proper direction and into a
drop inlet, the curb had to be raised. He does not see where that will cause
any problem and in fact should improve access out of Inglewood.
Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned about the public hearing scheduled
for November 15 on widening of Barracks Road from Surry Road to Georgetown
Road. She would like to know what will happen to the median strip. She asked
where the median will go, how will it affect the access into Canterbury Hills
and do the people living in Canterbury Hills know that they are going to be
affected by this change.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Roosevelt said today's meeting at Jack Jouett is an informational
meeting. Mrs. Humphris asked if the people living there are going to under-
stand that the four-laning of Barracks Road is going to affect Canterbury
Hills. Mr. Roosevelt said that is one of the reasons they are meeting today.
They are meeting for four and one-half hours where individuals can come in and
talk with the engineers about the plans and get their questions answered on
what will happen in front of their property, how they are going to get access
out, etc. The formal public hearing is on November 15 and citizens can come
back after obtaining this information and make their comments. Mrs. Humphris
asked how these people know to come to today's meeting. The announcement in
the newspaper just states that it is to discuss improvements to Barracks Road.
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know how much more the Department can do than
advertise in the newspapers. The Department has put up a large sign at the
intersection of Barracks and Georgetown which says this location is a proposed
project, for more information call 296-5102. The plans have been in his
office for three weeks. Anyone who comes by can look at the plans. They have
advertised the public meeting and public hearing today. It is not possible to
notify every citizen who lives in Canterbury Hills. Mrs. Humphris said
although the improvement is on Barracks Road, the people that are going to be
directly affected live in Canterbury Hills and Hessian Hills Apartments.
Unless it is spelled out in the advertisement, those people are not going to
have any inkling that this is going to affect the access to their property.
As citizens, they do not have that knowledge and insight. Right in front of
Huntwood on the south side of the road there is a sign about a public hearing.
Who is going to stop on the side of the road and read three pages of fine
print? She does not understand who is going to come to the meeting. She does
not believe the affected people will know that they are the ones that need to
be at this meeting.
Mrs. Humphris said she appreciates the letter from Mr. Roosevelt concern-
ing the problem of speeding on Route 660 north from the intersection with
Route 676. The logic behind YDoT's decisions on these things boggles her
mind. VDoT monitored the route and found that the 85th precentile speed in
the straight section was 55 mph on this narrow, two-lane road, almost 12
percent of the traffic exceed 55 mph, four percent exceeded 60 mph, therefore,
VDoT does not believe it is feasible to reduce the speed limit. She does
appreciate adding the maximum safe speed sign.
Mr. Roosevelt said everyone should know that 55 mph is the highest
statutory speed. He does not think a sign saying 45 mph will make these
people who are already violating the legislated speed limit on this road.
That sign will not pull those people down, they are traveling at a speed they
are comfortable with. A speed limit sign has very little influence.
Mr. Way said the memorandum from Mr. Moring concerning the entrance road
at the Woolen Mills and Bast Market Street Alley indicates that nothing has
been resolved. He knows that Mr. Moring has been working hard trying to
resolve the problem. He thinks that eventually the Board is going to have to
resolve the issue. He thinks that this is a unique area which has been in
existence for 150 years. This little section of private road is probably 200
to 300 yards from the City limits. The people do not have a great deal of
money and are not going to be able to have a homeowner's agreement to generate
enough funds to clear the road. It is a little section of the County that is
an island all by itself. The problem is going to continue and there will
continue to be an emergency there every time it snows or there is ice. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the County could contract with the Highway Department to
clear that area. Mr. Roosevelt said "no", if the County is going to contract
with someone, it should be with a private firm. Mr. Bowie said the question
that needs to be resolved is if the Board is going to start spending public
funds on private roads in small sections of the County. What about all of the
other people who cannot afford to clear their road? Mr. Agnor said the
problem in this area is that the property owners cannot get together. They
would not get together to donate the right-of-way when the County was ready to
put the road in the State system and now they are trying to get a homeowners
agreement to have it snow plowed, but they do not want to pay for it. This
only involves five residents and they cannot come to an agreement. There was
no further discussion on the issue.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
78
Mr. Bain said he received a copy of a letter from the Engineering Depart-
concerning Route 678. This road was supposed to be rebuilt and opened
two years ago. The construction schedule indicates the road will not be built
until 1992-93. Assuming the Engineering Department and the private contractor
get the work finished, he asks the Board's endorsement to request the Highway
Department to get that road built next spring. The funds are available for
the project. This road project was supposed to coincide with the opening of
Meriwether Lewis School. It is a safety issue and something that should have
been done years ago. There is no reason this cannot be done next year. He
asks the Board's endorsement to direct the Highway Department to expedite the
approval of the plans and get it built. Mr. Bain then offered motion to ask
the Highway Department to do everything possible to make the improvements to
Route 678 next year instead of during 1992-93. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not think he can do this, but he will respond
in writing to the request. Mr. Bain said if the road plans are done, there is
no reason this cannot be constructed. It is only two-tenths of a mile. There
being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Roosevelt for using common sense in correcting
an error at the intersection of Rio Hill Shopping Center and Route 29 North.
It was done expeditiously, it works and he thinks it is great.
Mr. Roosevelt handed to the Board the study reports on the Route 654,
Barracks Road project, hearing being held today and tomorrow. He indicated
that hopefully he will be back to the Board next month with a request for a
Board position on the project.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report on request for public utilities in Oak Hill
Subdivision.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the following memorandum dated November 8, 1990:
"Last month, the Board of Supervisors received a request and petition
from residents of the Oak Hill Subdivision for extension of public
water and sewer to the subdivision because of health and safety
concerns with current provisions. At the Board's request, staff has
further researched this matter and can provide the following:
The Oak Hill Subdivision is currently served by a privately owned
public water system (Oak Hill Water Company) and private septic
systems.
Although the water tends to be corrosive, the Virginia Department
of Health's Office of Water Programs indicates the water meets
all state and federal criteria for quality.
A feasibility study for extension of public water to this system
was conducted in the late 1970's. Among its findings were that
there were no fire hydrants on the system.
The Oak Hill Subdivision is in the jurisdictional area of the
Albemarle County Service Authority.
o
An Albemarle County Service Authority 20-inch waterline passes
through the middle of the subdivision.
As the Oak Hill system is a public water system, it is staff's
understanding that the Albemarle County Service Authority cannot
take over or supersede the services of the system without the
water company's consent.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Albemarle County Service Authority is unsure of how much of the
existing system is usable should the Authority be in a position
to take over the system.
Extension of public sewer to Oak Hill is currently listed in the
Albemarle County Service Authority 1989-1994 Capital Improvement
Program as a project beyond July 1, 1994. The estimated 1989
cost of the project was $709,000 which would include extension of
the Biscuit Run interceptor and subdivision collection lines.
This cost cannot be recovered from Oak Hill Subdivision under the
current hook-up charge of at $3000 per house. Extension of the
Biscuit Run interceptor further south for other projects should
they arise may make the Oak Hill Subdivision cost more feasible.
Albemarle County Service Authority will be updating its CIP at
the first of 1991. Any consideration of further projects by ACSA
will occur at that time."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Board also requested that the staff verify the
signatures on the petition. The staff verified that 25 of the 37 signatures
are homeowners in Oak Hill.
Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County Service Authority,
said he had no additional comments to add and was present only to answer
questions.
Mr. Bain asked what would cause the Service Authority to move the exten-
sion of public sewer to Oak Hill up from the July 1, 1994, date. There are
some situations where septic systems have gone bad. Mr. Brent responded that
increased interest from the property owners and increased requests could help
to move the project. In the ten years he has been with the Service Authority,
there have been only three requests for sewer service in Oak Hill. Mr. Bain
asked where Southwood Mobile Home Park fits into this. Mr. Brent said South-
wood is housed at the same system, and considered by the Health Department as
one system, but they are valved off in the middle so they actually function as
two separate systems. Both are owned by the same corporation for water. For
the sewer system, Oak Hill is on individual septic systems and the mobile home
park is on a package treatment plant operated by the owner of the mobile home
park. Mr. Bain asked if there have been any problems at the mobile home park.
Mr. Brent said the park is in compliance with the State Water Control Board
requirements.
Mr. Way asked if the Service Authority will be conductinga public
hearing on their CIP next month. Mr. Brent commented that the public hearing
will be in either December or January, the date is not fixed. When this
matter first came before the Service Authority Board last year, there was low
interest and it was not put into the five year Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Way commented that he would be attending the public hearing when this
comes before the Service Authority Board. There is considerably more interest
in the problem now than there have been in the past.
Mr. Russell Seltzer, a property owner in Oak Hill Subdivision, said he
appreciates the way the County has acted on this matter. The majority of the
residents in Oak Hill are interested in water and sewer service. With regard
to his situation, he is having difficulties and has a permit to get work done,
but is not getting it done because the Health Department recommended an
undersized system. He is not in a position to put a lot of money into some-
thing that might only last for a few years. The issue of sewage disposal has
not been really addressed by either the Health Department or County. He hopes
that at some point the Health Department will do an inventory of the area and
talk to everybody and see what the situation is on every property. There are
some properties that are in worse shape than his.
Mr. Way said a lot of People are reluctant to inform the Health Depart-
ment that they are having a problem for fear it may shut their system, down.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-81. Lighthouse Baptist Church (deferred from
October 31, 1990).
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 80
(Page 18)
Mr. Bowie said at its meeting on October 31, the Board deferred this
request to allow Board members to look at the site. The Board was presented a
petition in which all of the property owners on the road signed in opposition
to the request. He met and talked with some of the residents on the road. He
looked at the site and the rationale about the joggers and the traffic and he
does not think it is that much of a problem. He has no problem with the
request.
Mrs. Humphris said she also went out and looked around on the site
because she was concerned about the trafficand the drainage situation. She
asked how the siting of the church on the five acre parcel could affect
drainage on Mr. Hines' property across the road. Mr. Cilimberg said one of
the conditions of the special permit would be administrative approval of the
site plan. At that point, the Planning staff would look at the location with
the Engineering Department staff to determine the direction of the drainage
and the effect on Mr. Hines' property. In his visit to the site, it appears
that the front quarter of the site would naturally drain towards the ditch and
then down to the bottom area across the road to Mr. Hines' property. A good
part of the site falls back to the west. Mrs. Humphris suggested that the
Planning Commission review the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that is
acceptable.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
approve SP-90-81 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and with condition #1 amended to read: "Planning Commission
approval of site plan".
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion. He respects the wishes of
those persons who signed the petition, but thinks the application should be
approved.
Mr. Bain said he will also support the motion, but he still has the same
concerns and will not support anything further that would generate more
traffic at this location.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Conditions of approval are as follows:)
2.
3.
4.
Planning Commission 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.
Agenda Item No. 10. Crozet Housing Project.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, summarized the follow-
ing staff report:
"At the Board of Supervisor's public hearing on October 29, 1990,
there was a request for staff to provide further information concern-
ing the feasibility of providing an access to the east to Blue Ridge
Avenue for the proposed housing project. Staff has also provided
additional information concerning the potential for providing access
to Route 788, which would require an at-grade crossing of the CSX
railroad.
Eastern Access to Blue Ridge Avenue: This alternative would provide
for construction of a public road along an existing platted right-of-
way which runs adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The estimated
cost of construction exclusive of necessary land acquisition is
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
81
$25,000 to $60,000, depending on Virginia Department of Transportation
(¥DOT) road construction requirements and ultimate bid on the project
construction.
The existing right-of-way is approximately 30 feet in some locations,
and does not exist along one parcel. Therefore, property acquisition
will be required. Based on assessed values and an estimate of the
additional land needed, the cost for land acquisition would be $10,000
to $20,000. Several property owners along this right-of-way have
indicated their opposition to the project and it is likely that they
would not be willing to cooperate in the acquisition of additional
land for right-of-way expansion. Therefore, the County's power of
eminent domain may have to be used to pursue this alternative. The
land acquisition process could greatly extend the development process
which could jeopardize the Community Development Block Grant funds.
The total cost of this alternative would add approximately $1000 to
$1600 to the cost of each home.
Blue Ridge Avenue, like Orchard Acres Drive and Cling Lane, is an old
subdivision street which is not constructed to current VDOT standards.
The widths of Blue Ridge Avenue are approximately 16 feet. Traffic
generated from this development is estimated to be 500 vehicle trips
per day (vtpd). The traffic on Blue Ridge Avenue in 1986 was 196
vtpd. The proposed road would connect with Blue Ridge Avenue at the
railroad right-of-way creating a 'T' intersection with Blue Ridge and
extending over an existing road to Carter Street. Therefore, traffic
could split between Blue Ridge and Carter.
The primary limitation to this alternative is the ability to acquire
property necessary to construct a public road for access to the site.
Additional delays in construction would result from negotiations for
property acquisition. The additional cost of construction will also
add to the development cost and the cost of the homes.
Northern Access to Route 788: Direct access to Route 788 would
require the construction of an at-grade railroad crossing. The
Planning Department staff and VDOT have generally discouraged the
construction of any new at-grade railroad crossing due to safety
concerns with traffic crossing the tracks and the potential for trains
to block emergency vehicle access.
Any new public road railroad crossing must meet ¥DOT standards for
construction, which requires the crossing to have lights and gates and
meet certain vertical and horizontal curvature standards. The
estimated cost of a crossing constructed to VDOT standards is $85,000.
Due to the grade difference between the railroad tracks and the site,
the related road construction costs are estimated to be $100,000 to
$150,000. This would add $2000 to $3000 to the cost of the homes.
VDOT has also expressed concern with the available stacking space for
vehicles on the proposed road between Route 788 and the tracks. Due
to the available space between Route 788 and the railroad it is likely
that only one or two cars could stack at the intersection without
blocking the tracks. Another potential concern would be stacking on
Route 788 to turn into the site while a train is on the track. If
this were to be the only access to the development, a left turn lane
may need to be constructed to accommodate vehicle stacking.
YDOT has indicated that they could accept a new public road with a
railroad crossing, provided it was constructed in accordance with
their subdivision street standard for such a crossing. The railroad
would have to grant permission for the construction of a new public
road crossing of the tracks. Staff has contacted officials of the CSX
railroad. To date, they have not indicated whether they would be
willing to grant permission for a new crossing. In determining
whether to permit new crossings, they consider whether there are other
reasonable alternatives to constructing the proposed crossing.
The primary limitations to this alternative are:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
82
(1) Whether necessary approvals from the railroad can be received and
the time delays involved in receiving these approvals;
(2) Whether the proposed road can be constructed to meet VDOT design
standards, specifically related to issues of vehicle stacking,
grade and curvature of road;
(3) Overall traffic safety;
(4) Added cost to homes ($2000 to $3000)."
Mr. Bain asked the location of the emergency access. Mr. Benish said
there is an existing crossing over the railroad tracks that would be main-
tained as a private access, probably gated off to prevent anybody else from
using it, to be available for emergency vehicles. There is also an existing
crossing off the property to the east which could be designed so that access
could be obtained from the cul-de-sac of the subdivision.
Mr. Perkins said he stated several months ago that he could not support
this project unless better access was found than what was proposed. He thinks
the Board needs to ask why this property is vacant. He believes the answer to
that is because there is no access that would be approved by this Board if
this were a private development. To dump the traffic from this project into
Orchard Acres will have severe detrimental affects upon the neighborhood of
Orchard Acres. Timing is another factor. Is the timing right for this
project? The County has gone from a booming house sales to a very depressed
house market in the last six to eight months. There are currently about 20
homes in the Crozet community priced for low to moderate income people. He
would be very upset if he was trying to sell a house near this project.
The County and state are in a financial situation of of severe short-
falls. Can the County afford to spend $331,000 for this project? The Board
have received several letters in opposition to this project, most of the
people that spoke at Crozet that were Crozet residents were against this
project and he hopes that all of the Board members have read the letter sent
by Mike Marshall on November 5. He asked some pertinent questions, questions
that he thinks should have been answered. It seems there has been a lot of
information withheld from this Board that is just now becoming available. The
impact of this project on Crozet and on Orchard Acres, in particular, will be
detrimental. He cannot vote to create a neighborhood that will have such
detrimental affects on another neighborhood. He then offered motion that the
proposed Crozet housing project be denied.
Mr. Way said this has been one of the projects that one looses sleep
over. A lot of work has gone into the project to make it possible and he has
been hopeful that everything would fall together. He thinks access is a
serious problem. He has had a difficult time while considering this project.
He knows that if this application is not approved, the County will probably
not get another chance like this, but he will second the motion.
Mrs. Humphris thanked Mr. Perkins for taking her on a tour of the site.
She agrees that this is a difficult situation. She has been as absolutely
conscientious as she possibly could be in reading everything that came to her
to aid in reaching a conclusion. She found that she had to ask herself what
her perception was of what the County would be gaining by the Crozet Crossing
proposal and what somebody would have to give up in order to have the project.
She decided that the County has an opportunity to provide housing for people
who need a little help to build in a designated growth area, an area with
public utilities, to build on a piece of property that is affordable and has
the appropriate zoning, that has donated to it the services of an excellent
architect and has donated to it the services of an excellent and reliable
developer. On the other hand, there is an access that is not the greatest but
is still acceptable and there is an impact on the people who live in Orchard
Acres, but some time, someway that piece of property is going to be developed.
It could be developed at a much higher density so she will vote against the
motion to deny the subdivision.
Mr. Bain said a private developer would be able to expend the extra money
to cross the tracks, but probably at a greater density. He thinks it would be
difficult for the Board to deny a special permit for a stream crossing given
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 83
(Page 21)
that it has approved them in other areas of the County. He read Mike Marshall's
letter which raised some points. He thinks Mr. Marshall got carried away in
some of his statements and thinks there was a lot of emotionalism in the
letter. The Board approved a project that the entire Town of Scottsville
opposed. He knows that is a different project in a different community, but
it is the same concept that the Board is trying to do. Now that public sewer
is in place, this property will be developed. There is a need for this
project. He would still like to see other accesses worked out if it is
possible. The infrastructures can handle this project. The Board has to be
realistic and consider the lower income of the people in the County. If this
fails, the Board would be missing a golden opportunity to do something it has
been trying to do for a minimum amount of money. He does not think the
project will have a significant impact on the area. "Where else are we going
to have this opportunity to provide this housing?" The Board is committed.
The Board does not have the resources or opportunity to purchase homes already
on the market. He cannot support the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he was the only Board member to vote against this housing
concept four years ago. When this concept first came up, he did not think the
County should get into the real estate development business. As the County
moved forward with various projects and presentations, he modified his view to
accept the fact that the County needs to help some people somehow. All of his
concerns about this project, except one, have been taken care of. He cannot
see putting that much traffic, and would not vote for a special permit,
through the streets of Orchard Acres. He does not think the County can throw
that much impact on an existing neighborhood to solve a different problem. He
does want the project, but cannot ask the people of Orchard Acres to take the
full brunt. There are some other alternate accesses. He would expect any
developer to satisfy the needs of the community and figure out how to do the
other access. He believes he will support the motion. He will switch his
vote if there is an access other than through Orchard Acres. He would support
a motion to suspend the Board's rules on November 28 and he will change his
vote to a motion to support the project, but he thinks there needs to be
another access.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain. He also
walked over the property with Mr. Perkins. He does not think this development
will be of substantial detriment to the Crozet community or the roads in
Orchard Acres. The types of homes that are in Orchard Acres and the types of
homes that would be going into this development are extremely compatible.
There are twice as many homes in Orchard Acres now as what is proposed in the
development. Peak traffic is a problem for all of us at any time at any
location. Compared to problems in the urban area, the problems in Orchard
Acres are minuscule. He lives in a community on 01d Brook Road where they
went from a vehicle count of 18 vehicle trips per day to over 2000 vehicle
trips per day. It is a situation that they did not prefer, but one that the
people can live with. The County wants to provide affordable housing to those
that can participate in these programs and wants to have some concentration of
populations throughout the urban areas and through the designated communities.
Crozet is a designated community. While the infrastructure is not there yet,
he does not think it exists anywhere in advance of the need for additional
development. He cannot accept losing $1.3 million of funds that the County
can get outside of this community to support this type project. For those
reasons in addition to other comments, he will not support the motion, because
if the County loses this opportunity the Board would be sending the wrong
message to the community. He does not think that this would be of as severe a
detriment to the Crozet community. He thinks that the project could be a
benefit.
Mr. Perkins said this is sending a message to developers that the County
has different standards for subsidized projects than what it has for other
projects. He thinks that for another $100,000 there could be another access
that would not impact Orchard Acres. The people of Crozet have said they do
not care what density this property is developed at; they would rather have a
good private development, rather than a shoddy subsidized project. It has.
nothing to do with the people who will live in the development. It does not
make sense for this Board to approve something that is not top standards.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks a key issue is that if some other developer was
doing this project, the Board would require a different entrance. He feels
that this project should go forward, but that the entrance issue needs to be
solved.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Mr. Bowerman said the only practical way another entrance could be done
would be from a private developer and developed at a higher density. If that
is done in this location, it negates the reason this project would work. He
thinks the access is reasonable and the project is affordable because of the
way it has been set up.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the current property owner was holding this
property in hopes that CSX would abandon the railroad. If that had happened,
access would not be a problem. He also thinks the owner has decided that with
a tax write-off this is the best deal he can get with the property. On any
afternoon or a Saturday, the streets of Orchard Acres are filled with chil-
dren. He lived in the first house in Orchard Acres and traffic was a night-
mare. He could hardly get in and out of his driveway. If these children
cannot play in the streets, then where are they going to play? Who is going
to be responsible for a child getting run over? Mrs. Humphris said there are
communities all over the County where there are no playgrounds and children
play in the streets, but it is not "our" responsibility to make sure that
children do not play in the street.
Mr. Perkins said there are ways to access this property without going
through Orchard Acres. It might cost more, but it can be done and that is
what the Board would be telling a private developer.
Mrs. Humphris said this is a golden opportunity for the County. It might
not come again. This may change some peoples lifestyles by allowing 50 more
vehicle trips per day to go by someone's house, but the Board must look at
what it is giving up and what it is getting. She sees the increased traffic
as being a disadvantage for the residents of Orchard Acres, but that is not
significant when compared to providing an opportunity for a group of people to
own their own homes. This project is a way to give those people who need it a
little bit of help. She feels strongly that the impact of this project on the
people in Orchard Acres is simply not great enough to allow the Board to sit
here and flat out deny this project. A developer's alternative would be for a
higher density and a higher priced housing project. She thinks this is an
open door and the Board should have the guts to walk through it.
Mr. Perkins said he has talked to Mr. St. John about the access. The
Board does not have to approve access through Orchard Acres for this develop-
ment.
Mr. Bain called for a question.
Roll was then called on the motion to deny the Crozet housing project,
and it failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
Mr. Bain said he would like for staff to get the following information to
the Board by November 28:
1. Can the project be phased?
2. Staff reconsider access across the railroad tracks.
3. If the project can be phased, can the second phase be built to coincide
with access across the railroad tracks?
4. If VHDA will not allow phasing of the project, staff to consider the
County funding the additional costs of providing access across the
railroad tracks.
Mr. Way said he will support the request for that additional information.
Mr. Perkins asked when the property was zoned R-6. Mr. Tucker replied
the property was zoned in 1980. Mr. Perkins asked how there could be R-6
zoning without sewer. Mr. Tucker said a lot of the zoning in growth areas
preceded sewer.
Agenda Item No. 11. Report from Substance Abuse Task Force.
Mrs. Roxanne White, Management Analyst, said the Substance Abuse Commit-
tee found and identified the following three significant factors in its'
initial discussion concerning substance abuse in Albemarle County:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
The extent of the drug use problem in Albemarle County is difficult, if
not impossible, to measure. Comprehensive statistical information on the
extent of local substance abuse is not available, making projections of
its use highly speculative;
Although national statistics confirm that substance abuse is one of the
most important problems facing the nation, drug abuse has not caused a
public outcry in Albemarle County. Because the County does not have a
clearly identifiable drug culture or open air market for drugs, both
legal and illegal substance abuse remains hidden;
Alcohol abuse is a far greater problem than drug abuse in Albemarle
County, causing more social and criminal behavior and incurring higher
social costs.
The report also indicates that cocaine and crack abuse is on the in-
crease. Mrs. White then summarized the following memorandum:
"As requested at your May 9, 1990, meeting, the attached report
presents the findings of the Substance Abuse Committee convened by the
County Executive's office to define and assess the drug problem in
Albemarle County. The report details the nature and extent of the
substance abuse problem, the current programs that address substance
abuse in the community, the identified gaps in service and the resour-
ces needed to fill those gaps.
Based on the information gathered in the report, there are four
general conclusions or observations on the substance abuse problem in
Albemarle County:
The drug problem is here in Albemarle County, but it has not
reached crisis proportions nor has it affected the quality of
life for most County residents. The police, schools and agencies
are concerned about the increase in substance abuse, but are not
feeling overwhelmed by the problem.
The problem is not that there are large gaps in what is being
done to address the issue of substance abuse, but that current
programs need to be expanded.
Community efforts should be concentrated on preventative pro-
grams, particularly those that address alcohol as the first step
into substance abuse.
Substance abuse, like juvenile delinquency and teenage pregnancy,
is only a symptom, not the cause of a problem. Programs that
identify and assist at-risk children at a very young age by
increasing self-esteem and providing positive role models will be
more effective and efficient in the long run.
Centered around these four general conclusions, the committee pre-
sented the following recommendations:
Community Coordination/Involvement
The County should work with the existing Substance Abuse Studies
Council rather than form a separate task force focusing solely on
drug abuse. The Department of Social Services, Juvenile Court
and the Commonwealth Attorney's office should also be represented
on the Council.
o
The community and the school division, in conjunction with the
Children and Youth Commission, should encourage greater parental
involvement.
Education/Prevention
Programs that provide positive role models should be a priority
for the schools, parks and recreation and other community groups.
o
The School division should investigate the need for additional
staff to coordinate substance abuse services within the schools.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 86
(Page 24)
3. The Department of Social Services should plan regularly scheduled
substance abuse training with Region Ten.
The county should work within the context of the newly esta-
blished Children and Youth Commission to develop non-athletic
recreational programs for middle and high school youth.
Treatment/ Rehabilitation
Dollars will be more cost effective if spent on local intensive
outpatient treatment, rather than inpatient treatment.
Law Enforcement
Since the Police Department is currently involved in a Federal
sponsored investigation of the regional drug market, it is
premature to make recommendations on the direction of a substance
abuse control program for the Police Department."
Mr. Bain offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to accept the recom-
mendations of the Substance Abuse Task Force, as outlined above.
Mr. Way said he intends to vote against the motion. He cannot accept
some of the recommendations of the report. He agrees with the general recom-
mendation to not form a task force, but he does not think that the Board
should proliferate some of the things going on right now that are adding to
the problem instead of attacking the problem.
Mrs. Humphris said her support of the motion was to accept the report,
not an indication that the recommendations would be implemented.
Mr. Bowie said he will support 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. 12. Legislative Packet.
Mrs. White presented the following memorandum and summary of 1991 legis-
lative positions:
"Following for Board approval are two legislative programs for the 1991
legislative session: The Albemarle County 1991 Legislative Package and
the 1991 Legislative Package for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission. The County's packet contains the legislative positions that
were approved by the Board in June with one additional position that
supports stormwater utility legislation. A brief summary on the storm-
water utility legislation follows the list of position statements.
The second attachment submitted for your approval is the Legislative
Package developed by the Planning District Commission containing legis-
lative policies and recommendations approved by the TJPDC Board last
week.
If approved by the Board, the positions and recommendations contained in
these packets will form the basis of a discussion with the legislators
in December and will be used as a plan of action for our legislative
liaison during the 1991 legislative session."
1991 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
MAJOR LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS:
EQUAL TAXING/BORROWING POWER. To meet the increasing demand to
provide services to a growing population, Albemarle County urges
the General Assembly to grant counties the same taxing and borrow-
ing authority as cities.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
87
STATE LOTTERY FUNDS. Albemarle County supports legislation requir-
ing that net funds raised from the Virginia State Lottery be
distributed back to localities for needed capital projects.
STATE MANDATES. With the increasing fiscal stress on local govern-
ment from declining federal and state aid, Albemarle County strongly
requests full funding of all state mandates.
GROWTHMANAGEMENT. To effectively plan for and manage the projec-
ted growth in the next deCade, Albemarle County supports enabling
legislation that will allow the use of growth management tools such
as impact fees, transfer development rights and purchase develop-
ment rights.
SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAI~
FINANCES:
To expand revenue powers by adding: one-half percent sales tax for
localities; regional gasoline tax; transient occupancy tax (counties
permitted to levy same rate as cities); permanent distribution of state
recordation tax to localities (five year sunset to 6/30/95); local meals
tax option without referendum; local option income tax.
To provide for local flexibility o~ real estate tax collection so that
the long term home owners are not driven from their primary homes due to
rapid inflation, i.e. homestead exemption, circuit breaker, refund of
excessive tax based on sliding scale, classification allowing different
rates for different values of property.
Provide enabling authority to establish a stormwater utility that can
assess user fees for the operation and maintenance of stormwater facili-
ties.
To provide local governments with enabling legislation to require those
delinquent in payment of taxes to pay court costs.
To include computer equipment used for either administrative or research
purposes in the local manufacturer's Machinery & Tools tax.
GROWT~MANAGEMENTAND PLANNING:
To provide for enabling legislation which allows for the use of growth
management tools in all localities such as: impact fees; transfer
development rights (TDRs); purchase development rights (PDRs).
To require recognition of local comprehensive plans by State agencies.
To support enabling legislation for an Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance.
To oppose legislation providing vested property rights in rezonings.
WASTE MANAGEMENT:
To provide funds for the upgrading of landfills to legislated standards.
To provide funding for state and federal mandated qualities of standards
for solid waste and clean water management. To support legislation
establishing a container deposit on bottles.
To provide legislation prohibiting the use of certain nonbiodegradable
containers.
To provide legislation that requires industries to report to the locali-
ties the volume of solid waste that they are making available for
recycling.
To request the state ensure participation in solid waste management
programs by its own agencies.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 88
(Page 26)
To request the state to take an active role in developing markets for
recyclables.
To request that the state institute incentives to encourage source
reduction by industry.
To request local option of a single liner in rural landfills.
Provide separate property tax classification for certified recycling
equipment.
~UCATION:
To oppose a Constitutional amendment to require binding arbitration for
teachers.
To provide funding for standards of quality.
To provide state funding for local school construction and equipment.
To ensure that literary funds are used solely for school construction
and equipment.
CORP~CTIONS:
To provide adequate state facilities for state felons in order to
relieve local jails.
TRANSPORTATION:
To provide funding for regional transportation planning and for local
transportation needs.
LIC~SING:
To oppose the continued exemption of local government employees who are
architects, engineers and land surveyors from licensing requirements.
(Mr. Bowie left the meeting at 12:19 p.m.) Mrs. White said the following
are several positions included in TJPDC's legislative packet that are not
included in the County's packet: increase the roll back period for land use
tax from five to ten years; make permanent the one year legislation which
allows localities to assess an additional $2.00 court fee for traffic and
criminal cases and increase this amount to $6.00 (as of October 31, the County
has collected $1139 from General District Court and $4.00 from Circuit
Court); limit child care licensing to services for children under five years
of age; provide for the possibility of single liners in rural areas; all
housing recommendations; and provide enabling legislation for transportation
districts which would allow for inclusion of state universities and colleges.
(Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 12:22 p.m.)
Mr. Way asked if the Board intends to hold a meeting with the State
legislators. Mr. Bowie replied yes, at the December 12 meeting.
Mr. Bowie suggested the Board's continued support of other legislative
issues proposed by TJPDC be conveyed to VACo, but that these items not be
incorporated into the County's list of issues. The Board members concurred.
Mr. Way offered motion to include in the legislative program that school
board members serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors, and not for
set terms. Mrs. Hnmphris seconded the motion. She said if school board
members serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors, there would be much
clearer lines of responsibility and this would work in everyone's best inte-
rest. She thinks it was effective in the past.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Hnmphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 89
(Page 27)
Mr. Perkins said he is not sure he supports a gasoline tax because it is
a user tax and he feels it should be used for road construction. He thinks if
the County gets into collecting gasoline taxes, the state will say to build
roads with it. Mr. Bowie said he agrees.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, TJPDC, said that is consistent
with the VACo package. When TJPDC developed it's package, it looked at both
what VML is in the process of putting together and YACo, which is how TJPDC
included the gasoline tax. She agrees that it should only be done on a
regional basis and is not something that should be done county by county. It
is another tax option.
Mr. Bowie said hearing no recommended changes, the above outlined posi-
tion statements are to be conveyed to VACo for inclusion in its legislative
program for the 1991 Session of the General Assembly.
lng.
Agenda Item No. 13. Report of Audit Committee and Budget Guidelines.
Mr. Bowie suggested that this item be deferred until later in the meet-
Agenda Item No. 14. Employee Suggestion Program.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, dated November 6, 1990,
from Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources:
"Enclosed please find a proposed employee suggestion program for
Albemarle County employees. Entitled Suggest One!, the program is
meant to encourage employees to develop cost savings ideas in County
operations. Such programs have been extremely productive in industry
and are successfully operating at the State level and in Fairfax
County. This program was initiated by the Employee Advisory Council
and has been reviewed with employees and department heads who support
its implementation. Some of the major characteristics of the program
are:
Employees may submit ideas which are improvements in operations,
procedures, reductions in material or labor costs, saving of
time, material or space. Suggestions about things which are
normally the employee's job responsibility, correction of obvious
errors, or suggestions which are already under review are ineli-
gible for awards.
Awards may range from $100 to a maximum of $5000 based on up to
ten percent of the net cost savings anticipated the first year.
To be eligible for an award a suggestion must be recommended by
the Suggestion Awards Committee (comprised of Employee Advisory
members and department heads), approved by the County Executive,
and put into use.
Awards will be funded through the cost savings generated by the
idea."
Mr. Bowie said the program sounds good and he supports it.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
employee suggestion program as outlined in the above memorandum. 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. 15. Set Public Hearing to Revise Ordinance re: Tax
Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 90
(Page 28)
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, dated November 8, 1990,
from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance:
"Based on your request, I have reviewed the County's ordinance with
the intent to update our ordinance in response to revisions in State
legislation and economic changes.
The ordinance would implement the following revisions to the current
ordinance:
Increase the Income Allowance from $12,000 to $15,000. This
would set our income limit at the same level as Charlottesville
and be comparable with other Virginia localities with similar
economic conditions. The maximum limitation provided by the
Code of Virginia is $30,000.
Increase the Net Worth Allowance from $55,000 to $65,000. A
review of properties currently qualified indicate an increase in
value of 15 to 20 percent since the $55,000 limit was set in
1985. The maximum net worth limitation provided by the Code of
Virginia is $75,000.
The ordinance would also implement the following additions to the
current ordinance:
1. Exclude the first $7500 of income for the permanently disabled.
Exclude all of a relative's income if that relative moves in to
care for the elderly or disabled owner. This would apply only
when the owner had previously qualified for exemption and the
relative moves in at a later date. Proof would be required that
the owner could not continue to reside on the property unless the
relative moves in to provide care.
Current applicants (202) received tax relief totaling $56,700 for
1990. This amount would have increased by $8000 with the $15,000
income limit. Insufficient data makes it difficult to project how
many additional applicants may qualify at the higher limits. However,
since these applicants would qualify for only partial exemptions, I am
confident that total exemptions would not increase by more than
$20,000.
The proposed ordinance has been forwarded to the County Attorney's
office for review."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a
public hearing to amend and reenact the Albemarle County Code in Sections
8-23, 8-26(d)(e) and 8-27, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and
Handicapped Persons. 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. 16. Whitewood Road Park Committee, Briefing.
Mr. Bowerman presented the following proposal for a Whitewood Road Park
Committee:
"Action Proposed: That the Board authorize the formation of a park
committee to make recommendations about the design and use of the
Whitewood Road property. Parks and Recreation to provide administra-
tive services for the committee.
Committee's Charge:
1. Develop a consensus, through public meetings and community input,
on the nature and design of the park;
2. Develop its own master plan for the park or work with a qualified
professional on the design;
November 14, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Encourage private funding for the park, and donation of profes-
sional time and expertise where possible;
Make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a park plan,
phasing and funding.
Membership:
1. Board members from the Jack Jouett and Charlottesville Districts;
2. The Chief of Community Development;
3. The Director of Parks and Recreation;
4. Three members from the park's immediate neighborhood and three
additional members from the community at-large appointed by the
two Board members on the committee or by the whole Board, if it
desires;
5. Any citizen willing to volunteer a special expertise to the
committee (i.e., landscape architect, engineer, naturalist,
etc.).~
Mr. Bain said he thinks the at-large members on the committee should be
people from outside of the immediate area. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr. Bowie
asked that the Board be informed of the geographic location of the at-large
members.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to author-
ize the formation of a Whitewood Road Park Committee as outlined above. 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. Transfer of Funds re: Playground Equipment.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum, dated October 30, 1990,
from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director, Parks and Recreation:
"We currently have appropriated in our capital budget $110,000 to build
four new tennis courts at Albemarle High School (AHS).
Since the existing four courts need to be reconstructed during the AHS
renovation, it makes sense to combine these projects. The school
division has agreed to include the total eight courts in the Albemarle
renovation scheduled for '91-92.
In return, we would like to seek Board approval to use the $110,000 to
expedite the placing of outdoor recreation equipment at Stony Point,
Yancey, Crozet and Cale Elementary Schools. The two new schools have no
outdoor recreation facilities. The renovated schools have limited
facilities, much of which is in need of refurbishment or replacement.
We have requested $140,000 for this purpose in the '91-92 Capital
Improvements Program. If the Board approves the use of the $110,000,
then the '92-93 request should be reduced to $30,000.
We have reviewed this request with the Planning Commission and have
received their endorsement. If we receive Board approval in November,
we can have playground equipment ready for use when warm weather returns
in the Spring. The ultimate development at each school would include
two playground structures, basketball goals, soccer'goals and baseball
field fencing.
Obviously the various school PTO's are anxious to have these facilities
as soon as possible."
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution to transfer $110,000 in the CIP from the AHS tennis courts to
recreation facilities at Cale, Crozet, Stony Point and Yancey Schools:
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)'~
FISCAL YEAR: 1990/91
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER OF FUNDING FROM AHS TENNIS COURTS
TO VARIOUS RECREATION FACILITIES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1900071000950048
DESCRIPTION
AHS TENNIS COURTS
AMOUNT
($110,000.00)
92
1900071000950074
RECREATION FACILITIES 110~000.00
TOTAL $ 0.00
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. VACo's Commission on the Future: Video. Dropped
from the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 19. Recess for Lunch.
At 12:35 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to
adjourn into Executive Session under Section 2.1-344.A.7 - legal matters
(Inglecress) and Section 2.1-344.A.1 Personnel (appointments). 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 Board reconvened into open session at 2:02 P.M. with all Board
members present.
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Bowerman certifying the Executive Session as follows:
C~RTIFICATION OF EXEGN]TIVE M~TING
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.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
93
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing: ZTA-90-07. To Amend Section 30.0,
Overlay Districts to create an Entrance Corridor Overlay District along the
following streets in Albemarle County: U.S. Route 250 East; U.S. Route 29
North; U.S. Route 29 South; Virginia Route 20 South; Virginia Route 631 South;
Virginia Route 654; Virginia Route 742; U.S. Route 250 West; Virginia Route 6;
Virginia Route 151; Interstate Route 64; Virginia Route 240; U.S. Route 29
Business; U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 30 and November 6, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that two roads, Route 654 (Barracks Road) and Route
742 (Avon Street), were inadvertently left out of the entrance corridor
overlay district ordinance when it was adopted on October 3, 1990. This
proposed amendment is for the purpose of including those two roads as well as
making minor adjustments for clarity of reading. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
The public hearing was opened at this time. There being no members of
the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt
ZTA-90-07 amending Section 30.6, Overlay Districts, of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, as set out below. 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.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 30.6 - OVERLAY DISTRICTS
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended
and reenacted as follows:
30.6.2 APPLICATION
Amend the fifth paragraph to read as follows:
EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning
district and/or other overlay district. Where this district
overlays an SA-highway district, the parking and building
setback regulations of the SA-highway district shall apply.
In all other regards, the provisions of this section shall
apply. EC overlay districts are hereby established:
Change paragraph 30.6.2.b.5. to read:
Virginia Route 631 South from Charlottesville City limits to
Route 708.
In the same section add the following:
17.
18.
Virginia Route 614.
Virginia Route 7 2.
Repeal paragraph numbered 30.6.2.3.
Change the word "commission" to architectural review board" in
Section 30.6.4.2.d.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 21. Public Hearing: An amendment to the Albemarle
County Code concerning automatic communication and alarm devices by adding
Chapter 2.2, "Alarms" and repealing Sections 13-1.1 through 13-1.4. Chapter
2.2 provides for written consent by the Chief of Police of Albemarle County
prior to the installation of alarm devices connected to the Police Department
or the 911 Emergency Operations Center; a $25.00 registration fee for alarm
systems; allows the County to withdraw consent for an alarm system connection;
criminal offense charge for intentional false alarms; reimbursement to the
County for costs expended in responding to more than two false alarms within a
12-month period and allows an appeal to the Board of Supervisors for any
charge for a false alarm. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 29 and
November 5, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the Police Department is requesting an amendment to the
Albemarle County Code by adding Chapter 2.2, "Alarms". This amendment is
proposed to encourage alarm users and alarm businesses to maintain operational
reliability and proper use of alarm systems by limiting unnecessary responses
to false alarms. The Albemarle County Police Department received 2067 false
alarms in 1989. In 1990, there have been 1020 false alarms within a six-month
period.
The public hearing was opened at this time. There being no members of
the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. Bain asked how the proposed ordinance relates to the existing Code
Sections 13-1.1 through 13-1.4 dealing with false alarms. Mr. St. John said
the current ordinance deals only with intentional false alarms. Sections
13-1.1 through 13-1.4 are incorporated into the proposed ordinance and those
sections will be repealed by the Board's action to adopt the proposed amend-
ment. The proposed amendment adds a provision for charging a fee for false
alarms, even though they are not intentional.
Mr. Bowerman asked why false alarms for fires are not included in this
ordinance. Mr. St. John said the number of unintentional, false alarms for
fire does not constitute a problem at this time. He said there is also a
different system which handles security alarms. Mr. St. John said that a
representative from the Police Department or the Jefferson Country Fire and
Rescue Association could provide the statistics on false fire alarms.
Mr. Bain pointed out that fire alarms are included in Section 2.2-6 where
it is a criminal offense to intentionally activate a false alarm, but fire
alarms are not included in the section dealing with administrative fees.
Mr. Bowie said this amendment is presented from the Police Department
because of the risk to the officers and the amount of time and money involved
in responding to false alarms.
Mrs. Humphris asked for a report to the Board at a future date regarding
accidental fire alarms.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt
an ordinance amending the Code of Albemarle by the addition of Chapter 2.2,
known as "Alarms" and an ordinance to repeal Sections 13-1.1 through 13-1.4 of
the Code of Albemarle.
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 ordinances as adopted are set out below:)
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF CHAPTER 2.2, KNOWN AS "ALARMS"
CONCERNING AUTOMATIC COMMUNICATION AND ALARM DEVICES
95
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle be amended by the addition
thereto of Chapter 2.2 "Alarms" to read as follows:
Sec. 2.2-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
"Automatic alarm device." Any device or combination of devices
that will upon activation either mechanically, electrically, automa-
tically or by any other means cause any audible, visible or other
signal to be initiated at any office of the county or its police
department.
"Automatic communication device." Any device or combination of
devices that will, upon activation, either mechanically, electrically,
automatically or by any other means initiate the calling, dialing or
connection to a number, line or instrument.
"False alarms." Means an alarm that causes a police response,
when the responding officer finds no evidence of a criminal offense or
attempted criminal offense. Excluded from this definition are:
(1) Alarms occurring during electrical storms, hurricane,
tornado, blizzards and acts of God; or
(2) Electrical power disruption or failure; or
(3) Alarms caused by a failure of the equipment at the Emergency
Operations Center.
"Telephone number." Such term includes any additional numbers
assigned by a public utility company engaged in the business of
providing communications services and facilities to be used by means
of a rotary or other system to connect with the subscriber to the
primary number when such number is in use.
Sec. 2.2-2. Consent of county prerequisite to installation - devices
connected to lines~ etc., assigned to county.
It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, cause to
be used or operated, arrange, adjust, program or otherwise provide or
install any automatic communication device within Albemarle County
which shall initiate the calling, dialing or connection to any tele-
phone number, line or instrument assigned to the county or its police
department, or the local 911 Emergency Operations Center, without the
prior written consent of the chief of police.
Sec. 2.2-3. Same - devices which register alarms at county offices
or police department.
It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, cause to
be used or operated, arrange, adjust, program or otherwise provide or
install any automatic alarm device which shall register any type of
alarm at any office of the county or its police department without
prior written consent of the chief of police.
Sec. 2.2-4. Conditions for issuance of consent.
Written consent may be issued by the chief of police upon his
determination that the system under consideration will benefit the
more efficient operation of the police department, but under no
circumstances will any automatic communication device or other auto-
matic alarm device be considered for any purpose other than to alert
the police department to the commission of an offense.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
A non-refundable registration fee per each alarm site in the
amount of $25.00 shall be a pre-condition for issuance of consent.
Sec. 2.2-5. Notice of withdrawal of consent, disconnection of
devices.
The county may withdraw its consent by written notice to the
person to whom the consent was given and such person shall have the
devices disconnected within seven days of receipt of such written
notice of withdrawal. Approval for reinstatement will be based on
terms established by the chief of police.
Sec. 2.2-6. Intentional fa]me alarms a criminal offense.
96
It shall be a criminal misdemeanor for any person to knowingly
and without just cause activate a security or fire alarm to summon the
police department or fire and rescue service in situations where there
is no actual or threatened criminal or fire activity requiring immedi-
ate police or fire response.
Sec. 2.2-7. Charges for false alarms.
After two false alarms in any twelve month period, users shall be
charged for each subsequent false alarm which results in a police
department response, in such amount as is reasonably calculated to
reimburse the county for the costs of responding to such false alarms.
Such amount may be computed and recomputed by the county executive
from time to time, on the basis of the average time, manpower and
equipment devoted to police response to false alarms. This charge is
to reimburse the county for costs expended; it is not a fine, and is
not dependent upon a criminal conviction under section 2.2-6 above.
Sec. 2.2-8. Payment for false alarms.
Charges for false alarms shall be paid to the director of fi-
nance.
Sec. 2.2-9. Administration.
Administration of this chapter shall be the joint responsibility
of the chief of police and the director of finance under the super-
vision of the county executive.
Sec. 2.2-9. Appeals.
Any charge for a false alarm, or notice of withdrawal of consent
or order to disconnect, as provided hereinabove, may be appealed to
the board of supervisors by application of the owner filed with the
county executive within ten days of the date of notice of such charge
or order. Upon receipt of such appeal, the county executive or his
designee may grant relief from such charge or order, or may place the
matter on the agenda of the board of supervisors for hearing.
AN ORDINANCE
TO REPEAL SECTIONS 13-1.1 THROUGH 13-1.4
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
¥irginia, that sections 13-1.1 through 13-1.4, of Chapter 13, of the
Code of Albemarle, are hereby repealed.
Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: To consider a resolution in support
of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting "The
Meadowlands", property of The Meadows Housing Corporation, exemption from
certain state and local taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October
30 and November 6, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the Board adopted a resolution on March 14, 1990, granting
tax exempt status to the Jordan Development Corporation for "The Meadowlands".
This property is now owned by The Meadows Housing Corporation. Therefore, a
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 97
(Page 35)
new resolution simply changing the name of the property owner is recommended
for the Board's approval.
The public hearing was opened at this time. There being no members of
the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter
placed before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the
proposed resolution as set out below. 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.
RESOLUTION
ENDORSING LEGISLATION TO GRANT A
TAX EXEMPTION FOR
PROPERTY OF THE MEADOWS HOUSING CORPORATION
KNOWN AS "THE MEADOWLANDS"
WHEREAS, The Meadows Housing Corporation has asked this Board to
endorse an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia granting
"The Meadowlands" exemption from certain state and local taxes; and
WHEREAS, The Meadows Housing Corporation is a non-profit corpora-
tion organized to promote the improvement of housing for low and
moderate income elderly and handicapped persons; and
WHEREAS, this Board has considered, at a public hearing duly
advertised as required by Section 30-19.04 of the Virginia Code, held
on November 14, 1990, whether property of The Meadows Housing Corpora-
tion known as "The Meadowlands" should be exempt from taxation; and
WHEREAS, this Board finds that The Meadows Housing Corporation:
1)
Is exempt from federal taxation pursuant to Section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954;
2)
Holds no current license from the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Board;
3)
Pays no compensation to any officer or director in excess of
reasonable allowance for services rendered;
4)
Does not distribute any part of its net earnings to any
individual. Property in question will be location of
housing project assisted by the federal government under
Sect. 202 of the Housing Act of 1959;
5) Provides services for the common good of the public;
6) Does not carry on any political activity;
7)
Has no rule, regulation, policy or practice discriminating
on the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or
national origin;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby endorses, supports and approves the
adoption of an amendment to Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia exempt-
ing property of The Meadows Housing Corporation known as "The
Meadowlands" located in the County of Albemarle from state and local
taxation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board is directed to
convey certified copies of this resolution to the members of the
General Assembly representing Albemarle County.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
Agenda Item No. 23.
Status.
Westminster-Canterbury - Request for Tax Exempt
98
Agenda Item No. 24. Moore House, Inc. - Request for Tax Exempt Status.
Mr. Agnor said that he would present the request from Westminster-
Canterbury and the Moore House in the same report. Westminster-Canterbury of
the Blue Ridge and Moore House are both requesting exemption from paying
County real property taxes. The Code of Virginia provides for such exemption
through designation by the General Assembly, or by classification of owner-
ship, i.e. governmental, educational, religious and charitable. Both entities
are seeking the designation process. Mr. Agnor explained that the designation
process requires a resolution by the governing body of the local-
ity where the property is located, either supporting or declining to support
the exemption. Consideration of the resolution requires a public hearing.
Currently five organizations in the County are exempt by designation.
They are the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Posts of the American
Legion, Posts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Nature Conservancy, and the
Senior Center. Of the 626 property exemptions by classification, 277 are
governmental, 21 are educational, 261 are religious, 19 are charitable and 48
are grouped as "other", which are mostly cemeteries.
Mr. Agnor noted that the County has provided some financial support for
the elderly/handicapped housing project at the old Scottsville School for
residents with limited resources. That project, which is owned by the Jordan
Development Corporation, a nonprofit, income tax-exempt corporation, is not
exempt from County real property taxes.
Mr. Agnor stated that elderly citizens with fixed incomes are a constant
concern to the County. The need for housing, health care and other services
represents significant governmental and societal concerns. It is difficult
and complex to consider requests for property tax exemption from nonprofit,
income tax-exempt organizations, formed to provide services to these citizens.
However, staff believes the role of County government should be limited to
property tax exemption or relief for limited resource citizens struggling to
continue ownership of their homes. Providing tax exemption to the entities
that serve citizens who have a variety of resources loses the distinction of
helping those who need the help the most. Additionally, supporting these
requests for exemption will most likely result in other requests from other
organizations, thereby diminishing real property taxes which are the primary
source of local government revenue. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of
both requests.
Mr. Rick Richmond, Chairman of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge,
said he is requesting endorsement bythe Board for a tax exempt designation.
He said that Westminster-Canterbury is a mission to the community and to its
residents. As part of that mission, Westminster-Canterbury guarantees its
residents life care. He said life care is offered regardless of the economic
status of a resident at any time. That means that a resident will be sup-
ported by Westminster-Canterbury for life regardless of the cost and even if
the residents funds are depleted while residing at Westminster-Canterbury. He
said that is the commitment to which Westminster-Canterbury is required-to
subscribe in order to use the name Westminster-Canterbury. In order to make
that commitment, nearly $1.5 million has been raised and allotted for that
purpose. He said the goal is to provide financial assistance to approximately
one-fourth of the residents.
Mr. Richmond said the issue of tax exemption is directly related to the
financial assistance provided to the residents. If Westminster-Canterbury is
not burdened with the total of the taxes assessed by the County, it will be
able to provide more assistance to residents. Mr. Richmond cited a statute in
the Code of Virginia which allows a municipality to assess a tax based on user
fees. He said Westminster-Canterbury would pay approximately $30,000 per year
for the services it uses. He said Westminster-Canterbury wants to pay for its
share of use.
Mr. Richmond then read a listing of names of facilities in this County
which are exempt from taxation. He said these are the types of categories in
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 99
(Page 37)
which Westminster-Canterbury is requesting to be placed. Mr. Richmond said
these organizations offer tremendous benefits to the community and none of
them pay real property taxes. He said Westminster-Canterbury wants to pay
taxes under the statute that provides for the assessment of users fees. He
asked the Board to favorably consider this request.
There were no opponents present who wished to speak regarding this
request.
Mr. Way said he has no objection to setting a public hearing on this
matter. He feels that the question of a user fee tax should be reviewed by
the County Attorney. He can see strong arguments on both sides of the ques-
tion and feels that the only way to resolve it is to have a public hearing.
Mr. Perkins asked if the County can collect the total amount of the real
property taxes and then return a portion to an organization such as the appli-
cant. Mr. Agnor said he is not sure of the legality of that procedure. Mr.
St. John said he is doubtful that these organizations would qualify as proper
recipients of donated public funds. There are certain charities which qualify
for public fund donations such as rescue squads. However, he pointed out that
these two organizations are not seeking charitable status.
Mr. St. John said there is a statute which provides for tax exempt
organizations to be assessed a service charge. He said he would need to
research that statute further. Mr. Agnor said that is a separate statute and
is not part of the legislative designation of tax exemption for which these
organizations are applying.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the concept of user fees is appropriate to discuss
if a public hearing is scheduled. Mr. St. John said the concept is appropri-
ate for discussion at the same time as this request.
Mr. Bain pointed out that there is a limited group mentioned by Mr. Agnor
who are tax exempt by designation. The long list of agencies read by Mr.
Richmond who are tax exempt under the Code of Virginia under the classifica-
tion category does not really apply to this issue. Mrs. Humphris agreed and
noted that only five organizations can be compared to the two making this
request today, rather than the list read by Mr. Richmond.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that care be taken in using the terms "elderly"
and "needy" together because being elderly does not necessarily mean one is
needy.
Mr. Bowie expressed his concern that approval of these requests will set
a precedent for requests for tax exemption for anyone who rents property and
is below a certain income level.
Mr. Bowerman asked if discrimination is implied when a tax exemption for
a needy renter because of age and income is granted in a situation such as
Moore House and not granted a single individual when the need is identical.
Mr. St. John reminded the Board that its action is only a recommendation to
the General Assembly who is responsible for granting these exemptions. He
said the Board must have a rational basis for distinguishing between people
who are similarly situated. If there is no distinction to be made, there
should not be a difference in treatment.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board is being asked to deal with a blanket
approval for everyone who resides in either of these places. She said she
concurs with staff's recommendation that the County limit property tax exemp-
tion to those who need the help the most. However, she feels that the ques-
tion should be resolved through a public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to
schedule a public hearing for the request by Westminster-Canterbury of the
Blue Ridge for tax exempt status.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 1OO
(Page 38)
Mr. Dick Gibson, representative of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan and the
Moore House Project, said he recognizes that the timing of this request may
not be the best due to budgetary restraints. However, when times get bad for
local governments, they are worse for the elderly and certain needy citizens
who will be served by Moore House. He said that Moore House can satisfy all
the requirements of the enabling legislation which allows tax exempt status.
Me feels that Moore House qualifies as the type of organization which should
be exempt from taxation. Moore House performs a service for the public
welfare similar to the organizations listed by Mr. Richmond. In a sense,
Moore House serves a more important need than some organizations on the list
because it provides a place for people to live. If the request for tax
exemption is not granted, the residents will be the ones to suffer. He said
Moore House does not receive a large endowment to offset rental fees. He is
making this request on behalf of the people who will reside at Moore House.
He said that 85 percent of the citizens of Virginia in recent elections
favored some form of tax relief for the elderly. He noted that there is the
ordinance pointed out by Mr. Agnor which helps elderly needy people keep their
homes. Unfortunately, that statute provides no benefit for residents of Moore
House because they do not own homes. If the request for tax exempt status is
not granted, there is no other legislation available for help for these
residents. Mr. Gibson pointed out that other localities in which the Bishop
Sullivan projects are located have supported this tax exemption. Based on the
report provided by staff, the County already provides exemption for taxes
equaling approximately $4.5 million to other organizations. Mr. Gibson said
Moore House is small in comparison, but the exemption translates to a signifi-
cant monthly amount for the residents. He respectfully asked the Board to
favorably consider the request to set a public hearing to consider adopting
this ordinance.
Mr. Gibson noted that there are distinguishing factors between Moore
House and Westminster-Canterbury. Moore House has no endowment fund, is a
rental project, and does not charge entry fees to its residents. He asked
that those present in support of the request for tax exemption stand and be
recognized.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Hnmphris to set a
public hearing on the request for tax exempt status by Moore House. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman
to hold both public hearings on December 19, 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. 13. Report of Audit Committee and Budget Guidelines.
Mr. Perkins summarized a memorandum dated November 9, 1990, from the
Audit Committee re: recommended budget guidance for the 1991-92 fiscal year
budget. He said the Audit Committee gives the following Operating Budget
Guidance:
"The objective of this report at this time is to recommend operating
budget guidance only so that the County Executive may proceed with
preparation of the operating budget. Enclosure 6 gives the details of
the development of this guidance. The enclosure compares the current
year's budget as enacted with the adjustment to compensate for the 1.2
percent anticipated loss of revenue. It also allows for a reasonable
inflation factor. The Committee recommends that the initial budget
guidance be the reduced figures of $56,621,234, but notes that this
does not include funds for the CIP, or funds for increases in Debt
Service or in the Revenue Sharing Agreement, or 1991-92 additional
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
State revenue shortfalls. Also, estimates for legitimate growth needs
of 1991-92 are not included as they will be determined as a result of
Board action during budget review.
The Audit Committee makes the following recommendations in addition to
the recommendation for the beginning budget dollars (above)::
The efforts outlined in the County Executive's memo of September
7, 1990, (as set out in the minutes of September 12, 1990, pages
28 and 29) be carried forward to next year, and as additional
savings areas can be found, they be implemented as required. An
example might be lowering the reimbursement per mile for use of
private vehicles, as well as maintaining reductions in total
mileage.
Since we are faced with revenue shortfalls this year and antici-
pate increased shortfalls next year, the Board should consider
mandating a certain level of fund balance increase for both
General Government and Schools for the current year. The exact
amount to be determined after the County Executive's mid-year
review.
The Board commit to creating the tightest possible operating
budget, offsetting the percentage of increase in the real estate
property reassessment with reductions in both the real and
personal property tax rates."
Mr. Perkins said the recommendation for 1991-92 is that a four percent
inflation factor be added to the reduced operating budget for 1991 for a total
recommended budget of $56,621,234.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that the recommendations are not as definitive as
in prior years because of the number of unknown factors at this time.
Mr. Bain said he has expressed his feeling on this subject before, and
his thinking has not changed. In a sense, two Board members are taking over
the County Executive's function. He feels that the process needs to be
discussed in sessions with the new County Executive and the determination made
as to whether this is a function of the County Executive or the Audit Com-
mittee. In terms of setting guidelines and goals, he feels it is practically
impossible to give a directive to the County Executive until some of the
unknown factors become known.
Mrs. Humphris said she is not sure what the report means since the staff
has not yet provided the numbers to which the guidance applies. Mr. Perkins
said the Committee is giving guidance for this year based on the results of
last year. Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand why staff needs guid-
ance when they have access to all this information. They have the expertise
and the facts without guidance from Board members.
Mr. Bowie said in the past, the Board spent many hours on budget work
sessions resulting in relatively minor adjustments to the budget. He said the
process has gradually evolved so the Board gives general guidance prior to the
work sessions. Since the Board is a policy-making group, it was the feeling
of some Board members that general guidance.come from the Board to initiate
the budget cycle process so the County Executive can in turn tell his depart-
ment heads how much money they will have to work with. That is the intention
of the recommendation of the Audit Committee. He pointed out that the figures
in this recommendation came from the County's Finance Department. They were
not manufactured by the Audit Committee. He said the alternative to this
report is to begin the budget cycle with no analysis of last year's figures.
Mrs. Humphris said she likes the idea of reviewing the prior budget to
see how successful the past year was. However, she has difficulty believing
that staff cannot address the true needs of the County because they are afraid
to give the Board the true facts. She feels more comfortable with the entire
Board cutting the budget than telling the staff to work within certain re-
strictions. She would rather see the true picture than have the staff "hand-
cuffed" by the Board's guidance. She said she trusts Mr. Agnor and his staff
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
to have the common sense to know what the Board expects and she trusts their
good judgment. She finds the budget guidance recommendation limiting to the
staff's ability to prepare a budget that reflects the true needs of the
County.
Mr. Way said he has no doubt that Mr. Agnor will let the Board know if
the guidance given is impossible to follow and staff will indicate the true
needs of the County. Mr. Way said he feels it is the Board's responsibility
to give guidance to the staff about budget matters ahead of preparation of the
budget. Mr. Way said that giving guidance to the staff does not mean that the
County Executive cannot indicate to the Board that its guidance is unrealistic
and make a different recommendation.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that it is intimidating to the staff to be
given a bottom line figure. It forces the County Executive to make a judge-
ment as to whether he dares include something that he feels is important when
the Board has given guidance that says do not recommend more than a specific
~mount.
Mr. Way said he disagrees with that because the County Executive can
recommend any items that he feels are needed. However, he will come in with
the budget recommended-by the Board showing the revenues and the expenditures.
The Board is simply saying ahead of the process what it feels comfortable with
as a total budget figure.
Mr. Bain said if the figures are coming from the Finance Department, then
maybe the Director of Finance should come to the Board with the parameters so
that each Board member can ask questions. He is opposed to two Board members
acting as a Committee in this fashion.
Mrs. Humphris said if the staff wants guidance, the Board could meet
together and have a frank discussion about the process with each Board member
having an opportunity to give input.
Mr. Bowie said this same discussion has been held for the past two years.
He said that any Supervisor can do an analysis and make recommendations to the
Board as well. Whether there is an Audit Committee or not, Mr. Bowie said he
would do exactly the same analysis and make it public knowledge. He said the
Audit Committee met with the Director of Finance, the County Executive and the
Deputy County Executive, and this report is submitted with their review and
concurrence.
Mrs. Humphris said staff is hired to put the budget together. Mr. Bowie
said staff puts the budget together based on the Board's guidance.
Mr. Agnor said it is clearly the County Executive's responsibility to
prepare the budget. He said when the Board first began giving guidelines to
staff for preparing the budget, the County Executive brought two budgets to
the Board for review. One budget was balanced by the guidelines and one
budget was simply unrealistic. He said for the past several years, staff has
not had to do that because the guidelines have been more realistic. He noted
that the guidelines are given in broad terms and do not include new needs.
Those are intended to be reviewed by the Board during the budget cycle.
Neither does the guidance include increases needed for the City Revenue
Sharing Agreement formula nor for the debt service from the Capital Improve-
ments Program cycle. This is a base operating budget for the existing depart-
ments and functions of the County. It gives a broad guideline of what to
consider for expanding the base the following year. Mr. Agnor said his
interpretation is that the guidelines are broad enough to allow staff to come
back with what it would take to meet the potential needs. He personally found
the guidance helpful and not restrictive or intimidating, although it can be
thought of in that way. It gives a sense of direction primarily for the
agencies and departments which do not work directly with the Board. He said
it helps the Executive staff in dealing with agencies who are asking for funds
when these agencies know ahead of time that there are guidelines set by the
Board. The guidelines minimize some of the wish lists.
Mr. Tucker agreed and said that staff was concerned initially about being
constrained too much. However, he has found it helpful to have a goal to work
toward. He said that staff in the past has brought a priority listing of the
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 103
(Page 41)
unmet needs to the Board. Depending on how much the Board is willing to fund
in addition to the proposed budget, the priorities are then added. He said
that is the process that staff will follow next year.
Mr. Way said he is not committed to the current process and he feels that
the process should be discussed with the new County Executive. However, for
the present year, he does not want to throw this process out until there is
something better to replace it.
Mr. Bowerman said in the absence of guidance to staff, it is possible
that the staff could prepare a budget spending the entire amount of revenue
for next year. Mr. Bowerman said the question is when to provide guidance to
the staff. He feels the starting point is a review of the services provided
last year. Recommendations for expenditures beyond that will have to be
justified by staff. The Board then has the opportunity to vote on those
recommendations. Without some guidance, where does staff begin?
Mr. Bowie said in 1980-81, there was a 22.5 percent increase in revenues,
and it was all spent, in addition to a request to raise the tax rate by $0.03.
Mr. Bain asked how the four percent inflation rate was determined. Mr.
Bowie said it seemed to be a reasonable figure after discussions with the
Director of Finance, the County Executive and the Deputy County Executive. He
said the inflation rate could actually be determined to be three or five
percent, and staff will tell the Board when it is determined.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Way to accept
the report from the Audit Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
Not Docketed: Mr. St. John recommended that the Board resolve to suspend
its rules in order to reconsider Ingleside Preliminary Plat, SUB-90-063.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to suspend
the Board's rules in order to reconsider the Ingleside Preliminary Plat
Appeal, SUB-90-063. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to recon-
sider the Ingleside Preliminary Plat, SUB-90-063. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to affirm
the Planning Commission's action of June 26, 1990, on SUB-90-063 with the
Planning Commission's conditions set out below, thereby reversing the Board's
action on August 8, 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.
1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations;
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
104
Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control
permit to include a silt basin located downstream of the
proposed culvert near station 15+00 on road "B" and possibly
a second basin located downhill at station 19+50 on road "B"
if deemed appropriate by the Watershed Management Official
and the County Engineer. The basin shall be constructed to
meet the demands of a ten-year storm;
Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement
plats;
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
Dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the turn and taper
lane;
Residue strips of land on the north side of the roads shall
be transferred back to Tax Map 60, Parcel 1.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Agenda Item No. 25. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 3:28 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to
adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of interviewing prospective
appointees to the Children and Youth Commission pursuant to 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. 26. Certify Executive Session.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:12 P.M. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris, certifying the Executive Session as
follows:
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.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
105
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
Agenda Item No. 27. Joint Meeting with School Board.
School Board members present were Mr. Richard A. Bagby, Mr. Clifford W.
Haury, Mr. Charles S. MartC~ Mrs. Patricia L. Moore and Mrs. Sharon Wood.
Members absent were Mr. Wiliiam w. Finley and Mr. Roger R. Ward. Also present
was Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools; and Mr. David
Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations.
Agenda Item No. 27a. Budget Ideas.
Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee report providing budget guidance to
the County Executive and his staff was approved by the Board of Supervisors
earlier today.
Mr. Bagby said he feels that the recommendations in the report are
worthwhile. He agrees that a review should be made of existing programs to
see what can be trimmed.
Mr. Haury asked if there is information regarding the actUal percentage
of State funds available for 1991-92. Mr. Agnor said nothing definite has
been received. Mr. Haury said the Community College system has been told that
there will be an additional five percent cut in funds if the State revenue
collections drop. Mr. Overstreet said he has heard talk of a range of reduc-
tions between four and ten percent for 1991-92. Mr. Haury said he feels that
budget planning should be based on the worst case possible.
Mr. Haury said in the case of unpredictable funding from the State, the
reassessment funds may be a source to cover the County. He feels it would be
wise to consider what that margin has to be to cover the worst possible
contingency. Mr. Bowie said that determination is made when the~tax rate is
set after the budget is approved and after the General Assembly determines
what money the County gets.
Mr. Bowie said he hopes the School Board will support the budget guidance
accepted by the Board today. Mr. Bain noted that the growth factor is not
included in the guidance and will have to be addressed during the budget
process.
Agenda Item No. 27b. Recycling Procedures for Local Government and
School Division.
Mr. Agnor said the County has begun recycling procedures in the County
Office Building and the question has been raised as to whether the School
Division has a recycling program.
Mr. Bowie said the effort in the County is to reduce the amount of paper
being thrown in the landfill and the schools are being asked to do the same
thing.
Mrs. Moore said some schools are already recycling paper and aluminum.
Mr. Overstreet agreed that most of the aluminum is being recycled. He said
the biggest recycling problem in schools has been the problem with styrofoam.
It has been a priority to eliminate the use of styrofoam in the cafeteria
operations. He said the next area for concentration will be related to
recycling paper. Currently there is not a systematic County-wide program for
schools, although some schools have initiated their own programs for recy-
cling.
Mr. Bowie said all it takes is some large waste cans appropriately marked
and a directive to the schools implementing a program. Mr. Overstreet said he
understands that it costs the County to have the recycled paper hauled away.
Mrs. Humphris said it costs more to put it in the landfill than it does to
haul it away.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that the County have a manual can crusher in the
cafeteria of the County Office Building to reduce the bulk of aluminum cans
collected there.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 106
(Page 44)
Mr. Agnor said the idea is to reduce paper at the source. All printing
in the Copy Center is being done on both sides of the paper to reduce the
volume. Mrs. Moore pointed out that the computer print-outs are excellent for
elementary children to use for drawing paper.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bagby and seconded by Mrs. Moore that the
School Board direct the Superintendent to develop a recycling program for the
School Division. There was no further discussion. The motion was carried by
unanimous vote.
Agenda Item No. 27c. Discussion: Capacity at Albemarle High School,
Mr. Agnor said this item originated in the Capital Improvements Program
work session discussions about a new high school. The question was raised as
to the capacity of the three existing high schools.
Mr. Bowerman said his concern is whether the demolition of the vocational
wing at Albemarle High School in Phase I will affect the capacity in terms of
the student projections. Mr. Haury said the School Board asked the same
question. There are trailers in existence which will continue in order to
maintain capacity.
Mr. Papenfuse said the cost benefit analysis for demolition of the
vocational wing indicates that the immediate capacity needs can be met through
trailers and is more cost effective than maintaining this wing for future
capacity needs.
Mr. Bain asked if it will be necessary to'add trailers. Mr. Papenfuse
said four trailers have been added to the existing five.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is anticipated that a new high school coming
into operation would ultimately remove those trailers or that additional
classrooms at Albemarle would reduce the number of trailers. Mr. Papenfuse
said the Long Range Plan did not account for additional capacity at Albemarle.
It was the intent that there would be capacity elsewhere. He said that Phase
II is not an expansion phase and does not eliminate the mobile classrooms. It
is a remodeling phase and was predicated on recovering lost space at Albemarle
which was never intended to be used as classrooms.
Mr. Haury pointed out that the design capacity of Albemarle High School
is increased by Phase I due to the addition of special education and resource
classrooms. The actual increase does not amount to much over the existing
capacity. He said current enrollment is 1590, and the new design at maximum
capacity is 1700. Mr. Haury said new capacity figures and enrollment projec-
tions are now available and are being reviewed by the Oversight Committee for
the Long Range Plan. He said the revised enrollment projections for 1996-97
at Albemarle High School will reach 1700. He noted that the new enrollment
projections generally show a downward trend for all of the schools. However,
looking at growth in the western part of the County and adding the redistrict-
ing for Cale, Western Albemarle High will go over maximum capacity in 1995-96.
Looking at the new enrollment projections, the surprise is that Western
Albemarle will reach maximum capacity earlier than anticipated.
Mr. Haury said the projection figures do not include the live birth rate.
He feels that the live birth rate is an excellent predictor of peaks in
growth. For that reason, he feels that capacity at Cale, Crozet, Murray and
the new urban elementary school should be watched carefully before thinking
about expanding capacity.
Mr. Willie Raines, principal at Albemarle High School, pointed out that
the Long Range Planning Committee indicated that the capacity of Albemarle is
below 1700, and he feels that figure will be reached quickly. He also pointed
out that reaching maximum capacity means that every room is scheduled every
period and that is very difficult to do. Mr. Raines said the most critical
factors at Albemarle are related to corridor space, cafeteria and auditorium
space. The capacity of these areas is not increased by adding a trailer.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) ~_O7
(Page 45)
Mr. Bowie said he personally is getting uncomfortable about going further
into debt for schools without some voter input.
Mr. Martin said he feels it is important that the current capacity of
schools be utilized as much as possible. He agreed that the live birth
figures are important to the projects. However, he feels that the two most
important services provided by government are education and police protection.
Everything possible should be done to be frugal, but it is important to keep
in mind the function of government to provide education.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Long Range Planning Committee is going to
reconsider issues such as student/teacher ratios, year-round schools, or
increasing the capacity of elementary schools. Mr. Martin said the School
Board feels it is critical that elementary schools not reach a capacity of 800
in order to maintain quality education. The School Board also feels it is
critical to keep the student/teacher ratio down. He said a recent survey
indicates that 69 percent of families without children prefer to pay taxes in
order to keep the student/teacher ratio down. The percentage of parents who
feel that way is about 90 percent.
Mr. Haury said the Oversight Committee for the Long Range Plan must have
planning assumptions from the School Board as to maximum capacities for
elementary, middle and high schools. That holds true for whether class ratios
should differ or not. He said those are important questions to consider. The
solutions proposed must be in direct relationship to the answer to those
questions. If the School Board feels that elementary schools should have a
600 student capacity, it does not necessarily mean that middle schools must be
the same. He feels it is wise for those questions to be addressed again
during this review of the Long Range Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said he wants to identify as much as possible whether the
growth is continuous or whether it is a peak in growth, with as much flexibil-
ity as possible to meet peak needs without overbuilding facilities.
Mr. Haury said another surprise in looking at the new enrollment figures
is that projections for middle schools indicate that maximum capacity will not
be reached until 1998-99. He said there will be a pinch for space in high
schools before middle schools. That means that redistricting might be a
solution rather than building new facilities. He said the Oversight Committee
will produce a report giving all this information to both Boards with recom-
mendations.
Mr. Agnor noted that the report should come ahead of the CIP. Mr. Haury
said the Committee could actually set up a schedule as part of the review
process so that the Board can review it long before the CIP process begins.
Agenda Item 27d. Discussion: Murray High School Renovations.
Mr. Agnor said that the Board is interested in the results of the commit-
tee working on the alternative high school program at Rose Hill. The Board,
in its CIP work session, deleted this project for funding this year.
Mr. Martin said the School Board discussed the cost of renovations at
Murray High School and put the project on hold because it was not comfortable
with the amount. The School Board appointed a task force to take a closer
look at the program. One School Board member suggested that it might be
possible to build a brand new building for the amount of money it would cost
to renovate. There are some things such as asbestos removal and underground
tank removal that must be done to use that building. He said it is, there-
fore, difficult to reduce the scope of the project. He said the School Board
considered the possibility of using a pre-fabricated building and locating it
on property owned by the School Board at either Albemarle High or CA-TECH. He
said for $1.0 million or less a new building could be built with classroom
space for 150 students which is much less expensive than the cost of renova-
tions.
Mrs. Moore said the task force has only met once and has no information
available as yet. She personally feels that the School Board needs to discuss
its long range plan for Murray. She also feels that the School Board should
have a recommendation from the Superintendent as to whether Murray should
continue to grow or whether growth shoUld be reduced.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting) ]_08
(Page 46)
Mr. Bain said he just wanted to know that the School Board is actually
looking at the question of whether Murray should be a separate school, what it
has accomplished, etc. He said it is also possible to sell the building as it
is and use the funds, rather than putting $2.3 million more into the building.
Mr. Way said the issue he raised is whether the School Board has studied
whether or not Murray High School should be continued. Mr. Haury said that
question has not been answered. He added that a related question is whether
that structure is appropriate for this school.
Mr. Bagby said the School Board agrees that no more money should go into
the project until these questions are answered.
Mr. Bowie said the Board of Supervisors would like to know the School
Board's decision when it is made. Mrs. Moore said this will come back to the
Board as an agenda item once a consensus is reached.
Agenda Item No. 27e. Set date for next joint meeting.
Both Boards agreed to set a tentative meeting for December 12 at 4:00
P.M. If there are no items for discussion, the next meeting will be January 9
at 4:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 27f. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
no other matters to be discussed at this time.
At 5:10 P.M. the School Board was adjourned.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 5:10 P.M.)
There were
Agenda Item No. 28a. Appointments. Discuss future of Fiscal Resources
Committee.
The Board agreed to discuss this at a later time.
Agenda Item No. 28b. Appointments: Architectural Review Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Way to nominate Ms.
Patricia Bower, Mr. James G. Carswell, Mr. Frank A. Kessler, Mr. C. Timothy
Lindstrom and Mr. Harry W. Porter, Jr. to the Architectural Review Board.
Terms to be determined at their organizational meeting.
Mr. Bain stated his opposition to the procedure of appointing committee
members without first interviewing them. He said he will support the motion,
but does not agree with this process.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 5:12 P.M.)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 28c. Appointments: Children and Youth Commission.
Motion was made by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to nominate
Mr. John F. Dawson, Jr., Mesdames Eve Haverson (one-year term), Blanche R.
Steppe, Elly Tucker, Ann M. Webb and Audrianne L. Welborn to the Children and
Youth Commission; terms to be determined later.
Mr. Bain repeated his opposition to the process.
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.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 47)
Mr. Agnor said the interviews will begin next week for the Director of
the Children and Youth Commission. He said one member of this Commission
needs to be appointed to serve on the interview committee to recommend an
appointment to the Commission. The Board agreed that Mr. John Dawson would be
on the interview committee, with Ms. Elly Tucker as a substitute choice.
Agenda Item No. 28d. Appointments: Other. Motion was offered by Mr.
Perkins and seconded by Mr. Way to nominate Mr. William M. Colony, Mr. James
R. Skove and Mr. W. Joseph Hoeller, Jr. to the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens
Advisory Committee; terms to be determined at a later date.
Mr. Bain repeated his opposition to the process.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie said he interviewed Mr. William H. Bolton for the vacancy on
the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors from the Rivanna
Magisterial District and found him to have adequate qualifications.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Perkins to nominate Mr.
William H. Bolton to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors
for the Rivanna District, to serve an unexpired term ending April 16, 1992,
replacing Mr. Samuel Craig who resigned.
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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to appoint Ms.
Cauline Yates as the Samuel Miller District representative on the Social
Services Board, term to expire December 31, 1993.
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. 29. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a phone message from Manassas regarding
the Commonwealth-Transportation Board's work session taking place there. She
said the message is that Mr. Jack Hodge has been pounding the Commonwealth
Transportation Board all afternoon with the idea that Albemarle County is not
committed to the CATS plan and will always need the western bypass as a
solution to traffic on Route 29 North. Mrs. Humphris said she feels that
because Mr. Hodge is taking the liberty of representing Albemarle in a way
that is not factual, the Board should pass a resolution to be delivered to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board tomorrow firmly supporting all CATS improve-
ments and stating the County's intent to implement the CATS plan.
Mr. Bain said he feels this is useless because the County has done
everything possible.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important that the Board counter Mr. Hodge's
efforts to manipulate the Transportation Board. Motion was then offered by
Mrs. Humphris to adopt a resolution to this effect.
Mr. Bowie said he would like a statement in the resolution reflecting the
fact that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors on November 12 told Mr.
Hodge in response to his question, that the County would build the CATS plan
if it were funded.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 48)
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
by the following recorded vote:
110
Roll was called and the motion carried
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
(The resolution is set out in full below.)
W~, on Monday, November 12, 1990, Mr. Jack Hodge of the
Virginia Department of Transportation's staff asked Mr. Rick Bowie,
Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, if the Board
would support the construction of projects in the adopted
Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS); and
%~, Mr. Bowie responded that the Board would support these
construction projects as quickly as funding is made available; and
W~, Mr. Bowie's response was reaffirmed in a meeting of
the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on Wednesday, November 14,
1990.
NOW, T~I~, BE IT RESOL~qZD that the Board strongly repeats
its position of opposing Alternative 10 and moving forward aggres-
sively with the CATS plan as funds are made available.
Mr. Bowerman referred to a letter dated November 12, 1990, to the Common-
wealth Transportation Board signed by each Board member reiterating the
Board's position regarding Route 29 North. He said the letter was hand-
delivered to the Commonwealth Transportation Board today. The intent was to
clarify any misconception the Transportation Board may have had about the
Board's opinion.
Mr. Bowerman offered a motion confirming the letter of November 12, 1990,
(on file with the paperwork for this meeting) to the Commonwealth Transporta-
tion Board which was hand-carried and delivered this morning. Mr. Way second-
ed 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.
Mr. Bain said he will not be able to go to the Virginia Association of
Counties meeting. Motion was offered to nominate Mrs. Humphris as the Board's
alternate representative to cast its vote. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bain.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Agnor said the State passed a law regarding hazardous waste materials
which placed quite a few requirements on the localities. In August, City and
County staff were involved in a mock disaster to test the emergency response
plan. He said the result is that a lot of work has to be done on the
coordination of emergency responses between the City, County and University.
The 911 Board has concluded that this effort should be in the 911 Center where
emergency dispatch takes place. In order to re-write the disaster plan and
set up mock exercises, it is necessary to hire a part-time employee for the
911 Center. He said the County's share is approximately $1000. He wants the
Board to be aware that this position is being added although there is an
effort to curb hiring.
November 14, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 49)
Agenda Item No. 30. Adjourn.
At 5:30 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN