1990-11-28November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on November 28, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, and Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney;
and Mr. ¥. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community DeVelopment.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
Mr. George Bailey spoke concerning an article he read in the Daily
Progress regarding expansion of the jail facilities. He has visited a number
of jails in and out of the Commonwealth and feels that Virginia jails are
antiquated. He feels that Albemarle County needs a jail similar to one he
visited in Delaware. He described the jail as similar to an army barracks,
with rooms on either side of a hallway for minimum security prisoners only.
The masonry building has concrete floors and a built-in concrete bed in each
seven feet by nine feet room. Every cell has an outside window for ventila-
tion, one electric outlet, a wooden door with a lock and a wash basin and
urinal. The door closes automatically and can only be unlocked with a key.
Mr. Bailey said the guards in the facility he visited were evaluated on the
cleanliness of the cells. He feels that work release prisoners, week-end
offenders, DUI (driving under the influence) offenders and trustees should all
be housed in this type of facility. These offenders would require only five
or six guards for 40 to 50 inmates. He said classrooms are a must in a modern
jail facility. He feels that retired teachers would be glad to come in and
teach inmates. He asked the Board to consider such a facility for Albemarle
County in order to get more for its money and to meet the needs of prisoners.
Mr. Randy Layman, a waste hauler in Albemarle County, spoke in reference
to the proposed tipping fees at the Ivy Landfill. Mr. Layman said he has been
quoted fees ranging from $19.74 to $32.00 per ton for domestic waste. Mr.
Layman estimates that the average household will have to pay tipping fees in
the range of $7 to $10 per month. This means that households may pay a total
of $20 per month for waste disposal. Based on comments he has heard from
customers, he feels that citizens will try to find other ways of disposing of
their trash to avoid paying high tipping fees. He reported that 35 percent of
his customers say they will'discontinue trash pick-up if the cost goes up that
much. He is concerned that~the rural areas, and possibily his own land, will
be the dumping grounds for domestic waste. Mr. Layman feels that there should
be better communication between the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority and the
private haulers with regard to more timely notification regarding the tipping
fees. He said the effective date of January 1, 1991, does not give haulers an
adequate amount of time to change billing procedures and to notify customers.
Mr. Layman said haulers were told that they would be given 60 days after the
public hearing to implement the changes. Now, he is being told that the 60
days began on October 12. He said the private haulers need some leadership
and guidance from Albemarle County as well as a time frame in which to work.
Mr. Bowie asked that staff prepare a report regarding the tipping fees
for next week's meeting.
Mr. Bates McLain of Piedmont Trash Services said he concurs with many of
the statements made by Mr. Layman. He said he has kept track of the tonnage
for his 1800 residential customers over the past year. His calculations
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting) l iL2
(Page 2)
indicate that 20 houses produce one ton of trash per week. That is 430 pounds
per household, per month resulting in a tipping fee of $6.88. The average
rate for trash pick-up for his customers is $11.72 per month. Adding the
tipping fee, the new trash bill will be approximately $20.00, which is a 60
percent increase. Mr. McLain said his business license is based on his gross
receipts. His gross receipts will increase by 60 percent, but he is simply
passing some of those receipts on to the County. He does not feel that the
proposed system is fair. Mr. McLain said the haulers have had little say in
the area of waste disposal. He said he has had a recycling effort going on
for two years. He has gathered information over that time which he feels the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority could use. He said he has made an effort to
communicate, but with no results. He has been told several different amounts
as tipping fees and different effective dates beginning with May, 1990. He
said there is no way he can run a business when possibly 60 percent of his
revenue is going to an added expense and he does not know what the exact
amount is nor when it takes effect. He asked the Board to consider these
comments.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Mr. Way said he would like to reiterate Mr. Bowie's request for informa-
tion from staff in regard to Item 5.9. Mr. Bain said he would like to discuss
this item and Item 5.10 further under "Other Matters" at the end of the
agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
Consent Agenda, pulling Items 5.9 and 5.10 for further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Item 5.1. Department of Planning and Community Development, Third
Quarter 1990 Building Report, received as information.
Item 5.2. Letter dated October 30, 1990, from Mr. J. T. Shropshire,
Office of the Governor, and attachment from the U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture, designating Albemarle County as a primary-county natural disaster area
(due to severe frost and freeze which occurred between March 26 and April 6,
1990) where eligible family farmers engaged in fruit production may qualify
for Farmers Home Administration emergency loan assistance, received as infor-
mation.
Item 5.3. County Executive's Financial Report for September, 1990,
received as follows:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1990 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1990
GENERAL FUND:
REVENUES
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
56,670,098 2,313,650 54,356,448 -
4,254,388 720,295 3,534,093 -
160,400 10,983 149,417 -
329~932 0 329~932 -
61,414,818 3,044,928 58,369,890 -
4.08~
16.93%
6.85%
O.OO%
4.96%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
3,692,408 956,324 2,736,084 + 25.90%
1,287,796 354,516 933,280 + 27.53%
5,686,794 2,033,460 3,653,334 + 35.76%
2,340,322 478,488 1,861,834 + 20.45%
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
CULTURAL
3,520,117
28,911,600
2,073,318
1,566,828
9,476,565
2,859,070
61,414,818
SCHOOL FUND:
REVENUES
883,779
4,824,208
304,851
436,564
61,945
0
10,334,135
2,636,338 + 25.11%
24,087,392 + 16.69%
1,768,467 + 14.70%
1,130,264 + 27.86%
9,414,620 + 0.65%
2~859~070 + 0.00%
51,080,683 + 16.83~
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
686,385
20,006,716
431,775
29~052~438
50,177,314
37,950
3,731,815
0
4,817~500
8,587,265
648,435 - 5.53%
16,274,901 - 18.65%
431,775 - 0.00%
24,234~938 - 16.58%
41,590,049 - 17.11%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND:
REVENUES
39,394,013
1,774,281
4,211,544
4,632,968
164~508
50,177,314
5,281,785
651,854
2,114,211
1,252,136
41~430
9,341,416
34,112,228 + 13.41%
1,122,427 36.74%
2,097,333 + 50.20%
3,380,832 - 27.03%
123~078 + 25.18%
40,835,898 + 18.62%
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
291,800
452,040
12,104,082
414,485
6~500,000
19,762,407
45,639
0
2,719,598
0
0
2,765,237
246,161 - 15.64%
452,040 - 0.00%
9,384,484 22.47%
414,485 0.00%
6~500~000 0.00%
16,997,170 - 13.99%
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
OTHER FUNDS:
REVENUES
99,747
1,403
592,351
3,039,413
7,000
12,077,473
2,143,086
301,356
1~500,578
19,762,407
26,741
0
284,246
261,378
0
3,932,748
66,690
12,822
0
4,584,625
73,006 + 26.81%
1,403 + 0.00%
308,105 + 47.99%
2,778,035 + 8.60%
7,OOO + O.OO%
8,144,725 + 32.56%
2,076,396 + 3.11%
288,534 + 4.25%
1,500~578 + 0.00%
15,177,782 + 23.20%
1990/91 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG PROGRAM
CBIP SEVERE
0
0
0
0
134,997
0
0
1,510,500
538,994
57,929
57,093
25,000
0
74,181
14,995
34,219
461,547
0 0 - 0.00%
8,555 (8,555)+ 0.00%
0 0 - 0.00%
198,667 (198,667)+ 0.00%
0 134,997 - 0.00%
154,077 (154,077)+ 0.00%
30,261 (30,261)+ 0.00%
83,029 1,427,471 - 5.50%
0 538,994 -. 0.00%
0 57,929 0.00%
0 57,093 - 0.00%
0 25,000 0.00%
0 0 0.00%
0 74,181 0.00%
0 14,995 - 0.00%
0 34,219 - 0.00%
0 461,547 - 0.00%
November 28,
(Page 4)
1990 (Regular Meeting)
E. D. PROGRAM
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
A H S FIRE DAMAGE
JOINT SECURITY
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
622,315 0 622,315 - 0.00%
637,500 15,683 621,817 - 2.46%
369,411 2,308 367,103 - 0.62%
10,000 0 10,000 - 0.00%
0 0 0 - 0.00%
2,626,614 479,947 2,146,667 - 18.27%
30,619 0 30,619 - 0.00%
784,642 196,076 588,566 - 24.99%
11
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
179,905 1,174 178,731 0.65%
2,341,333 0 2,341,333 0.00%
0 11,289 (11,289)- 0.00%
3,429~096 127~505 3,301,591 3.72%
13,940,890 1,308,571 12,632,319 9.39~
EXPENDITURES
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS
90/91 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
0 906 (906)- 0.00%
DCJS: DRUG ENFORCEMENT
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT
FOOD SERVICES
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
MIGRANT EDUCATION
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
SLIAG
CBIP SEVERE
E D PROGRAM
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND
A H S FIRE DAMAGE
JOINT SECURITY FUND
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL
JOINT DISPATCH FUND
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND
VISITOR CENTER FUND
DEBT SERVICE FUND
TOTAL
0 0 0 - 0.00%
0 1,869 (1,869)- 0.00%
0 245,944 (245,944)- 0.00%
134,997 21,781 113,216 + 16.13%
0 167,000 (167,000)- 0.00%
0 25,002 (25,002)- 0.00%
1,510,500 122,100 1,388,400 + 8.08%
538,994 61,622 477,372 + 11.43%
57,929 3,142 54,787 + 5.42%
57,093 8,109 48,984 + 14.20%
0 3,996 (3,996)- 0.00%
25,000 2,694 22,306 + 10.78%
0 0 0 - 0.0O%
74,181 2,186 71,995 + 2.95%
14,995 25 14,970 + 0.17%
34,219 6,401 27,818 + 18.71%
461,547 59,671 401,876 + 12.93%
622,315 43,371 578,944 + 6.97%
637,500 68,544 568,956 + 10.75%
369,411 185,753 183,658 + 50.28%
10,000 0 10,000 + 0.00%
0 104,869 (104,869)- 0.00%
2,626,614 598,307 2,028,307 + 22.78%
30,619 16,789 13,830 + 54.83%
784,642 204,869 579,773 + 26.11%
179,905 54,015 125,890 + 30.02%
2,341,333 11,359 2,329,974 + 0.49%
0 11,289 (11,289)- 0.00%
3,429,096 129~295 3~299~801 + 3.77%
13,940,890 2,i60,908 11,779,982 + 15.50~
Item 5.4. Planning Commission minutes for October 30, and November 6,
1990, received as information.
Item 5.5. Letter dated November 9, 1990, from Mr. Larry D. Jackson,
Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Social Services, regarding control-
ling costs for foster. Received as information.
Item 5.6. Letter dated November 9, 1990, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell,
Deputy Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, indicating
that "Arrowhead" (owned by T. K. Woods, Jr.) in Albemarle County is an eligi-
ble historic resource, was received as information.
Item 5.7. Letter dated November 13, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation, enclosing
copies of the Secondary Highway traffic counts taken during the period July to
September, 1990, was received as information.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 13_
(Page 5)
Item 5.8. Letter dated November 15, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation, confirming his
verbal report made to the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1990, regarding
the traffic signal study at the intersection of Route 250 and Route 240 at
Brownsville, received as information.
Item 5.9. Memo dated November 19, 1990, from Mr. Richard P. Moring,
County Engineer, to all waste haulers operating in Albemarle County, giving
notice of an informational meeting on December 7, 1990, at the County Office
Building, was received as information.
Item 5.10. Letter dated November 14, 1990, to the County Attorney from
Mr. W. Clyde Gouldman, II, City Attorney, decling the County's offer to sell
its half of the 418-Fourth Street Property, was received as information.
Item 5.11. Letter dated November 14, 1990, from Mr. Jack Kemp, Secretary
of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, re: accountability
for the integrity of the public housing program, was received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Crozet Housing Project (Deferred from November 14,
~990.)
Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Perkins is ill and asked that the Board defer
this item one week until he can be present for the meeting. If the Board
agrees, Mr. Bowie said staff can present the staff report and then defer the
decision for one week.
Mr. Bain offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer this item to
December 5, 1990, at the request of Mr. Perkins. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, gave the following
staff report:
"The Board of Supervisors directed staff to provide further informa-
tion concerning an alternative access to the Affordable Housing
Subdivision which will minimize, or eliminate, the impact to the
Orchard Acres Subdivision. Staff has identified four possible alter-
natives. Two alternatives are not economically feasible for this
project. Direct access from Route 788 (Railroad Avenue) is not a
viable alternative. VDOT will not approve a new public road railroad
crossing if the site has alternative access. The construction would
also be extremely costly for this. Access directly from Jarman's Gap
Road is very costly for this project, and would likely require that a
full environmental impact statement be developed due to impact to
flood plain, wetlands, and an eligible national historic site.
Access from Blue Ridge Avenue:
An alternative to accessing Cling Stone Lane in the Orchard Acres
Subdivision would be access from Blue Ridge Avenue along an existing
right-of-way which parallels the railroad. Blue Ridge Avenue
presently is of variable width, but generally does not exceed 16 feet
in width. Like Cling Stone Lane and Orchard Drive, this road is not
built to current Virginia Department of Transportation (¥DOT) stan-
dards. There is no improvement project proposed for this road at this
time.
The access road from Blue Ridge Avenue would have to be constructed to
the adequate design standard to accommodate the traffic generated from
adjacent properties which could use the road when developed. The
117
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
estimated construction cost for this road is $150,000. Additional
right-of-way will have to be acquired to permit the construction of a
state road. It is difficult to accurately determine acquisition cost
at this time, but based on assessed values, land cost would be an
additional $15,000 to $20,000.
The net cost added to the project over what was projected using the
Orchard Acres access is estimated to be $60,000 to $65,000. This
would add approximately $1200 to $1300 to the cost of the homes.
To acquire additional right-of-way needed for road construction, the
developers will have to enter into negotiations with the adjacent
property owners and/or the railroad. At least one property owner has
opposed this project and may not be willing to agree to the sale of
land. Lacking such agreement, this alternative would require the
County's condemnation of property in order to obtain sufficient
right-of-way to construct a public road.
Summary:
Cost:
Total construction and right-of-way cost increase =
$165,000 to $170,000
Net cost to project = $60,000 to $65,000
Increase to per unit development cost = $1200 to
$1300/unit
Positives: Eliminates traffic impact to Orchard Acres Subdivision.
Negatives: Redirects traffic impacts to equally substandard street
(Blue Ridge);
Additional land acquisition will be necessary which will
likely require the County to condemn property;
Land negotiation process and new road plan approvals will
delay project development;
Increases the, cost of homes.
While timing of development and cost of housing has been a primary
consideration for this project, this alternative is considered an
acceptable alternative assuming the required property for road con-
struction can and will be acquired.
Access from Blue Ridge Avenue and Cling Stone Lane:
To overcome a single access to either Blue Ridge or Cling Stone Lane,
an option would be to provide access to both Blue Ridge Avenue and
Cling Stone Lane and phase the development. This would permit the
construction of a Phase 1 consisting of 30 units which would access
Cling Stone Lane. This would reduce the traffic impact from a pro-
jected 500 vehicle trips per day to 300 vehicle trips per day. Phase
2, consisting of the remaining 20 units, would be constructed con-
tingent on connection being made to Blue Ridge Avenue.
The projected total cost of this phasing alternative would be higher
than the access only from Blue Ridge Avenue noted above. The in-
creased cost of constructing two accesses would be partially offset by
reduced road construction cost due to lower design standards for the
road access from Blue Ridge Avenue.
Cost:
Net additional cost to project = $135,000 to $140,000
Increase to per unit development cost = $2700 to
$2800/unit
118
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Positives: Permits project development to stay on schedule while
acquiring necessary right-of-way and getting VDOT
approval of road design for the Blue Ridge Avenue access.
Permits better distribution of traffic impacts. Reduces
traffic impact to Orchard Acres over current proposal.
Improves internal road network and creates access
alternative for Orchard Acres Subdivision and other
undeveloped properties.
Negatives: Increases traffic to Orchard Acres Subdivision over
current situation.
Same "negatives" as noted under Blue Ridge access
alternative above.
Summary:.
The Phasing alternative with two access points would permit at least
the first phase of 30 units to be constructed now, and avoid poten-
tially extensive delays for a part of the project development due to
the land negotiation process.
OVERALL SUMMARY:
Two alternatives have been identified, both of which increase develop-
ment costs which have to either be borne by currently identified
funding sources or the home purchasers themselves. No additional
outside funding sources have been identified. The County could offset
some or all of the increased cost by contributing additional funds to
the project."
Mr. Benish handed out a summary of access alternatives dated November 28,
1990. He pointed out that the costs reflect only site development and not
final costs including construction of homes. He said the cost of homes has
not been finalized and will vary based on the type and size of units. The
current estimated final cost for a home in this development, including the
land, is $65,000.
Mr. Bain asked if phasing is permissible under the guidelines of the
grant funds. Mr. Benish responded that it is permissible.
Mr. Bowie said he has spent much time deliberating about this project.
He feels that this project is contrary to what the Board has expressed in the
past as a solution to the County's desire to provide affordable housing. He
said the Board has not considered an alternative project. He asked if it is
possible to provide low-interest loans on existing properties for sale. He
would like to have the answer to that question before voting on this project
next week. According to the Board of Realtors, a few months ago there were
over 70 houses on the market in this area priced between $40,000 and $60,000.
The problem for purchasers is obtaining down payments, low interest rates and
renovation costs. He would like to know if the grant funds can be used for
these purposes.
Mr. Bain concurred and added that he would like to have staff consider
the possibility of locating affordable housing at scattered sites as well.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-90-11 and SP-90-68. Caleb Stowe (applicant);
Ednam House Limited Partnership (owner). Public hearing to consider amending
ZMA-84-12 to allow uses permitted under Sec. 17.2.2.11 on 1.89 acres zoned
R-10, Residential, with PROFFERS (Deferred from November 7, 1990).
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to defer
this item to December 19, 1990, at the request of the applicant.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
119
Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and
reenact Section 8-35b, Chapter 8 of the Albemarle County Code entitled,
"Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space
Real Estate". The ordinance provides for an increase in acreage from five to
twenty acres to qualify under the open space category of this ordinance known
as "Land Use Taxation". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 13 and
November 20, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said staff reviewed the use value taxation program for
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and to measure its success in preserv-
ing agricultural land use. The result was a recommendation that the County
maintain the agricultural, forestal, horticultural and open space uses, but
raise the minimum acreage requirement of the open space category from five to
20 acres in the Rural Areas. He said the Board set a public hearing to
consider this recommendation tonight.
The public hearing was opened and Mr. Kevin Cox came forward to speak.
He expressed concern that this ordinance will revoke the current agricultural
land use tax for parcels under 20 acres. He asked the Board not to adopt the
ordinance for that reason.
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this ordinance is to establish a minimum
acreage for the open space category only. Provisions of all other categories
remain unchanged.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt
an ordinance as set out below, amending Section 8-35(b) of the Code of
Albemarle regarding land use taxation.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article VIII, Chapter 8, of the Code of Albemarle, is
hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows:
Sec. 8-35. Determinations to be made by local officers before
assessment.
Promptly upon receipt of any application and prior to the assess-
ment of any parcel of real estate under this article, the local
assessing officer or the director of finance shall determine whether
the subject property meets the criteria for taxation hereunder:
(a) Determine that the real estate meets the criteria set forth
in section 8-31 above and the standards prescribed thereunder to
qualify for one of the classifications set forth therein, and he may
request an opinion from the director of the department of conservation
and historic resources, the state forester or the commissioner of
agriculture and consumer services; and
(b) Determine further that real estate devoted to (1) agricul-
tural or horticultural use consisting of a minimum of five acres, (2)
forest use consisting of a minimum of twenty acres, and (3) open space
use consisting of a minimum of twenty acres.
120
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
(For State law as to authority of the County to adopt these
amendments, see Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3233.)
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects, Article VIII of
Chapter 8 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective with
the 1991 tax year.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing to consider abandoning all those
public roads located in Albemarle County, Virginia, beginning at the posted
end of State Route 681, 0.56 mile from its intersection with State Route 637,
one or more which are referenced or shown in old deeds or on old plats and
maps as Mountain Road, Woodson Road, McGehee Road, McGee Road, Rockfield
School Road, New Road and Old Road and further shown on map, all of which
cross Lot 13, Section 1, of Rosemont Subdivision, and Albemarle County Tax Map
Section 74, Parcels 5, 45, 57D, 57F, 57G, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,
67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and that portion of 19 that was made a part of Parcels 60
and 61 and further shown on maps. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 13 and November 20, 1990.)
Mr. Bain said he represents one of the applicants, Haley, Chisholm and
Morris, Inc., and will abstain from this discussion. He left the meeting at
8:10 P.M.
Mr. Cilimberg said this is a request for abandonment of old public roads
(rights-of-way) by petition. The staff report was given on September 12,
1990, at which time the Board agreed to set a public hearing to consider this
request. He added that staff was not able to identify any historical signifi-
cance for any of the roads referenced.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Richard Carter representing Haley,
Chisholm and Morris, came forward to speak. He emphasized that the applicants
are not requesting the closure of any private rights-of-way. The request is
for public roads to be abandoned. He said the standard in the State Code used
for abandoning public roads is whether they are deemed necessary for public
use. He said three criteria for applying that standard are the use of the
roads, other existing ways and the physical features of the roads in question.
Mr. Carter said the applicant is not denying that there are public roads on
Ragged Mountain and that they go through Phase II of Rosemont Subdivision.
Approval of this request for abandonment does not affect the roads going
through Rosemont Subdivision because that Subdivision has already been ap-
proved by the County and is being built.
Mr. Carter described the historical use of the roads in question and
noted that there has not been public use since possibly 1941, and positively
not since 1961 without permission being given. Historical uses included
hunting and logging activities, which Mr. Carter says are not being done now.
He said that the owners of Ragged Mountain Farm, the Rock Mill Land Trust and
Rosemont do not use these roads. In fact, Haley, Chisholm and Morris has
cOnstructed a private road in accordance with County standards over some
portions of one of the old roads. No other adjoining landowners or members of
the public have any reason to use the old roads. Therefore, the answer to the
question of current use of the roads is that no one uses them.
Regarding existing ways of access, Mr. Carter said that the Rock Mill
Land Trust property has a 20-foot deeded right-of-way. Rosemont has direct
access to Route 637 through its subdivision road. Ragged Mountain Farm has
frontage on three state-maintained roads in addition to access through
Rosemont Subdivision for the farmhouse itself. All other adjoining properties
have access to state-maintained roads. Therefore, none of the adjoining
landowners depend on these roads for access to state roads.
Regarding the physical features, Mr. Carter said the exact location of
the old public roads is difficult to determine. The width of the roads varies
from place to place. At the widest point, one vehicle may pass. At some
points, there is room only for a man or a horse to travel. Mr. Carter pointed
out that if a member of the public wants to get a logging truck up one of
these roads, the truck will first have to trespass onto the property of one of
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
121
the applicants. Also, trees possibly as large as 24 inches in diameter pre-
vent use of the roads. There are large gullies and ravines which make travel
impossible. Mr. Carter said he was on the road himself in a four-wheel
vehicle, and there were some places the vehicle could not reach. In practi-
cality, if the roads are not abandoned, the physical features prevent the use
of them by the public.
Mr. Carter concluded by saying that these roads serve no purpose for the
public because the public does not use them. They meet no present standard
for public roads, nor for private roads under Albemarle County's ordinances.
He said the roads exist in theory only and not in practicality. Abandonment
of the roads eliminates possible safety hazards to the public and is not being
requested for selfish purposes of the developer. Failure to abandon the roads
does not affect the number of lots in the subdivision. He said the issue is
theory versus practicality. In theory, they are public roads. In practi-
cality, there is no use for them.
Mr. Sidney Smith, representing the Rock Mill Land Trust, said the previ-
ous speaker made these roads sound like an old abandoned pig path. Mr. Smith
then handed out copies of several deeds indicating ownership by the Rock Mill
Land Trust of right-of-way to several of the roads mentioned. He feels that
this road has historical significance because it was designated as a boundary
line between magisterial districts over one hundred and fifty years ago. Mr.
Smith said he wants these roads left open so he can use them. Through the
years he has hauled logs through this way. He is landlocked unless he uses
one of these roads to Route 637 by Route 681. He said the only use for his
land is to raise timber. He said there is a section that he has not used
since 1947 and the bridge is out over that section. Mr. Smith said no one has
ever objected to him coming across a section of their land to the main road
near that point. He said he has hauled timber from there for the past 40
years. Every 15 years he does minor cutting and weeds out the smaller trees.
He said 30-inch oak trees are ready for cutting now.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Smith's position is that these deeds give him a
right-of-way over these roads and he does not want the Board to cut off his
right-of-way. Mr. Smith said his understanding is that if an adjoining
property owner objects to the abandonment of a public road, the road cannot be
closed.
Mr. St. John asked if Mr. Smith's right to use this road is dependent on
the language of these deeds or dependent on it remaining a public road. He
explained that if Mr. Smith has a right from these deeds to get to his land,
then the abandonment of this road as a public road does not affect his private
rights in any way.
Mr. Smith asked if that means that he can build a bridge and go out by
Ragged Mountain Farm. Mr. St. John said he cannot act as Mr. Smith's lawyer,
but if Mr. Smith has a property right (a private right-of-way established by
deed to these roads), then this Board can neither diminish nor increase those
rights. The Board is considering whether to cut off the right of the general
public to use these roads. Mr. St. John said that everybody in the United
States and aliens have a right to go on public roads by any means they can.
He again asked if Mr. Smith is concerned with his right to reach his land on
these roads. Mr. Smith said that is part of his concern.
Mr. Smith said he is claiming that the most feasible way of reaching his
land from a state highway is over a road in question.
Mr. St. John said the question is whether Mr. Smith has a private
right'of-way by virtue of these deeds which the Board cannot diminish or
whether his rights are totally dependent on this remaining a public road. Mr.
St. John pointed out that citizens do not need to come before the Board and
prove that this is a public road. The application is predicated on the fact
that these are assumed to be public roads.
Ms. Beth Marcus from Ragged Mountain Farm said she would like the road
closed to the public because at this time of year she is unable to use her
land because of the access hunters and others have on this road. She said
several times she has been on horseback in the mountains and has been thrown
from the horse because kids on dirt bikes came flying through the woods. She
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
122
said these kids get lost easily because the roads are unclear so they travel
in the horse pastures. She said it is dangerous because of getting lost and
because of the hunters. She said this seems like a public abuse road rather
than a public use road. She has no objection to people hiking through the
woods, but that is not what is happening there.
Mr. Hy Ewald, representing the family partnership which owns the land due
east called the Rock Farm, agreed with Mr. Smith that the property on the
mountain is landlocked. Mr. Ewald said he is not a part of this petition
because apparently Phase II does not come close enough to his farm to warrant
that. However, he is not sure whether his property has right-of-way on the
roads in question. If Phase III comes close to his property, he would hate to
find out that he had a right-of-way and that access had been abandoned by this
action. He said he spent four hours up on this mountain and could see plenty
of evidence of big wide roads, but it is impossible for him to say which is
the right-of-way to get back down the mountain. He said there is enough
question about these roads and rights-of-way that he feels they should not be
abandoned until further research is done. As far as he can tell, these roads
are the only access to the piece of property he owns on this mountain, but he
does not know which are public rights-of-way.
Mr. Mike Boggs, Vice President of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, said the
evidence presented by Mr. Smith proves he has a private right-of-way, and the
applicants have no intention of harming or removing his right-of-way. He said
there is no mention of public rights in these deeds.
Mr. St. John said there is mention of public roads in the deeds Mr. Smith
presented. Mr. Boggs said there was a 50-foot right-of-way which was created
in 1977 over the old public McGehee Road for the direct benefit of Rosemont
only.
Mr. St. John said a quick way to resolve this matter tonight is for the
applicant to guarantee that if the deeds do not show a complete right-of-way,
the applicants will give all the property owners a right-of-way to take the
place of the public road. There would then be no need for the public road.
If the applicant is not willing to do that, there appears to be a serious
question about whether citizens are dependent on this as a public road.
Mr. Boggs said he is sure that Mr. Smith has not used the roads since
1961. The bridge washed out in 1940; therefore, it is reasonable to assume
that he has not used the roads since that time. Mr. Boggs said the applicants
have problems with hunters, all-terrain vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles
coming over this property because it is impossible to determine which are the
public roads. He said it is a public nuisance and it will cost the County to
enforce the private landowners' rights. He said hunters are especially a
problem. Mr. Boggs said he does not disagree with Mr. Ewald, except that he
feels that Mr. Ewald's access is better served through his own property. He
is not landlocked because he owns land all the way to Route 637.
Mr. Boggs then showed pictures depicting the impassable condition of the
roads. Mr. Boggs said he has a copy of the first State highway maps in 1932
showing what the State Highway Department took over at that time. He said it
distinctly shows a straight road to a sign indicating end of state maintenance
for .75 miles. The 1945 map shortened that road to .60 miles. Mr. Boggs said
he has copies of the first United States Geological Survey (USGS) map ever
made in 1931 and aerial photographs of the whole area from 1937 indicating
that the other roads in the area were used more than the public road on the
applicant's property. Mr. Boggs feels that there is no direct benefit whatso-
ever to the public in keeping these roads open.
Mr. Jake Sprouse said he used to live up on the mountain in question. He
said there was a sign indicating the end of state maintenance where one road
went down the mountain and the other came out through Ragged Mountain Farm.
He said he always used that road.
Mrs. Jessie Forbes said she also remembers the sign up on the mountain
indicating the end of state maintenance.
There being no other members of the public who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowie said with this much confusion over the roads, he could not
support abandonment tonight. He noted that if there are hunters on this
private property, they are trespassing. If people are riding on private
property on motor bikes, they are trespassing. It is up to the citizens there
to take action on that. Mr. Bowie added that he drove out to the property
himself, and could not find a road.
Mrs. Humphris said she needs clarification from the County Attorney and
would like to defer this to another date because it is incredibly confusing.
She said the material she has does not clarify her question.
Mr. St. John said although the citizens are well meaning who testify
about the state maintenance sign, it has nothing to do with this request for
abandonment. The question is whether the public needs thes~ roads to be
public roads.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is possible for the County Attorney to prepare
for the Board a memo clarifying all the legalities of the situation to help
the Board in making its decision. Mr. St. John said that is possible, but he
needs clarification from the Board as to what it wants in the memo. He said
the applicable law is simple.' The Board should not abandon any road if there
are citizens dependent on it remaining a public road in order to reach their
property. Secondly, citizens who have deeded rights-of-way do not need these
roads to remain public roads. Citizens who reach their property over a public
road with no deeded right-of-way will be affected by the abandonment of this
road. He said he can put that in a memo if that is what the Board wants. He
said he can do a title search if that is what the Board wants, but he person-
ally does not feel that that is what the Board should do.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels the proper way to approach this is what Mr.
St. John suggested much earlier. That is, if the applicant can assure the
property owners who are affected by these roads that they have access to their
property, then there is no purpose to be served anymore by a public designa-
tion for this roadway. He feels that is the best solution to the problem.
Mr. Bowie said it seems that something can be worked out between the
applicant and the property owners. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Mr. Bowie added that
he does not believe it is the County Attorney's job to work out such an
agreement.
Mr. St. John said he disagrees with Mr. Carter on one point. He said a
public road is presumed to be 30 feet wide. If members of the public have a
right to use it as a public road, then they have a right to 30 feet from the
centerline. The burden is on someone else to prove that it is less than that.
That is the difference in a public road and a private right-of-way. He
recommends that the Board defer this item until further research can be done.
Mr. Bowie said there may be another way for these citizens to get to
their property. He would like the question addressed as to the legalities of
an alternative access. Mr. Bowerman said there is no way for this Board to
resolve this question without the applicant making some assurance. He pointed
out that if this request comes back and no resolution has been reached between
the applicant and the property owners, this Board does not want to become a
judge over the legal access.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to defer
this item to December 12, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-90-18. J. S. & Frances Barnett. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 1.7 acres from Light Industry to Highway Commercial
(PROFFERED). Property on west side of Rt 742 approx 2/10 mi south of Corporate
Limits of Charlottesville. Tax Map 77, Parcel 8A. Scottsville Dist. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on November 13 and 20, 1990.)
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
12
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows:
"CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The site is the previous location of Herring
Auto Sales. The properties surrounding this site are zoned LI, Light
Industry, and are used for various industrial activities.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to rezone the
property to HC, Highway Commercial, with proffers. The proposed use
of the site is motor vehicle sales and repair.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This parcel is located in Neighborhood 4 along
Route 742 (Avon Street), north of Interstate 64, and is currently
designated for Industrial Service on the land use map. Highway
Commercial uses are usually equated with Regional and Community
Service Areas. Staff believes the proposed rezoning would be incon-
sistent with the surrounding land use designation and such a request
requires a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Also, it is recommended in
the Comprehensive Plan that automobile dealerships locate in areas
designated for Regional Service. While not specifically recommended
in the Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that the following be
addressed to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan:
Ensure that Moores Creek is protected from gas or oil runoff as a
result of the repairs to automobiles.
Soften the visual impact of the proposed use from Route 742 by
vegetative plantings.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has submitted a description
and justification for this request. The applicant cites the historic
use of the site for motor vehicle sales and repair as a justification
for the current request. The use of the site for motor vehicle sales
and repairs is nonconforming and may continue. However, the noncon-
forming use may not be expanded. Approval of this rezoning request
will allow the construction of additional building space and a general
intensification of use. The applicant cites as further justification
for the request the existence of other commercial uses in the area.
Staff notes that the uses cited by the applicant are industrial in
nature or were included in rezonings which were proffered so as to
restrict the uses or insure compatibility with adjacent uses.
The applicant's proffers are intended to retain uses which are also
allowed in the LI district and allow for the use of the property for
motor vehicle sales and repair. In addition, the applicant has prof-
fered a minimum setback of 40 feet which is 10 feet greater than that
required in the HC district. A proffer has also been submitted which
restricts the total square footage of all buildings on the site to
5000 square feet.
The applicant has submitted no proffers regarding planting which would
be intended to soften the visual impact of the development. The
applicant has stated that the 'disposal of all oil related products
shall conform to the required EPA standards. In this particular case,
all used oil shall be carried from the site to a proper disposal site
in conformance with EPA requirements. This operation, therefore,
shall not impact on Moore's Creek'.
Staff offers the following comments which are favorable to the appli-
cant's request:
The proffers limit the use of the site to uses allowed in the LI
district and limited commercial uses.
e
The applicant has proffered a greater setback than required by
the HC zone which will tend to improve the visual appearance of
the site.
Staff offers the following comments which are un£avorable to the
applicant's request:
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 125
(Page 14)
1. The request is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Should
this request be approved, staff recommends that the Comprehensive
Plan be amended.
The proposed zoning may result in an increase in traffic when
compared to existing zoning. Current zoning may generate 88
vehicle trips per day while the proposed zoning could generate 95
to 808 vehicle trips per day based on ITE.
o
The applicant currently has a nonconforming use which would allow
for motor vehicle sales and repair. This request allows for
expansion of that use.
The existing structure contains no specialized equipment for the
repair of motor vehicles.
The development community has consistently criticized the County
as to the lack of industrial land served by public water, public
sewer, major highway and with reasonable topography. The site
has access to public water and sewer.
In consideration of the above stated reasons, staff recommends denial
of ZMA-90-18, J. S. or Frances Barnett. Should the Planning Commis-
sion and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff
recommends the acceptance of the applicant's proffers."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 6,
1990, unanimously recommended denial of this petition.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Zoning Administrator has not made a determi-
nation as to whether the auto sales previously conducted on this site are an
allowed nonconforming use. References within the staff report to nonconform-
ing use of the property are actually still in question.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the existing use was grandfathered. Mr. Cilimberg
said he understands that the most recent use was not grandfathered. He said
the question is whether or not auto sales actually took place at this site.
If auto sales did take place, that is a nonconforming use.
Mr. St. John said in his opinion, there clearly were auto sales at one
time, and that was grandfathered. If a grandfathered use is abandoned for two
years for another use, then the question becomes whether the grandfathered use
can continue. That is the history of this property.
Mr. Cilimberg said it is still under review to determine whether an
interim use took place and if the original nonconforming use is grandfathered.
The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Bill Porter representing the
applicant, came forward to speak. Mr. Porter said Herring Auto Sales was
located at this site until August, 1990. The problem is that no sales were
shown from that time on. Mr. Herring apparently had licenses in two locations
and sold vehicles at one site and processed the paperwork at the other site.
Mr. Porter showed pictures taken in April, 1990, of cars with sale stickers on
them. However, he said the point is moot because the buyer is proposing to
locate an expanded used car, general repair service on this property. Even if
the use were grandfathered, it would not meet the needs of the buyer. The
site cannot be expanded under the grandfathered guidelines. He said a
grandfathered use ruling does not help the applicant's case.
Mr. Porter handed out a two-page proposed site plan sketch. The site
plan approved in 1980 was never carried out. He said the first thing the
buyer will do is file an amended site plan. He said the basic intent of this
request is to allow Highway Commercial uses, limited by proffers. In effect,
with the exception of used car sales, service and repair, the use will be the
same as a Light Industrial area. He noted that there are several uses sur-
rounding this property which are HC in nature, such as towing and storage, two
junk yards, a bus yard, retail sales, farm equipment sales and repair, etc.
He said the use requested is not totally out of character with the uses in the
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting) 12~
(Page 15)
area. Mr. Porter said a precedent has been set in the County with Robertson
Electric which was allowed to change its zoning in a specific area with
significant proffering. He said the basic character of the original zoning
- was maintained, but the zoning designation was changed to meet a specific
need.
Mr. Porter said there is a need for this kind of operation in this part
of the County. Most used car sales and service uses are located on Route 250
East or Route 29 North, with little service in the southern and western parts
of the County. He said the Planning Commission expressed a concern about how
oil would be handled on the site. He said that is addressed in the proposal.
Mr. Porter said the Planning Commission talked about traffic increasing from
95 to 808. He said that refers to a HC designation in general, and he doubts
that the traffic increase will be that large.
Mr. Porter passed out photographs of the prospective buyer's current
business on Pantops Mountain. He said that the buyer's reputation is that of
offering quality service and he expects there will be top quality at the
proposed location as well.
Mr. Porter said the extensive proffers, with the exception of used car
sales, service and repair, are common to both LI and HC zoning designations.
Proffers also include a 40-foot setback, which is more than that required in
HC zoning. In addition, the proffers limit the size of the building to 5000
square feet. He said that total includes the existing small building and the
addition of a new repair building. He then handed out a last proffer dated
November 28, 1990, regarding landscaping. He concluded that the applicant
wants to maintain the integrity and character of LI zoning, but is requesting
HC zoning so that a top quality, used imported car sales and service business
can operate here. He said this use will enhance the area and he asked the
Board to favorably consider this request.
Mr. Floyd Artrip, owner of the Astec Center, said the site in question is
across the street from his business. He said it is an understatement to say
the site has been an eyesore in the past. Regarding the historic use of this
site for used car sales, Mr. Artrip feels that used cars were placed on the
site to forestall action by the Zoning Administrator for violations of the
zoning ordinance. His opinion is that cars were never sold from this loca-
tion. Mr. Artrip said the applicant cites uses which are grandfathered under
the Zoning Ordinance as justification for approval of this request. He feels
that this request is actually spot zoning and approval would be regressive
action on the part of the Board. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan
calls for LI in this area and the County has very little LI designation as it
is. His understanding is that Albemarle County needs LI zoning for the kind
of growth that the Board of Supervisors and the public desires to see. He
agreed that the south side of the County has been under-utilized and is an
eyesore, but the solution is not to approve a spot zoning request. The
solution is to follow the plans currently in place in the Comprehensive Plan.
He said the grandfathered uses will feel the pressure to improve as more
desirable activities are allowed in this area.
Mr. Gary Edgecomb, future owner of the property in question, said he is
licensed in the City and the County. He said his plans are for a high quality
operation. He noted that his business has a good reputation already, although
his current site is not as attractive as he would like it to be. He feels
that improving the site at Pantops would be a wasted effort, due to the plans
for widening Route 250. Mr. Edgecomb said there is very little highway
commercial property available that is affordable. He said this area needs
this type of service, although it does not exactly fit the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Edgecomb said he will abide by the requirements of the amended zoning and
is willing to make reasonable improvements to the site.
Mrs. Frances Barnett, applicant, said there is a problem in the City and
the County regarding an overabundance of office space available for sale or
rent. She said this area is definitely overbuilt and there are numerous
office buildings for rent. She feels that there would be little need for
additional office space on her property and asked the Board to consider this
change for a use that is needed.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
127
There being no other members of the public present to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he has mixed feelings about the property. The request was
denied by the Planning Commission and recommended for denial by the staff
because the property is currently zoned Light Industrial. On the other hand,
he is familiar with the property and the various uses which have gone on
there. Mr. Way said across the road from the site is the City's bus garage
and the self-storage warehouses. He personally cannot see how this type of
operation can do anything other than tremendously improve the property. He
agreed that the two grandfathered junk yards on Route 1101 probably should not
be there. Mr. Way noted that Avon Street has a mixture of commercial, light
industrial and residential. He feels that this application proffers every-
thing out with the exception of a use which has been taking place on this site
for 15 years anyway. He personally feels that this use would add to this
area, especially in light of the proffer dealing with landScaping. He said
this application will provide a service to citizens in southern Albemarle
County. Therefore, he is willing to approve thiS application.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the by-right uses listed under HC could be allowed
under this spot rezoning should this buyer not purchase the property or decide
not to use the property as requested. Mr. Cilimberg said all of the uses
listed, with the exception of automobile, truck repair shops, are allowed
under the existing LI zoning as well.
Mr. Bain asked if everything on both sides of the road north of 1-64 to
the City limits is zoned Light Industrial. Mr. Cilimberg said all the sur-
rounding properties are zoned LI with the exception of Willoughby and the
grandfathered junk yards.
Mrs. Humphris asked about staff's recommendation to amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan should this request be approved. Mr. Cilimberg said the Comprehen-
sive Plan is typically amended to coincide with rezonings along Avon Street.
He said the Comprehensive Plan could simply note that a small area is desig-
nated for commercial use but is not intended to be expanded.
Mr. Bowie said he drives by Mr. Edgecomb's present location every day and
feels that the facility is as well cared for as an auto sales facility can be.
Mr. Bain said he feels this is a close question. He said there is no
doubt that the proposed use with the landscaping proffer will be better than
the past and existing uses. However, the inconsistency with the Comprehensive
Plan gives him pause.
Mr. Way said the proposed use is currently allowed if the additional
building is not built. Mr. Cilimberg said that is dependent on the Zoning
Administrator's determination of whether the nonconforming use has been
discontinued.
Mr. Bain said that assuming that the nonconforming use has not been
discontinued, this request is simply putting one more building on the prop-
erty. Mr. Bain said he is willing to reconsider the zoning designation for
the whole area. He is reluctant to make this change because of the precedent
involved.
Mr. Way said he understands Mr. Bain's feeling. However, it seems
logical to allow this use in the proposed location. Therefore, Mr. Way
offered a motion to approve ZMA-90-18, with the proffers given, including the
proffer given tonight regarding landscaping and dated November 28, 1990, and
in accordance with the design presented tonight. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Mr. Bowerman said he feels this is a close question. Common sense says
that this is almost identical to past uses and to other uses in the area. He
does not see this as a significant change from the uses along that corridor
and he will support the motion.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said the Plan is to be used as a guide for land use in all areas
of the County. He feels that this use in this area is not of substantial or
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
12
even significant detriment to the Plan or to what the Board visualizes for
Avon Street. If this were a straight HC rezoning request without proffers, he
would not support it. He said Avon Street is a hodge-podge of zoning so it is
difficult to classify. The designation of this site with proffers in no way
detracts from the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in his opinion. He feels
this is a judgment call and that it is a legitimate request.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan if
this is approved. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks not.
Mr. Bowie said regardless of the results of this motion, the Board should
review Avon Street as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees that this is a difficult question. She
said she is very familiar with this road and has visited this particular site.
She agreed that Mr. Edgecomb's plan will be superior to the condition of this
site for the past number of years. She said she shares Mr. Bain's reluctance,
but her common sense tells her that this use may be the best thing for this
particular property.
There was no further discussion on the application. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(The proffers are set out in full below.)
The new HC zoning will be so structured with substantial proffer-
ing to allow the site to retain its LI character, not only in
function but in design. The following uses (by right in an HC
designation) will not be allowed in the new HC zoning:
1. Automobile laundries.
2. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20).
3. Building material sales.
4. Churches, cemeteries.
5. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference
5.1.22).
6. Convenience store.
7. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric.
8. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22).
9. Financial institutions.
10. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service.
11. Funeral homes.
12. Furniture stores.
13. Food and grocery stores including such speciality shops as
bakery, candy, milk dispensary, and wine and cheese shops.
14. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning,
exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance
services.
15. Hardware.
16. Hotels, motels and inns.
17. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental.
18. Mobile home and trailer sales and service.
19. Modular building sales.
20. New automotive parts sales.
21. Office and business machines sales and service.
22. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants.
23. Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
24. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles.
25. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (refer-
ence 5.1.19).
26. Indoor theaters.
27. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20).
The HC zoning as requested by this application will, however,
allow the following uses by right:
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
129
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Automobile, truck repair shops.
Educational, technical and trade schools.
Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9).
Light warehousing.
Motor vehicle sales, service and rental.
Newspaper publishing.
Administrative, business and professional offices.
Wholesale distribution.
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
multi-legged tower structures and including poles, lines,
transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and operated by a
public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection
lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated
by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as
otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and
central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of
the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law.
Public uses and buildings such as schools, offices, parks,
playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local,
state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water
and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference
31.2.5; 5.1.12).
Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8).
The following uses will be allowed in this particular HC zoning
by Special Use Permit:
Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related
towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and
appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-
wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, sub-
stations and appurtenances. (reference 5.1.2).
Contractor's office and equipment storage yard.
II. The total square footage of all buildings on the site shall not
exceed 5000 square feet.
III. Minimum setbacks for all buildings will be 40 feet from the
property lines bordering both roads.
IV.
We proffer that street shrubs shall be planted in two rows along
the front of the property on State Route 742. The shrubs shall
be spaced five feet on center and the rows shall be staggered
(proposed site plan on file). We also proffer to install rows of
pine trees four to six feet in height adjacent to State Route
1101. The trees shall be spaced ten feet on center in two rows
and the rows will be evenly staggered (see attached proposed site
plan).
Mr. Bowie then asked if Board members wish to schedule a review of the
Comprehensive Plan to consider Avon Street.
Mr. St. John said his remarks are not to discourage the Board from making
such a review. However, his opinion is that the action just taken by the
Board does not necessitate such a general review. He said this action is not
in violent, direct conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. It is a close call
as to whether the proposed use belongs in HC or in LI. For that reason he
does not feel that the Comprehensive Plan needs to be changed or that a review
is necessary as a result of this decision.
Mr. Bain said the Comprehensive Plan is to be reviewed on an annual
basis. Mr. Bowie said that Avon Street can then be added to the list for
general review during the annual update of the Comprehensive Plan.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA-90-23. Buck Mountain Planned Unit Development
Comprehensive Rezoning. Public hearing on a request to rezone 435.558 ac from
Planned Unit Development to Rural Areas; and 237.976 ac from PUD to Planned
- Residential Development. The entire property, Tax Map 17, Parcels 26A-26G,
Parcels 49-74 and 98-115, located in southeast quadrant of intersection of Rts
601 & 671 approx three mi north of Free Union. White Hall Dist. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 13 and November 20, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said that on September 4, 1990, the Planning Commission, at
staff request adopted a resolution of intent to rezone the Buck Mountain PUD
(673.534 acres) to Buck Mountain Planned Residential Development (237.976
acres) and to Rural Areas (435.558 acres) to more accurately reflect the uses
for the area which have occurred over time and to reflect more accurately the
goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. He said staff's opinion is
that PUD zoning is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and it recommended
rezoning. He said the rezoning would allow developed portions of the project
with attendant open space areas to remain under a planned development desig-
nation. Undeveloped properties would be rezoned to Rural Areas, thereby
significantly reducing development potential. One property which was desig-
nated for commercial use (Tax Map 17, Parcel 26a) under the PUD would become
residential under the PRD zoning. The zoning change from PUD to PRD would not
affect the use of any other property.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 16,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning.
The public hearing was opened. 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 Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to
approve ZMA-90-23 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(Following is a listing of properties affected and the new zoning desig-
nation as a result of the Board's action.)
Tax Map/Parcel New Zoning Acreage
17-26A PRD 0.469
17-26B RA 26.890
17-26C RA 211.320
17-26D RA 56.710
17-26E RA 42.600
17-26F RA 55.920
17-26G RA 42.118
17-49 PRD 4.874
17-50 PRD 3.256
17-51 PRD 4.030
17-52 PRD 3.836
17-53 PRD 5.348
17-54 PRD 4.767
17-55 PRD 4.717
17-56 PRD 4.071
17-59 PRD 5.152
17-60 PRD 10.386
17-61 PRD 8.275
17-62 PRD 5.854
17-63 PRD 5.347
17-64 PRD 5.547
17-65 PRD 6.371
17-66 PRD 4.370
17-67 PRD 3.971
17-68 PRD 3.718
17-69 PRD 3.159
17-70 PRD 8.680
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
17-72 PRD 3.459
17-73 PRD 3.095
17-74 PRD 4.179
17-98 PRD 4.488
17-99 PRD 3.551
17-100 PRD 4.211
17-101 PRD 3.774
17-102 PRD 4.089
17-103B PRD 1.405
17-103 PRD 2.837
17-104A PRD 1.423
17-104B PRD 1.413
17-104 PRD 1.412
17-105A PRD 1.388
17-105B PRD 1.422
17-105 PRD 1.380
17-106 PRD 3.101
17-107 PRD 3.163
17-108 PRD 3.777
17-109 PRD 4.009
17-110 PRD 4.101
17-111 PRD 4.988
17-112 PRD 6.435
17-113 PRD 5.464
17-114 PRD 4.010
17-115 PRD 49.204
131
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: September 5, October 3 and
October 16, 1990.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes for October 3, 1990 (N), Pages 16 to
32, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for October 3, 1990 (N), Pages 32 to the
end, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for October 3, 1990 (N), Pages 6 to 16, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Cancel/Reschedule January 2, 1991,
Board Me~ting.
Mr. Bowie said he was asked by a Board member to put this item on the
agenda for discussion. He prefers to have the full Board present for the
organizational meeting, if possible. He noted that there are also six public
hearings currently scheduled.
Mrs. Humphris said based on the Board's set schedule, she has planned her
winter vacation beginning on January 18. If the meetings are shifted one
week, she will not be in town.
Mr. Way said he asked for this discussion because he anticipated being
out of town. However, his plans have changed and he does not object to
leaving the meeting as scheduled.
The Board agreed to leave the January 2 meeting as scheduled.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
132
Agenda Item No. 14. Report: Student Exchange Program
Mr. Bowie reported that he met with the representatives from Italy to
discuss the Student Exchange Prograun. He met with Mr. Giuseppe Cavalca, Mr.
Sergio Pezzati and Mr. Luigi Rimbotti; members of the School Boards from the
City and Cotunty and representatives of the City and County gover~unents. As
the Board directed him, Mr. Bowie told the meeting that the Board would be
happy to see this program proceed, but feels it is a School Division responsi-
bility. Since that time, he has heard unofficially that the City School Board
did not appropriate the $10,000 for the program. The Albemarle County School
Board decided not to fund the progrem as well.
Mr. Way said when this program began, it was one of the few foreign
exchange experiences that Albemarle County students could have. That is no
longer the case and there are many trips available now to students. In fact,
he thinks it is difficult to find students who are actually interested in the
program.
There was no further discussion regarding this matter.
Agenda Item No. 15. Clarification of Resolution Re: Tax Exemption for
The Meadows Housing Corporation.
Mr. Agnor said the Board adopted a resolution on November 14, 1990,
recommending tax exemption for The Meadows Housing Corporation. A new re-
quirement of the State Code is that the local governing body include in the
resolution a recommendation to the General Assembly for a specific classifica-
tion. Mr. George Allen, who drafted the State legislation, recommends that
this property be classified as a benevolent organization. It is necessary to
add a sentence to the resolution indicating that classification. He said that
no further public hearing is required.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to incor-
porate the benevolent classification as recommended. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
(The amended resolution follows:)
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;
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
133
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, after examining Section 30-19.04.B, recommends that The
Meadows Housing Corporation be classified as a benevolent organization
for the purpose of obtaining tax exempt status for property known as
"The Meadowlands"; 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.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
Mr. Bowie said a letter has been drafted to Mr. John Milliken, Secretary
of Transportation, resulting from concerns that he and Mrs. Humphris had after
hearing the presentation at Natural Bridge and at Manassas regarding Route 29
North. The two presentations made to the Commonwealth Transportation Board
were different and comments made by VDoT staff afterward did not seem to echo
either presentation.
Mr. Bowie asked the Board to look over the draft and make any changes by
tomorrow. Mr. Way suggested a minor rewording for clarification.
Mrs. Humphris said YDoT had a position paper at Natural Bridge and then a
new document was presented at Manassas dated November 9. She said no one had
seen the final position paper until it was presented in Manassas. She said
the major problem is the statement which says, "In summary, the engineering,
traffic and environmental data developed for this study shows that alternative
10 is the best long range solution." Mrs. Humphris said that is not true, but
is the case made throughout this document. In light of this statement, Mrs.
Humphris feels this letter to Mr. Milliken should express more strongly the
depth of the Board's concerns.
Mr. Bowerman said he left the Manassas meeting feeling that he had never
been beaten so badly in his life by the 13/3 vote of the Commonwealth Trans-
portation Board. He realized that all the work put into the Route 29 North
effort meant nothing and that what counted was political clout. The recommen-
dations voted on had nothing to do with the facts or the draft EIS or the $3.0
million spent by the S~m~~.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels the Board should be looking at possible
legal remedies.
Mr. Bowie said he would rather get some legal counsel in executive
session. He does not want this particular letter to attack the decision after
the fact. He simply is asking for clarification of the decision. Mrs.
Humphris said she is concerned about time constraints with regard to appealing
the Commonwealth Transportation Board's decision.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
134
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney about the time constraints. Mr. St.
John said that Code Section 33.1-18 says that deciding the location of high-
ways is the function of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The procedure
for locating or re-locating a highway is that they must file a report showing
the location of the highway with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and must
advertise in the paper. Within 30 days of that time, the governing body or
any 50 freeholders may apply for a re-hearing. If a re-hearing is applied
for, it must be held. The decision made after the second hearing shall be
final. He said no document has been filed by YDoT in the Clerk's Office as
yet. Therefore, the 30 days have not started to run. Mr. St. John said there
is no judicial review of an appeal. He said the County could look at a
collateral attack and at that point of discussion, the Board would need to go
into Executive Session.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it is a good idea to get together with Mr.
Milliken as a first step, as the letter suggests.
Mrs. Humphris asked what the term, location of the road, means with
regard to filing a report with the Clerk's Office. Mr. St. John said the Code
does not spell out the detail, but his opinion is that a map with locatable
lines on it so that a surveyor could find the alignment will serve the pur-
pose.
Mr. Bowie said the first step is to find out exactly what the decision
made by the Commonwealth Transportation Board entails. When the location is
filed, the Board can then consider the appeal process.
Mr. Bain asked if the use of federal funds was discussed in either of the
presentations attended by Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. Mrs. Humphris said it
was stated repeatedly that this road is to be built exclusively with state
funds. Mr. St. John said the elaborate environmental impact procedure in
itself indicates that the road is being treated as if it has federal funding.
Mr. Agnor recommended that the draft letter contain a request for the
date of filing the location of the road pursuant to Code Section 33.1-18 with
the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
There were no other changes made to the draft letter to Mr. Milliken.
Mrs. Humphris offered a motion to adjourn into Executive Session to
discuss legal matters concerning Route 29. Mr. Bowerman said he will second
the motion, but he does not want to waste the time.
Mr. Bain said he is not ready to have an Executive Session on this
matter. Mr. Bowie agreed and said he would rather have an answer from Mr.
Milliken before doing anything else. Mr. Bowerman said everything is hypo-
thetical until the decision is clarified. The Board has 30 days by statute
after the decision is filed, and the decision has not been filed yet.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that the Board will benefit by counsel from
the County Attorney in its deliberations on this matter. Mr. St. John said he
could give the Board a "bird's eye view" of the legal process in a few min-
utes.
The Clerk noted that the motion is incomplete because it does not cite a
Code Section.
Mr. Way said there are some gentlemen in the audience who are waiting to
speak, and he would like to do that before adjourning into executive session.
Mr. Bowie agreed to finish the agenda and then vote on the question,
provided the Board agrees. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman agreed to defer the
motion and the second until Agenda Item No. 16 is completed.
Regarding COnsent Agenda Item 5.9, Mr. Agnor said an informational
briefing will be made to the Board in December by the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority staff before the public hearing is held in December regarding
imposition of tipping fees at the Ivy Landfill. He said there have been so
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
135
many meetings and hearings on the Solid Waste Authority that he cannot under-
stand how citizens feel that they have not been informed. Mr. Agnor said the
news media coverage has been fairly extensive as well. The Solid Waste
Authority has had two meetings to date and is planning two night meetings per
month. He said the first hearing on the tipping fees will be in December,
with a target date of implementation by mid-fiscal year. He said the Authori-
ty heard from the private haulers who spoke tonight and who have formed the
Jefferson Country Trash Association. He said the Authority heard their
concerns about collecting fees in January and their problems with dealing with
billing their customers. He said the Authority agreed that they would consid-
er those things at the public hearing. He said the Authority will address how
to accommodate the private haulers' collection needs. He added that staff is
being as candid as possible in answering questions. However, there are legal
requirements which do not allow decisions to be made until the public hearing
requirements are met.
Mr. Bowie asked if all of this information will be heard and the decision
made as to when to implement or whether to delay the implementation at the
time of the public hearing. Mr. Agnor said that is correct and that has been
indicated to the private haulers.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mr. Agnor's statments. However, as part of
establishing the Solid Waste Authority and establishing tipping fees, there
was supposed to be substantial emphasis placed on educating the public. Mr.
Bain feels that the public has not been informed and that is the major issue.
The public does not know anything at all about the solid waste plans. The
education process, which was emphasized by the initial task force on solid
waste, has not happened.
Mr. Agnor said hearings, advertisements and open public discussions have
taken place. He asked what other education Mr. Bain has in mind. Mr. Bain
responded that the communication to the haulers should have been more and much
earlier in the process. He said the idea was to get the message out to the
people of the County. He said a meeting was held at Walton School recently
and he understands that no citizen attended. Mr. Bain said his understanding
was that the fee went from $19.00/ton to $32.00/ton at the first meeting of
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to cover the cost of closing the landfill.
He said that is a critical issue for the citizens of the County, not just for
the haulers. If citizens are not going to cooperate with the disposal ef-
forts, it defeats the purpose of setting up the Authority. He said he under-
stands that the educational process is not going to happen immediately, but he
feels that it could have happened better.
Mr. Agnor said the $19.75 fee represented an adjusted tonnage fee sched-
ule to accommodate the City's general fund budget. The Authority decided not
to begin a tipping fee and have to adjust it before the first fiscal year was
completed. He said the initial fee would not generate enough money to operate
the landfill. Therefore, the Authority changed the figure to a more realistic
one. in an open meeting. He said the figure was also increased because it is
felt that the tonnage will drop simply because a tipping fee is instituted.
The increase takes that fact into account as well. Mr. Agnor said the new
figure does not collect the closing fees for the Ivy Landfill up front. That
will be taken care of by borrowing.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that the haulers know the time frame as a
result of this public hearing so that they can run their businesses. He said
there seems to be some miscommunication. He noted that he went to the land-
fill on Saturday and the fees were posted with an effective date of January 1.
He said there was no mention of a public hearing.
Mr. Tucker said that there probably could be improvements in the educa-
tion of the public on this issue. However, it took longer to get the Authori-
ty established than anticipated which has caused the process to be moved along
more quickly thereafter. He said the current budget does not contain funds
for the landfill through the entire fiscal year because it was anticipated
that the Authority would be created and tipping fees established. That was
another reason to move forward quickly once the Authority was established. He
said it is possible to shift the initiation of the fee structure back, and
that was indicated to the private haulers at the last hearing of the Solid
Waste Authority. Mr. Tucker said that the County Engineer will attempt to
start the education process on December 7.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
136
Mr. Bain said at the December 12 meeting he would like the opportunity
for these interested parties to have their questions answered.
Mr. Way said anything the County can do to get the facts out to the
public should be done.
Mr. Agnor said he understands that the customers of private haulers are
being told that the elected officials have no control over the Solid Waste
Authority. Mr. Agnor said that is incorrect because four out of the five
members of the Authority are direct employees of the elected governing bodies
of the City and the County and serve at the pleasure of the Board of Supervi-
sors and City Council.
Mr. Bain said possibly it would be helpful for someone other than, or in
addition to, the County Engineer to meet with the private haulers to enhance
the communication at the December 7 informational meeting.
Regarding Consent Agenda Item 5.10, Mr. Bain asked what happens next
regarding the sale of the Fourth Street property. Mr. Bowie said he is
frustrated that the sale did not go through because it was a good deal. He
said possibly the County should go back to the City and ask what their plans
are for the property. Mr. Bain concurred.
Mr. Agnor said he believes the City is readvertising and beginning the
process over again. He said he would try to obtain a time frame from the City
for disposal of the property.
Mr. Agnor said he received a letter from the Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources indicating that the State has plans to consolidate
Social Service agencies. Local governments will have a choice by March 1 as
to whether to regionalize the administration of their social services staff.
If the locality elects not to do that, state funding will be discontinued
beginning July 1, 1991, for social service departments. The letter indicates
that this is a budgetary measure resulting in a $2.0 million savings beginning
fiscal year 1991-92 for the State and $1.0 million for the localities. More
information is to be presented to localities during the month of December.
Mr. Agnor said the letter states that eligibility workers and social service
staff will not be diminished. The intent is not to reduce services to clients
in any way. Rather, groups of agencies are going to be placed under a single
administration responsibility.
Mr. Bowie said review of a new Community Facilities Plan has been com-
pleted by the Planning Commission, and is scheduled for the Board's review on
December 19. He asked Board members if they wished to schedule a work session
rather than a public hearing on December 19. The Board agreed to schedule a
work session first, but no date was set.
The Chairman called for the previous motion which was deferred in order
to hear two consent agenda items. The County Attorney restated the motion to
adjourn into Executive Session to consult with legal counsel regarding poten-
tial litigation in connection with the Commonwealth Transportation Board's
decision on Route 29 North under Code Section 2.1-344-A.7.
Mr. Bowerman said he is concerned that this motion will send a message
that he is not sure the Board should send. Mr. St. John said this should not
send a message that the Board has declared war over this issue. He will
simply give the Board an overview of the possible grounds for any collateral
attack. He said no one knows if the grounds exist until this draft letter is
answered. However, he feels there is nothing wrong with having a contingency
plan.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowie.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
November 28, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
~37
(Mr. Bain left at 11:10 P.M.)
The Board recessed into Executive Session at 11:10 P.M. and reconvened
into open session at 11:40 P.M.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Way certifying the
Executive Session as set out below. Roll was called and the mOtion carried by
the following recorded vote:
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:
Mr. Bowie, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE:
Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Bain and Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn to December 5, 1990 at 3:00 P.M. for Execu-
tive Session.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:42 P.M without any motion being made for
a December 5 meeting.
CHAIRMAN