1990-08-01August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on August 1, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, ¥. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Non-Agenda Item. Mr. Bowie said at the last meeting the Board asked the
County Executive and the Chairman to meet with the Mayor of the City of
Charlottesville, and the City Manager concerning the 2-2-2 meeting (two
members each from the University, City and COunty) to discuss Route 29 North.
He and the County Executive met twice with the Mayor and City Manager and, at
this time, the City still desires the 2-2-2 meeting. He, therefore, recom-
mends that the County proceed with the meeting. The County has unanimously
adopted a position on Route 29 North. It is his opinion that in the interest
of trying to resolve any unknown difficulties that the County participate in
the meeting. He would suggest that he and Mr. Bowerman, who have been on the
Joint Transportation Commission and the Eastern Bypass Committee, be the two
delegates and that they meet with City and University representatives Friday,
August 3, at 1:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7. Should anything come out of that
meeting, it will be brought to the Board on August 8. Motion was then offered
by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to authorize Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bowie
to meet with two representatives each from City Council and the University of
Virginia on Friday, August 3, at 1:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, to discuss the
Route 29 North issue. 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. 4. Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mr. Perkins, to accept the Consent Agenda as information. Mr.
Bain asked that Item 5.3 be discussed later in the meeting. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
1990.
Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission Minutes for July 10 and July 17,
Received as information.
Item 5.2. Copy of letter dated July 12, 1990, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Asst. Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, addressed to
Ms. Carolyn J. Belt, concerning closing of sections of Route 601 and 676 for a
road race on September 1, 1990. Received as information.
Item 5.3. Letter dated July 20, 1990, from Mr. James F. Dulaney, Jr.,
Charlottesville Oil Co., Inc. requesting approval of the central sewage system
located on Tax Map 59, Parcels 7700 and 8080. (Mr. Dulaney states in his
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
74
letter that the system is a septic system that includes a distribution box and
lines and will have three connections. The State Health Department reviewed
the septic system on July 17, 1990. Further review is underway and a repair
permit will be applied to correct any problems.)
Item 5.4. Memorandum dated July 26, 1990, from the County Executive re:
Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day scheduled for the City and County on
August 4, 1990, at the University Hall parking lot. Received as information.
Mrs. Humphris said a Hazardous Waste Collection Day is great to have but
she has not seen much publicity concerning it. If it is not a success, she
would say that it is because the public has not been made aware of it. She
does not think the people are going to know what they can take. Mr. Bowie
agreed. Mr. Agnor commented that announcements have been on the local radio
stations this week.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-47. Wrenson Corporation (applicant) Lawrence
D. Hall (owner). To allow a rural preservation development of 33 lots
(10.5.2.1) on 338 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. (Deferred from July 18, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said at the July 18 meeting, the Board deferred action on
this request to discuss a possible stream crossing to allow the residents of
the development access to the open space tract. The original proposal provi-
ded an easement between Lots 11 and 12 which would follow the existing stream
and cross the river to allow access onto the open space area. Last week he
and a member of his staff met on the site with the developer's representative.
Based on that discussion, the developers have revised their plan as outlined
in the following memorandum dated July 26, 1990, from Mr. Lawrence Howell,
Agent for Wrenson Corporation, to combine the open space tract with the
preservation tract into one tract (Lot 14). The subdivision will have an
easement to access part of the tract, but there will be no river crossing
needed.
"In response to Board concerns raised at their meeting of July 18,
1990, our proposal is hereby modified. Ail 'preservation' land will
be included in the preservation tract described on the revised plan as
Lot 14 (166.52 acres). That tract will have an easement, benefiting
the neighborhood association, allowing hiking, riding and other quiet
non damaging activities. Prohibited uses will likely include camping,
open fires, hunting and the use of any motorized vehicles. The
specifics of the easement are not yet resolved and we request that
this be part of staff approval during site plan review.
Please note also the plan has been modified to show the 100 foot
buffer stipulated by the Planning Commission on lots 15, 16, 17, 18,
22 and 23."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that condition #2 be amended to reference the new
plan as follows: "Development shall be in general accord with the sketch
entitled 'Howell Property' dated July 26, 1990". Mr. Bowie suggested that Mr.
Cilimberg initial and add today's date on the plan.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is an advantage to having the entire tract owned
by a single owner as opposed to being owned by the homeowners association.
Mr. Cilimberg said the advantage is with marketing Parcel 14 as a large rural
tract. The developer felt for their purposes it would be better than designa-
ting it.as an open space tract separate from the preservation tract. Mr.
Bowie said he was thinking more of people having an easement to the parcel and
using all of it. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff did not feel that was a problem
because the area is physically restricted from use.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on
July 3, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-47, subject to six
conditions.
Mrs. Humphris said condition #5 does not reference a specific buffer, but
at the Planning Commission meeting, a 100-foot buffer was specified. She
suggested that the condition be amended to reflect the 100-foot buffer, if it
was specified.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
The Chairman noted that the public hearing was held at the July 18
meeting, but asked the applicant to address Mrs. Humphris' concern about the
buffer.
Mr. Stephen VonStorch, representing the Wrenson Corporation, said the
area was designated to have a 100-foot undisturbed buffer. The portion of
property in question is currently meadow and is hayed once or twice a year.
This is also the low point of the property.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
SP-90-47 subject to the the following conditions as recommended by the Plan-
ning Commission with an amendment to condition #2 as follows: "Development
shall be in general accord with sketch titled 'Howell Property' dated July 26,
1990, (Note: on file in the Planning Office) and initialed by VWC on Au-
gust 1, 1990"; and amending condition #5 as follows: "One hundred foot
undisturbed buffer shall be required between Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23,
and existing resident±al properties":
1. Staff approval of preservation easement in accordance with
Rivanna Water and Sewer Easement prepared for Buck Mountain
Reservoir;
Development shall be in general accord with sketch titled "Howell
Property" dated July 26, 1990, (Note: on file in the Planning
Office) and initialed by VWC on August 1, 1990;
3. Planning Commission approval of subdivision plat;
Access road to be constructed as a public road and dedicated to
public use;
o
One hundred foot undisturbed buffer shall be required between
Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 22 and 23, and existing residential proper-
ties;
Planning Commission reserves the right to relocate the entrance
road with regard to streams.
Mrs. Humphris said, in reviewing all of the material on this petition,
she was more aware than ever of the problem of the steep slopes that exist on
this site. She hopes that the ultimate plan be given severe scrutiny relative
to its effects on the environment because of all of these slopes.
Mr. Bowie commented that this is the first request the Board has received
using the new cluster option recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Last year
this entire farm would have been cut up into 21 acre lots and now there are
160 acres which will remain permanently in open space.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-90-02. Virginia Oil Company. (Deferred from
June 6, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie presented a letter dated July 27, 1990, from Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, representative of the applicant, requesting withdrawal of ZMA-90-02.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the
applicant's request to withdraw ZMA-90-02 without prejudice. 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. 8. ZMA-90-07. Unisys Corporation. (Deferred from
July 18, 1990.)
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Bowie said at its meeting on July 18, the Board deferred this item
until tonight's meeting to allow the applicant to specify a date for the
petition to be heard. He then presented a letter dated July 30, 1990, from
Mr. George H. Gilliam, representative of the applicant, requesting that
ZMA-90-07 be deferred until October 17, 1990.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
ZMA-90-07 until October 17, 1990. 2oll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-50. Donnie R. or Catherine Dunn. Public
hearing on a request for a stream crossing in the flood plain of Buck Mountain
Creek (30.3.5.2.1) on 58 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property on west side
of Route 601 approx, one mile south of Route 687. Tax Map 7, Parcels 37 and
38. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and
July 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: Parcel 37 is currently developed with a
single-family residence on the west side of Buck Mountain Creek and
Parcel 38 is undeveloped on the west side of Route 601. There is an
existing dwelling on the portion of Parcel 38 which is on the east side
of Route 601. The stream is not canoeable and is typically 15 feet in
width at the location of the proposed stream crossing. The site is
located within the water supply watershed of the South Fork Rivanna
River.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a stream
crossing which will utilize seven corrugated metal pipes 36 inches in
diameter and 20 feet in length. The surface of the travelway over the
pipes will be concrete with a thickness of six inches and a width of
twenty feet.
Staff Comment: Currently Parcels 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 40A
utilize a shared right-of-way which crosses Buck Mountain Creek as an
open ford. In order to limit the number of stream crossings in the
area, the applicant has agreed to a condition recommended by staff
which requires continued provision of access to these parcels over the
proposed bridge.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the information submitted by
the applicant and recommends approval as to engineering aspects. The
Engineering Department has recommended that reinforced concrete pipes
be utilized as opposed to corrugated metal pipes to increase the
strength and durability of the stream crossing which should reduce the
need for replacement of the pipes.
Staff recommends approval of this special petition with the following
conditions:
Crossing shall provide access to Tax Map 7, Parcels 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40 and 40A and the existing road maintenance agreement
between these parcels shall be amended to ensure adequate mainte-
nance of the stream crossing;
2. Reinforced concrete pipes shall be utilized;
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
4. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 17,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-50 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is an existing road maintenance agreement
between the various parcels of property. Mr. Cilimberg responded '~yes", but
he questions whether Parcels 35 and 36 are a part of that agreement because
they are currently using another access. Although Parcels 35 and 36 have
right-of-way over the ford, they do not actively use the right-of-way. The
owner of those parcels has stated he wants to retain the use of that access
for the future. The staff has suggested that the parcels be included as part
of a maintenance agreement for the road when the stream crossing is estab-
lished. The County has on file a copy of the current maintenance agreement
the other parcels. The property owners have agreed to an amended main-
tenance agreement which will allow for continued maintenance when that bridge
is established. Mrs. Humphris asked why the owner of Parcels 35 and 36 should
be required to be involved in a road maintenance agreement when he currently
is not involved. She asked if the County can require this person to partici-
pate in maintaining the bridge. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff intended to
require all of those who had right-of-way to be involved in the maintenance.
Property owners can change and use of the bridge can change and they were
trying to insure in the condition that the bridge and all of those who had
right-of-way were involved in its maintenance. If the Board feels that is not
necessary, the condition can be amended. Mrs. Humphris said she does not
think it is fair because the owner of Parcels 35 and 36 uses the ford
infrequently now and, at this time, has no need for the concrete bridge. As
this condition stands, if something were to happen to the bridge, this owner
would also be responsible for its replacement. Mr. Cilimberg said responsi-
bility for the bridge would depend on how the property owners are referenced
in the agreement.
Mr. St. John said no property owner can be made to sign anything or
become party to anything unless that owner has joined in this application.
any of the property owners referenced do not sign the agreement, then the
condition is not met, and the applicant could come back and ask for relief
from the condition.
If
Mr. Bowerman asked if this area is outside of the common area of the Buck
Mountain Reservoir. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes".
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Donnie Dunn, the applicant, said he
is not trying to force Mr. Curtis Wood (owner of Parcels 35 and 36) to take
part in the bridge construction. He understands that Mr. Wood's use of the
bridge is minuscule. At this time he is not asking Mr. Wood to pay anything
towards the construction or maintenance of the bridge. He has discussed with
Mr. Wood that if at some point in the future, his use increases, then they
will address the issue of the road maintenance agreement. The other parcels
referenced are part of the maintenance agreement. If for some reason the
property owners cannot come to a consensus, the agreement does allow for an
arbitrator chosen by each landowner and one arbitrator chosen by the two
arbitrators.
Mr. St. John asked if the bridge will be constructed on top of the ford.
Mr. Dunn said the bridge is to be built just a little bit to the side of the
old ford. The ford will remain open for access.
Mrs. Humphris said since Parcels 35 and 36 are not currently a party to
the maintenance agreement, the condition needs to be amended. Mr. St. John
suggested amending the condition by eliminating the wording "between these
parcels".
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Dunn if he has any problem using concrete pipe.
Mr. Dunn said concrete pipe is more expensive. His goal is to install the
bridge, upgrade the existing road, build a new home on his property and keep
expenses minimal. He will be disturbing an area of less that 10,000 square
feet. Another expense is the need for an erosion control permit. He thinks
that corrugated pipe would be less expensive.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Curtis Wood, owner of Parcels 35 and 36,
read from the staff report and asked if the ford will remain open as a right-
of-way. Mr. St. John said the right-of-way over the ford cannot be blocked.
All of the property owners who have a right-of-way over the ford will continue
to have that right-of-way. If the bridge were built over the right-of-way,
then everybody would have the right to use the bridge because the use was
pre-existing.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
78
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-90-50 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission,
with condition #1 amended to omit the wording "between these parcels".
Mr. Bowie suggested amending condition #2 to make the road maintenance
agreement subject "to the satisfaction of the County Attorney". Mr. St. John
suggested instead to add the wording "to the satisfaction of staff" which
includes the County Attorney. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman agreed to
include those words in the motion. 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.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Crossing shall provide access to Tax Map 7, Parcels 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40 and 40A and the existing road maintenance agreement
shall be amended to the satisfaction of the staff to ensure
adequate maintenance of the stream crossing;
2. Reinforced concrete pipes shall be utilized;
Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
4. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-90-54. Northside Baptist Church. Public hearing
on a request for church expansion (14.2.2.12) of existing church on 3.33 acres
zoned R-2 Residential. Piroperty on east side of Rio Road in Urban Neighbor-
hood Two. Tax Map 62A1, Section F, Parcel 18. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily iProgress on July 17 and July 24, 1990.)
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 8:13 P.M.) Mr. Cilimberg presented the
following staff report:
"Character of the Area: The site is presently developed with the
14,205 square foot church and fellowship hall. A vacant property zoned
R-2 abuts the site to the north. The Northfield Subdivision, consist-
ing of 205 lots with an average lot size of 0.8 acres, surrounds the
rear of the site. The residences located directly adjacent to the site
are adequately screened by existing vegetation.
Applicant's Proposal: To locate an 840 square foot modular classroom
building in Phase A on the site. Construction of a 4050 square foot
building addition for permanent classrooms in Phase B which will
replace the modular classrooms. Phase C is proposed to be a 5100
square foot gymnasium.
Comprehensive Plan: The site is located within Urban Neighborhood Two
and is designated for Low Density Residential.
Staff Comment: Section 31.2.4.1 allows for the Board of Supervisors to
issue a special use permit upon finding that, among other things, such
use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and the
character of the district will not be changed by such use. In a letter
to the applicant, staff expressed reluctance to support an expansion
which would result in more traffic generation until improvements to Rio
Road are complete. Specifically, it was stated, 'It appears this
expansion would result in greater usage of the site and facility. Do
you expect the expansion will result in increased membership or neces-
sity of more fixed seating in the church itself in the future?' In a
letter submitted in response to the staff's concerns, the applicant
made the following statements:
The number of existing members of the church is approximately
750 with between 250 and 350 in attendance. The congregation
has been growing over the past few years. Normally we will
add from 50 to 100 members each year.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
By definition, a church will continue to grow. The expansion
that we are planning will not create a significant amount of
increased traffic on Rio Road. To say that a church will
level off in its growth is to say that it ceases to be a
church. When Northside grows beyond what this site on Rio
Road can support, we will move locations.
We do not regularly hold con~nunity events at our church. All
meetings are church-related. The construction of a gymnasium
would not cause us to change our posture on this issue. Our
gymnasium would be used in conjunction with our church and
school.
The applicant has further clarified the intended use of the gymnasium
by stating all activities will be supervised and held during the
existing church and school hours.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has stated, 'This section of
Route 631 is currently non-tolerable. Construction is underway for
widening to a five-lane roadway, which when completed would make Route
631 tolerable. The existing commercial entrance will be rebuilt as
part of the construction work. This request would result in an in-
crease in traffic due to the church expansion.'
After reviewing the applicant's letter, staff opinion is that it
appears the proposed addition will not occasion a significant increase
in the use of the site or result in substantial detriment to adjacent
properties or the character of the district. Therefore, staff recom-
mends approval of this special use permit with the following condi-
tions:
Approval of this special use permit shall not be deemed as en-
dorsement of any future request for other expansions or intensifi-
cation of usage;
The enrollment of the preschool/daycare facility remains limited
to 60 children and any expansion requires special use permit
approval;
The fixed-seating remains limited to 517 seats and any expansion
requires special use permit approval;
Development in accord with submitted site plan initialled RET and
dated July 17, 1990."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 17,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-90-54 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bain asked about limiting the use of the gymnasium to church-related
activities. Mr. Cilimberg questioned the enforcement of such a condition. If
the church started advertising availability or events at the church, that
would be inconsistent with the spirit of the approval of the request.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Wayne Dooley, representing Northside
Baptist Church, said the church is currently using the fellowship hall for a
combination of three events. On Sunday evenings the church provides a program
and activities which involve 50 to 75 young children. The grounds around the
site have limited use. The gymnasium is mainly for the youth of the church.
The fellowship hall is also used for dinners every Wednesday night. The
gymnasium will allow them to use the existing hall for other purposes. The
gym is not for community-related activities.
Mr. Bowie asked if there is a need for the larger facility considering
that there is a limit on the number of children. Mr. Dooley responded "yes".
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman said he does not have a concern about the use of the gymna-
sium for a community center. It has always been his opinion that the activi-
ties of the church are consistent with the neighborhood. Motion was then
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
8O
offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins to approve SP-90-54 subject
to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission:
Approval of this special use permit shall not be deemed as
endorsement of any future request for other expansions or inten-
sification of usage;
The enrollment of the preschool/daycare facility remains limited
to 60 children and any expansion requires special use permit
approval;
The fixed-seating remains limited to 517 seats and any expansion
requires special use permit approval;
Development in accordance with submitted site plan initialled RET
and dated July 17, 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. 11. ZMA-90-08. Woodbriar AssoCiates. Public hearing on
a request to amend ZMA-79-32 to delete the bonding requirement for construc-
tion of Briarwood Drive to Route 29 (33.2.1). Property lies in Piney Mtn.
Village on west of Route 29 North just south of GE Fanuc. Briarwood
Subdivision consists of all parcels on Tax Map 32G, a total of 173 acres.
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24,
1990.)
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 8:24 P.M.) Mr. Cilimberg
presented the following staff report:
"Applicant's Proposal: To defer the bonding requirement for construc-
tion of Briarwood Drive as required by the conditions of approval for
ZMA-79-32. The applicant is proposing to complete the construction of
Briarwood Drive with the platting of lots in Phase I. Phase I will be
pursued after the lots in Phases III and VII, which can be served by
the existing gravity sewer, are completed. In addition, the applicant
has clarified the phasing schedule for the recreation areas.
Planning and Zoning History: The Board of Supervisors approved the
Briarwood RPN rezoning (ZMA-79-32) on January 23, 1980, for a total of
661 dwelling units over 173.4 acres. The first subdivision plat for
this development was approved by the Planning Commission June 24,
1980. This plat represented 96 lots for single-family attached
housing units (Phase II of the RPN phasing sequence). A subdivision
plat for Phase I development of 64 lots was indefinitely deferred from
Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission approved a
subdivision plat for 26 lots (portions of Phases III & VII) on April 5,
1983. The Planning Commission approved a plat for 80 lots in Phases
III and VII on August 23, 1988. In July 1989, the applicant proposed
a subphasing plan for 28 of the 80 lots approved in 1988 and then a
relief of conditions regarding bonding of Briarwood Drive. The
proposal was presented to the Planning Commission and no action was
required as consent was granted. The final plat for the 28 lots was
signed August 31, 1989. On March 27, 1990, the Planning Commission
approved a preliminary plat for 28 lots in Phase IV (actually within
Phases III and VII of the RPN phasing plan). The total number of lots
which have been recorded to date is 150.
Comprehensive Plan: The development is located within the Piney
Mountain Village and is designated for medium density residential
(5-10 dwelling units per acre).
Staff Comments: The conditions of approval of the Briarwood RPN
rezoning (ZMA-79-32) are on file. Condition #14 states: 'No final
site plan or subdivision plat shall be approved as to any lot or
dwelling unit served by either road X or road Y prior to dedication to
public use and construction or bonding for acceptance into the Vir-
g!ni~ Stat~ Secondary Highway System of roads X and Y.' (To clarify,
o~ the roads cited in condition 14, 'road X~ is now Briarwood Drive
and 'road Y' is now Austin Drive.)
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
81
Staff has determined that this condition must be met before any
additional plats are signed unless the Board of Supervisors chooses to
amend ZMA-79-32 to allow the deferral of this requirement.
Originally a bond was posted for the construction of Briarwood Drive.
However, it was allowed to expire in 1987. It should be noted that
the right-of-way for Briarwood Drive was dedicated in Deed Book 714,
Page 48.
In accordance with Section 32.7.2.4, two points of vehicular access to
external public roads are required for developments of 50 lots or
more. This requirement will be satisfied with the signing of the
final plat of Phase IV which was approved by the Planning Commission
on March 27, 1990, with the following condition: 'Construction or
bonding of the entire length of Austin Drive to include the relocation
and improvements to Route 606.'
This access to Route 606 along with the existing entrance at GE Fanuc
and Route 29 provides the two points of vehicular access sufficient
for the current level of development and as required by the Zoning
Ordinance. As more development occurs in Briarwood, another access
point will be necessary, therefore, staff recommends approval of this
request to amend ZMA-79-32 with conditions requiring the construction
of Briarwood Drive with the completion of Phase I. It should be noted
that conditions as outlined below could allow approximately 250 lots
before the development proceeds with Phase I. Presently 178 lots have
been approved by the Planning Commission.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions of
approval drafted in accordance with the applicant's letter included
herein as Attachment B (on file).
Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can
be served by the existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall
proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phasing plan;
Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for construction for its
entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final
plat approval for Phase I. Briarwood Drive shall be completed
with completion of Phase I;
Phases IV, V, VI, and the rest of Phase VII shall proceed in that
order in accordance with the original phasing plan;
The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with
the letter from Wendell W. Wood dated June 29, 1990."
The following letter dated June 29, 1990, from Mr. Wendell W. Wood,
General Partner, Woodbriar Associates, Ltd., addressed to Mr. Richard E.
Tarbell, Planner, reads:
"Tom Muncaster met with Ron Keeler and yourself on June 25, 1990, to
discuss the phasing of Briarwood. Phase 2 was built first because the
GE entrance was required. Phase I was indefinitely deferred.
As Tom told you, the sanitary sewer has dictated subsequent phasing.
We are currently working on Phase 3 and part of Phase 7 which can be
served by the existing gravity sewer. The Phase IV Preliminary Plat
approved by the Planning Cox~ission on March 27, 1990, is actually
part of the original Phase 3 and Phase 7.
Upon completion of Phase 3 and that part of Phase 7 which can be
served by the existing gravity sewer, we intend to go back and build
Phase I, which will be served by the existing sewer. Also, Briarwood
Drive shall be constructed from Austin Drive to Route 29 at that time.
Briarwood Drive has already been dedicated to Route 29.
The next logical progression is to bring the sewer up the river and do
Phases 4, 5, 6 and the rest of 7 in that order in accordance with the
original phasing plan.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
82
The rezoning requires two playgrounds, two primary recreation areas
and one tot lot. One playground exists and the second is to be bUilt
with the 24 lots approved on March 27, 1990, and is to be located
behind lots 9 and 10 of Phase 7. The tot lot was built in conjunction
with the existing playground. The first primary recreation area
consisting of passive recreation areas shall be done at completion of
Phase 5 and the final primary recreation area located South of Camelot
shall be built with the final phase of development of Briarwood.
Austin Drive shall be built to Route 606 as a condition of the March 27,
1990, approval. That connection will provide two accesses in accordance
with County policy. Considering that and the above information, we
request deferral from the rezoning requirement that Briarwood Drive be
built to Route 29. That construction will be done when Phase I of
Briarwood is completed."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 24,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-90-08 subject to the conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bain asked what is meant by the statement "Briarwood Drive shall be
completed with completion of Phase I". Mr. Cilimberg said Briarwood Drive
would be bonded for its completion through to Route 29 when Phase I is
approved. Mr. Bain said "with completion of Phase I" does not mean final
approval. He asked if "completion" meant at the final plat stage or when all
of the houses are built? He thinks that language needs to be clarified. Mr.
Bain asked the number of units in Phase I. Mr. Cilimberg said Phase I has 74
lots. Mr. Bain said he thinks Briarwood Drive should be constructed before
the project is three-fourths complete.
Mr. St. John said normally the terms of the bond are not set at the time
of the zoning. Under routine bonding procedures, when the plat is recorded
the Engineering Department and the County Attorney's office review the phasing
and the amount of the bond, and a time limit is set for that bond based on the
expected build out time of what is shown on the plat.
Mr. Cilimberg said the bond for this project was allowed to lapse. Mr.
Bain said that is the problem. Mr. St. John said the bond was not actually
allowed to lapse. A hearing was held and the staff was convinced that there
was no need for the bond. The people living in the subdivision also did not
want the road built at that time. The County consciously decided to release
the bond. The mistake was made when the requirement of the original zoning
petition was left in. That language should have been deleted.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the hearing where the bonding requirement was
deleted. Mr. St. John said the release of the bond was done in the context of
a discussion at a public meeting, although it was not advertised for a public
meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said he could not find in his files any discussion of
the meeting when the bond was released.
The public hearing was opened. The applicant, Mr. Wendell Wood, said the
phases of the project were changed because originally he started construction
at the south end of the property and headed north. During the process General
Electric Fanuc came along and instead of doing Phase I he moved to the north-
ern end of the property and started development in Phases II and III. Phase I
was deferred because he had to build Austin Drive in connection with GE Fanuc.
The phasing plan shown to the Board tonight is actually drawn wrong. Phase II
has another 13 lots, served by sewer, and another road that goes straight
through. Thirty-six of the lots are not on Briarwood Drive. His reason for
this request is because he is trying to build affordable housing. The bond
for this project is $360,000. He can currently build 140 units. Briarwood
Drive will probably not be built for another three to five years. The cost of
keeping the bond up for that period of time will be between $40,000 and
$50,000. He thinks that is an unnecessary burden. The road will ultimately
connect Route 29 to Route 606. He then invited all Board members to come out
and look at the project. The cost of the houses is between $70,000 and
$80,000. This is a project of which the County can be proud. So far, 150
houses have been built. Currently there are 20 units under construction. He
is trying to provide affordable housing and it does not make sense to provide
a bond that will not be used for the next four years, He added that there is
no homeowners association fee in this development. The developer maintains
the grounds.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the request. He would like condi-
tion #2 clarified to read: "Briarwood Drive shall be completed to its inter-
section with Route 29 .... "
Mr. Bain said he has a problem with this request. He is concerned about
allowing bonds to slip, not only with this, but other projects. He does not
want the County to end up building these roads.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with saying the road should be
constructed before building the houses. That is the reason he suggested
deleting the wording "or bonded" from condition #2.
Mr. St. John said the Subdivision Ordinance and the Code of Virginia
provide for the road to be built or bonded. The purpose of the bond is to
insure that the road be built when it is needed, not at the time of plat
approval. Most developers do not want to build and surface a road until the
houses are built because of heavy equipment using the road.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
ZMA-90-08, subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning
Commission, and amending the second sentence of condition #2 as follows:
"Briarwood Drive shall be completed to its intersection with Route 29 upon
completion of Phase I":
Upon completion of Phase III and that part of Phase VII which can
be served by the existing gravity sewer, the applicant shall
proceed with Phase I as shown on the original phasing plan;
o
Briarwood Drive shall be built or bonded for construction for its
entire length from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final
plat approval for Phase I. Briarwood Drive shall be completed to
its intersection with Route 29 upon completion of Phase I;
Phases IV, V, VI, and the rest of Phase VII shall proceed in that
order in accordance with the original phasing plan;
e
The recreational areas shall be constructed in accordance with
the letter from Wendell W. Wood dated June 29, 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. 12. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2.1-4(q) of the Code of Albemarle known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricul-
tural/Forestal District" to add approximately 698 acres on the north side of
Route 614 near Sugar Hollow Reservoir about three miles west of White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following staff report:
"Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is 'to
conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvement
of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands for the production
of foods and other agricultural and forestal products .... ' and 'to
conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural
and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean
air shed, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
!
aesthetic purposes.
Location: The proposed district is located on the north side of Route
614 near Sugar Hollow Reservoir, about three miles west of White Hall.
Acreage: The proposed addition contains 697.718 acres in three
parcels. The existing district contains 2,581.97 acres.
Time Period: The proposed time period is the same as for the original
district, or ten years from September 6, 1989.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agricultural and Forestal Significance:
is being used for forestry.
Land in the proposed district
Significant Lands Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: The land
use tax program is a good indicator of the actual use of the proper-
ties. Ail the parcels are enrolled in the program. Ail 698 acres are
being used for forestry.
Local Developmental Patterns and Needs: The Sugar Hollow area con-
sists of steep, wooded mountain land.
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The proposed addition is
located in Rural Area I and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest
growth area is Crozet, a distance of about four miles south.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed addition is located within the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Environmental benefits
provided by the conservation of wooded areas include protection of
ground and surface water quality, wildlife habitat, and critical
slopes. This district will also serve to protect a very scenic area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Advisory Committee Recox~endation: The Advisory Committee on June 25,
1990, recommended approval."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July
17, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of the addition to the Sugar Hollow
Agricultural/Forestal District.
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing
Piedmont Environmental Council, said she was present to answer any questions
Board members may have.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2.1-4(q), of the Code of
Albemarle to add additional parcels to the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and
Forestal District":
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
SECTION 2.1-4, CHAPTER 2.1,
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 2.1-4(q) of the Code of Albemarle be, and the
same hereby is, amended to add additional parcels to the "Sugar Hollow
Agricultural and Forestal District", reading as follows:
Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described.
(q) The district known as the "Sugar Hollow Agricultural and
Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax
map 25, parcels llC, 12, 13, 14, 14A, 14C, 18, 21, 2lA, 24, 25, 27,
28; tax map 26, parcels 5A, 9, 10B, 19, 40B, 40C, 4lA, 44, 52, 52D;
tax map 27, parcels 8, 26; tax map 39, parcels 2, 2A, 3.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
85
(At 8:58 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The meeting reconvened at
9:11 P.M.)
Mr. Bowie said although Item No. 14 is not on the agenda for public
hearing, he will allow those persons present to speak. He will, therefore,
hold a public hearing on Items 13 and 14 jointly.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public hearing on a Resolution to Provide for the
Establishment of a Solid Waste Authority, and the adoption of Articles of
Incorporation of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 27, 1990.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Rivanna Waste Authority Organizational
Agreement.
Mr. St. John said the Articles of Incorporation are derived from enabling
legislation for the establishment of a solid waste authority. The legislation
is outlined in the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act. Within the Act
one of the categories of powers of such an authority is "to engage in collec-
tion and disposal of garbage and refuse". The Articles of Incorporation for
the Rivanna Authority only include language that the Code requires which
allows as much flexibility as possible, while limiting the authority to the
disposal of solid waste and not overlapping into other activities. Also,
within that limit is the flexibility to allow the issuance of bonds in the
future.
Mr. St. John then summarized the Articles of Incorporation as advertised.
Mr. St. John said the Articles of Incorporatiom are a product of the City
Attorney, Clyde Gouldman; Attorney for Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Fred
Landess; and himself. They worked with a committee of representatives from
the Board of Supervisors and City Council.
Mr. Tucker said the Solid Waste Organizational Agreement is a joint
effort between the City and the County to provide for the efficient operation
of the landfill and to provide for the future solid waste improvement needs of
the community. The Agreement is designed similarly to the Four Party Agree-
ment of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA).
Mr. Tucker then summarized the following sections of the agreement:
Page 1 provides some background on the existing landfill and the purpose
of the agreement.
Page 2, Article I, provides for definitions, warranties and terms.
Page 5, Article III, deals with existing facilities. This section
provides fo~ the transfer of the Ivy Landfill property, the current employees
operating the landfill and the capital equipment to the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority. The transfer of that property and employees is a major factor of
the agreement.
Page 6, Article IV, New Facilities, provides for the Authority to expand
the solid waste disposal operation as needed. The responsibility for financ-
ing the operation and the facility rests with the Authority which will be done
through various fees and rates set by the Authority.
Page 7, Article V, Section 5.2, Collections. The Authority will not be
responsible for the collection of solid waste which will remain the responsi-
bility of the City, County and private haulers. The Authority will be the
sole provider for any disposal and recycling effort of solid waste from this
community.
Page 9, Section 6.4, Prior Agreement. This section provides that the
City and County jointly request the dismissal from the Albemarle Circuit Court
of the original 1974 agreement between the City and County for operating the
Ivy Landfill. Following the approval and creation of the Authority there will
be no need for the 1974 agreement.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
Page 10, Article VII, Rates and Charges. This section provides that the
establish fees or charges, and tip fees for handling and disposing
of solid waste from the community and the collection of those fees.
Page 11, Article VIII. Advisory Committee. This section establishes an
Advisory Committee for solid waste. The Committee will consist of nine
members, three each from the City and, two from the University of Virginia and
a Chairman. The Chairman for the Advisory Committee would serve as Chairman
from the City when the Chairman of the Authority Board of Directors is from
the County. That will reverse itself when the Chairman of the Authority Board
is from the City. The Advisory Committee will be responsible for advising the
Authority Directors and Board members on all matters pertaining to solid waste
disposal and recycling.
Mr. Tucker then referred back to Page 4, Section 2.3. Vote Required on
Major Issues. He thinks the Board should give special consideration to this
section because it is a provision that may not be necessary. This section
provides that there be a vote of four-fifths of the Authority Board on any
bond issue, acquisition of land, equipment exceeding $50,000 or the budget.
This agreement is supposed to be designed to follow the RWSA Four-Party
Agreement. There is no provision in the Four-Party Agreement similar to this,
but more importantly this provision would allow either locality to veto any
major issue that came before the Authority Board.
Mr. Tucker said on July 18 the Solid Waste Task Force had its last
meeting and made the following suggestions: 1) The term of the fifth member
of the Authority should be expanded from the current provision of two years.
If the Board concurs with that suggestion, then the RWSA Four-Party Agreement
should also be amended to reflect similar terms; 2) The term "garbage and
refuse" be changed to "solid waste"; 3) Albemarle and Charlottesville encour-
age surrounding communities to join with them in a regional solid waste
management effort. The agreement is designed so that that can take place; and
4) The fifth member of the Authority be selected .in the future by a joint
Council and Board committee through advertisement and interviews.
Mr. Bowie asked if the section on "concurrent action" pertains to the
fifth member of the Authority. Mr. Tucker said "yes", but the Task Force
wants it spelled out more clearly.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jack Marshall, President, Citizens for Albemarle, read a statement
(on file) supporting the establishment of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
The main concern of Citizens for Albemarle is to ensure that the Authority
represents citizens and is accountable to the citizens. He then offered the
following suggestions: 1) All meetings be publicized in advance and open to
the public; 2) The Authority's Advisory Committee c~nsist of informed citizens
who will be expected to provide input on all technical and financial ques-
tions, and that the Board provide an explanation in the event it decides not
to follow a recommendation of the Advisory Committee; and 3) The Authority
issue annual reports. Mr. Marshall concluded by saying Citizens for Albemarle
is pleased to endorse the formation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority.
Ms. Angela Glomm, President, Charlottesville-Albemarle Recycle Together
(CART), presented a statement (on file) concerning the formation of the
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. CART has the following concerns about the
formation and structure of the Authority: 1) The Authority is not beholden to
the public in the same way that elected officials are. For example, a service
authority can sell bonds for capital projects without a public hearing; 2)
Meetings of the Board of Directors, while technically open to the public, do
not receive the media coverage necessary to keep the public adequately in-
formed; 3) A five member Board made up of four staff members who already serve
on numerous authorities and committees may not have sufficient time and
resources to devote to this issue. Junior staff members would be hard pressed
to vote against their superiors and thus would not have an independent voice;
4) The proposed Board structure with four staff members and only one citizen
may not allow for the public input needed to achieve waste reduction goals.
CART offers the following recommendations: 1) public, involvement; 2) two
citizen members to the Board of Directors so the five member Board would be
made up of three citizen members, the County Executive and the City Manager;
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 87
(Page 15)
3) maintain the four-fifths vote on major capital expenses and bond issues; 4)
adopt ordinances to mandate separation of waste and require commercial genera-
tors and collectors to report information on waste generation and recycling.
Ms. Glomm concluded by commending the staff on the hours of work they put into
developing a working structure for the Authority. She asked that the Board
seriously consider the changes CART recommends. CART looks forward to imple-
mentation of the remaining Task Force recommendations. She then asked the
persons present supporting CART to stand (three people stood up).
Mr. Jay Hodgens, a private citizen, said it might be best to allow the
Advisory Committee to recommend the candidate for the fifth member of the
Authority. That appointment could provide a constituency from which the
appointee would be answerable and a mechanism for the population at large to
communicate their desires directly, He supports the four-fifths vote and
thinks it is a wise decision.
Mrs. Sally Thomas, President, League of Women Voters, presented a state-
ment (on file) which praised the efforts of the City and County staff in the
development of the Articles of Incorporation and the operating agreement for
the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority. Mrs. Thomas summarized the following areas
where the League feels the operating agreement should contain more detail: 1)
source reduction, reuse and recycling; 2) regional cooperation; 3) public
input and accountability; 4) structural procedure; and 5) powers of the
Authority.
Mr. Randy Layman, a private citizen, had the following comments to make:
1) There needs to be a better definition of commercial and industrial waste;
2) Transfer of personnel - need to make sure that landfill employees have time
to adjust to new management, rules and regulations so that they can become
part of the new system; 3) Is section 4.3 subject to the provision of 2.3?; 4)
Section 6.1 Transfer Stations - in his opinion should be subject to section
5.2 Collections. He thinks that a transfer station is a collection point and
a hauling facility, and not a disposal facility; and 5) Tipping fees - all
fees should be equal for both City and Countyand paid on a monthly basis.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director, Thomas Jefferson Planning Dis-
trict Commission, said she is delighted to see this agreement before the
Board. She urged the Board to consider this issue on a regional basis.
Mr. Bowie said at a meeting last April some comments he made were taken
out of context. His comments were interpreted to mean that the County was
opposed to and not interested in pursuing regional efforts. That is not
correct. In fact he came away from the meeting with the definite idea that
the other counties did not want to pursue regional efforts. He now thinks
that there was just a lack of communication.
There being no other comments, the public hearings were closed.
Mr. Bowie said from the comments made, he senses a great deal of-dis-
trust. This authority is to be just like any other authority, and the elected
officials are the ones responsible to the public. He thinks that an advisory
committee is to advise and not hand down mandates. He can only assume that
the authority will comply with all rules and regulations. He thought the
comments presented tonight were well thought out and he will read them all in
full.
Mr. Bowie asked what the status would be if the Board adopts the resolu-
tion establishing the Authority, but does not pass the organizational agree-
ment. Mr. St. John said adoption of the resolution establishing the authority
and adoption of the articles of incorporation, creates an authority in being.
The City must also take the same action. By adopting the resolution the
authority would have nothing to work with nor would it have any facilities.
The authority would have no power to do anything until either this operational
agreement or some other agreement is enacted.
Mr. Bain said he is prepared to vote on the articles of incorporation.
He wants more discussion on the operational agreement. He reiterated that the
agreement is an attempt to mirror as closely as possible the RWSA. There are
no elected officials as members of the authority. He feels comfortable with
the proposed make up of staff people.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 88
(Page 16)
Mr. Bowie said he thinks that the term of the fifth person on the Board
needs to be changed which also means amending the existing RWSA Four-Party
Agreement. Mr'. Bain said he has no problem with that. Mr. Bowie said he
supports adoption of the resolution.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following Articles of Incorporation establishing the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority:
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF
RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle and the
Council of the City of Charlottesville, both of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, in order to create an Authority pursuant to Chapter 28,
Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), which
shall be a public body politic and corporate, hereby certify:
1. The name of the Authority shall be "Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority" and the address of its principle office shall be P. 0. Box
979, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902.
2. The name of each incorporating political subdivision is the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle.
3. The Authority shall be governed by a Board of Directors which
shall consist of five members. Four of such members shall always
consist of the persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City
Manager and Director of Public Works for the City of Charlottesville
and the County Executive and County Engineer of Albemarle County. The
fifth member shall be appointed by the concurrent action of the Board
of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Council of the City of
Charlottesville. The names and addresses of the initial members are
as follows:
Name Address
F. A. Iachetta
Route 18, Box 19
Charlottesville, VA
Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
(Albemarle County Executive)
23 Orchard Road
Charlottesville, VA
Richard P. Moring
(Albemarle County Engineer)
3655 Airport Acres Road
Charlottesville, VA
D. Cole Hendrix
(Charlottesville City Manager)
104 Grover Court
Charlottesville, VA
Judith M. Mueller
(Charlottesville Director
of Public Works)
503 Second Street, N.E.
Charlottesville,'VA
The terms of the members of the Board shall be for two years,
provided the terms of those members serving as such by virtue of their
office with the City and County shall automatically terminate upon
their ceasing to hold such office and they shall automatically be
reappointed so long as they hold such office. Any person hereafter
holding any such office shall automatically succeed his predecessor in
such office as a member on the Board of the Authority. The initial
term of F. A. Iachetta shall expire on May 1, 1992, with his successor
to be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy shall
be filled only for the unexpired term. The member appointed by
concurrent action of the political subdivisions shall hold office
until a successor has been appointed and qualified and shall be
eligible for reappointment. Board members other than the member
appointed by concurrent action shall receive no compensation from the
Authority for serving as Directors, but shall be reimbursed by the
Authority for any actual expenses necessarily incurred in the perfor-
mance of their duties. The member so appointed shall be compensated
by the Authority for serving as such in an amount to be determined
from time to time.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
89
4. The purposes for which the Authority is formed are to develop
regional garbage and refuse disposal, as such terms are defined in
Section 15.1-1240(r) of the Act, including development of systems and
facilities for recycling, waste reduction and disposal alternatives
with the ultimate goal of acquiring, financing, constructing, and/or
operating and maintaining regional solid waste disposal areas, systems
and facilities, all pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
5. Initially, the Authority will assume all responsibility for
operation of the existing landfill serving the City and County, the
estimated capital costs for which are $2,457,000. Additional projects
will be identified by the Authority and implemented through agreements
with and among the City and County. Pending completion of necessary
engineering studies and estimates, it is not practical to set forth
herein any further estimates of capital costs and rates.
6. The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and
records to be made by an independent certified public accountant at
the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed
promptly with the governing body of the City and County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Council of the City of Charlottesville
and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle have caused
these Articles of Incorporation to be executed on their behalf by
their authorized presiding officers and their seals to be affixed and
attested by their Clerks, this day of , 1990.
(Seal)
Attest:
Clerk
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
BY:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
(Seal)
Attest: BY:
Clerk
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.
Regarding the organizational agreement, Mr. Bain said he thinks the major
issue is Section 2.3 as it relates to the four-fifths vote. He does not agree
with tying the hands of the authority members to such an extent as set forth
in this agreement. It might as well state that a majority vote is needed. He
will not support that section and thinks it needs to be deleted. Mr. Bowie
agreed with Mr. Bain.
Mr. Way said he agrees with the comments concerning the four-fifths vote
in that it is unreasonable. Mrs. Humphris also agreed and said requiring a
four-fifths vote could paralyze the authority. Mr. Bowerman agreed and said
he does not know of any organization that is run that way. Mr. Bowie asked
that the staff notify the City that the agreement is not acceptable with
Section 2.3 as currently written.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the comments made by the League of Women Voters
concerning source reduction should be incorporated into the agreement by
adding a "Whereas" at the beginning. He asked if the language on page 2
reading: "... constructing and/or operating and maintaining a regional resi-
dential, commercial and industrial garbage and refuge disposal system(s) ...".
is taken from the Code and if the words are defined. Mr. St. John said
commercial, industrial and domestic waste, etc., are defined in various
sections of the Code, but not in this document. Mr. Bain suggested that the
terms be defined. Mr. Bowie said he thinks that the section needs to be
expanded to include the definitions.
Mr. Bain asked how collection and disposal from transfer stations will be
handled by the agreement. He thinks it is something that needs to be addressed
further. Mr. Tucker said the Board does need to discuss where the stations
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
9O
fit into the agreement and whose responsibility it is to maintain these
facilities. Mr. Way agreed with Mr. Bain. Mr. Bowie asked that the staff
provide some pros and cons on how to handle transfer stations. Mr. Bain said
the County will need to consider whether it wants to license haulers, etc.
Mr. Bowie asked that the information being requested be available for the
August 8 Board meeting.
Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Way concurred that the first two items from the
League's lmtter should be incorporated into the agreement.
Mr. Bowie suggested that instead of the terms for appointment being two
or three years, that they be staggered one-third for one year, one-third for
two years and one-third for three years. Also, the terms of the Chairmen of
the Authority and Advisory Board needs to run concurrently.
Mr. Bain said the agreement states "... petition the court and request
dismissal of the case..." He thought the "case" had been dismissed. Mr. St.
John said the case has been dismissed. The language in the agreement is the
use of a technical term.
Mr. Way asked when this agreement is scheduled to be heard by City
Council. Mr. Bowie responded that it is on next Monday night. Mr. Bowie
suggested that the staff draft a letter for his signature to the Mayor out-
lining the changes the Board is proposing. Ail Board members concurred with
that suggestion.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 15-2, of the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Equalization of Pay of
Certain Boards and Commissions, to change the compensation of those boards and
commissions enumerated under this section from Twenty-Five Dollars per meeting
to Thirty-Five Dollars per meeting. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
July 17 and July 24, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said this proposed Code revision changes the per meeting
compensation for certain boards and commissions from $25 to $35. He recom-
mends that the ordinance be adopted as proposed.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt the
following Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 15-2, of the Code of
Albemarle, entitled "Equalization of Pay of Certain Boards and Commissions',
to change the compensation of those boards and commissions enumerated under
this section from Twenty-Five Dollars per meeting to Thirty-Five Dollars per
meeting:
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE II, PERSONNEL, OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
ENTITLED "EQUALIZATION OF PAY OF CERTAIN
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS"
BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby amend and reenact Article II, of the
Code of Albemarle, Personnel, entitled "Equalization of Pay of Certain
Boards and Commissions", as follows:
Sec. 15-2. Enumerated.
Each member of the following boards and commissions duly appoint-
ed by the board of supervisors shall be paid thirty-five dollars for
each and every regularly scheduled meeting of the board or commission
actually attended, as set forth in the rules and regulations of that
board or commission: Board of zoning appeals; Monticello Area commu-
nity action agency; Piedmont Virginia Community College board of
directors; Thomas Jefferson planning district commission; land use tax
advisory board; and equalization board.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Sec. 15-3. Members excluded.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 15-2, all county
employees and members of the board of supervisors, when serving as
members of boards and commissions listed in such section, shall serve
without compensation. The member of the board of supervisors who
serves on the social services board shall serve without compensation.
Sec. 15-4. Travel and other expenses.
Each member of the boards and commissions listed in section 15-2
shall be paid his necessary traveling and other expenses incurred in
attendance upon regularly scheduled meetings and while otherwise
engaged in the discharge of his duties as such member.
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. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2-4(c), of the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Planning Commission" to
increase the compensation of Planning Commission members from Two Thousand
Four Hundred Dollars annually to Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars
annually. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said this proposed revision to the Code changes the compensa-
tion paid to Planning Commission members from $2400 to $3300 annually, which
is the new amount allowed by the Code of Virginia for school board members.
The public hearing was opened. There being no public comments, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-4(c), of the Code of
Albemarle, entitled "Planning Commission" to increase the compensation of
Planning Commission members from Two Thousand Four Hundred Dollars annually
Three Thousand Three Hundred Dollars annually:
AN O~DINA~CE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
ENTITLED "PLANNING COMMISSION"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article II, Chapter 2, of the Code of Albemarle, is
hereby amended and reenacted in Section 2-4(c) as follows:
Sec. 2-4. Composition~ appointment, terms and compensation of
members~ quorum.
(a) Composition. The planning commission of the county shall be
composed of eight members appointed by the board of supervisors. Ail
members of the commission shall be residents of the county, qualified
by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of communi-
ty growth and development, and at least one-half of the members shall
be freeholders.
(b) Appointment and terms. One member of the commission shall
be appointed by the board of supervisors with the advice of the
president of the University of Virginia for a term of one year, to
serve in an advisory capacity without voting rights. Of the seven
voting members, one shall be nominated from each of the six magisteri-
al districts by the board member representing that district, and one
shall be nominated to serve at large. Three of the members appointed
from specified magisterial districts shall be appointed in each
even-numbered year following county elections, by nomination of the
newly elected board members and for terms coextensive with theirs.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 92
(Page 20)
One member-at-large shall be appointed each even-numbered year follow-
ing county elections for a two-year terms. Vacancies occurring due to
resignation or other causes shall be filled by appointment for the
unexpired term only.
(c) Compensation. Ail members of the planning commission,
except the nonvoting member appointed with the advice of the president
of the University of Virginia, shall receive three thousand three
hundred dollars per annum, to be paid in monthly installments. The
chairman of the commission shall receive an additional one thousand
two hundred dollars per annum, to be paid in monthly installments.
(d) Quorum. A majority of the voting members shall constitute
a quorum, and no action of the commission shall be valid unless
authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting.
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. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to amend and reenact
Section 2-2.1, of the Code of Albemarle, entitled "Compensation of Board of
Supervisors" to increase the stipend of the vice-chairman from Twenty-Five
Dollars for each meeting chaired, to Thirty-Five Dollars for each meeting
chaired. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 17 and July 24, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said this proposed revision to the Code changes the stipend
paid the vice-chairman, for meetings chaired, from $25 to $35, to match the
"Equalization of Pay" Ordinance just adopted.
The public hearing was opened. There being no comments, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following Ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-2.1, of the Code of
Albemarle, entitled "Compensation of Board of Supervisors" to increase the
stipend of the vice-chairman from Twenty-Five Dollars for each meeting
chaired, to Thirty-Five Dollars for each meeting chaired:
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION
Article I, of the Code of Alb~emarle
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2-2.1 of the Code of
Albemarle, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Eight thousand four hundred eighty dollars and forty-four cents
for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular
salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five
dollars for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in
addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a
stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Way.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Discussion: Route 810 Improvements.
The following memorandum dated Ju~y 30, 1990, from Ms. Jo Higgins,
Capital Projects Coordinator, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, was received:
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
"Based on the request of Mr. Walter Perkins to evaluate the current
conditions on Route 810 (at the point immediately south of the new
Crozet Elementary School on the east side where Route 810 crosses
Parrot Branch), the following activities have occurred:
93
I met with Mr. Dan Roosevelt on July 19, 1990, to determine the
scope of possible improvements. VDoT's recommendation is to
construct an eight-foot shoulder which will require a 20-foot
extension of the 48-inch culvert pipe and provide a guardrail in
the curve. The contractor's estimated price is $10,000. Dan
Roosevelt verbally approved this proposal on July 20, 1990.
Mr. Roosevelt has agreed in his letter dated July 13, 1990, to
bear the actual cost of the additional work from Secondary Road
funds provided the County Board of Supervisors approve the use of
funds for this purpose. Mr. Roosevelt indicated that funds
already set aside for Route 810 to cover project overruns would
be sufficient.
I must provide written confirmation of the Board's approval to
VDoT by August 2, 1990."
Mr. Perkins said this is a dangerous situation which he thinks should
have been corrected when the school project was designed. This proposal will
help the conditions. There is a large sycamore tree that is within two feet
of the road pavement right in the curve.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to authorize
staff to notify YDoT to expend Secondary Road contingency funds to make the
improvements to Route 810 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. 18. Approval of Minutes: May 16, June 6 and June 13,
1990.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of June 13, 1990, pages 1 11 (end #8)
and found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of June 13, 1990, pages 23 (#14) End
and found them to be in order with one typographical error.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
minutes of June 13, 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. 19. Cancel August 15, 1990.
Mr. Bowie commented that there was a mix-up and the Daily Progress did
not advertise the Planning Commission meeting for August 7. The items
scheduled for the Commission on that night were to be heard by the Board on
August 15. As a result, the Board has no petitions to hear.
Mr. Bain suggested the Board wait until August 8 to decide on cancelling
the meeting to see if another meeting is necessary to discuss the organiza-
tional agreement for the solid waste authority or the Route 29 North project.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members.
August 1, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 94
(Page 22)
Mr. Bain asked for some background information on Item 5.3 from the
consent agenda - request for central sewage system from Charlottesville Oil.
Mr. Agnor said the owners want to connect a third bathroom to the present
septic system. This requires notification and consent bY the Board. The
request is then forwarded to the Engineering Department and Health Department
for review to see if the system can handle the additional effluent. Mr. St.
John said the reason this request is on the agenda is because there are three
separate businesses in one building hooking into the system.
Mr. Bain said there are several small "flea-market type" businesses
popping up in Ivy that he does not think are legitimate. There is a store and
people are sitting out there selling things. On the north side there is a
used car lot that is not really a used car lot. He asked the Zoning Adminis-
trator to look into the situation.
Mr. Bowerman commented that at the vacant Pizza Inn on Route 29, at one
time there were four cars in the lot marked for sale.
Mrs. Humphris said she attended the Governor's Conference on Education
last week and found it interesting. She attended a number of work sessions,
some of which concerned school/community relations. It was also emphasized
that there is no money available.
Mr. St. John asked if the Board intends for the organizational agreement
for the solid waste authority to be redrafted to incorporate the Board con-
cerns and then forwarded to the City for review. Mr. Bowie replied "no". The
Board has requested additional information at its August 8. He will write a
letter to the Mayor of the City informing him of the Board objections and what
changes the Board is proposing.
Mrs. Humphris commented that the items mentioned are not all inclusive,
and she needs more time to read the document and "digest" the information.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board received a copy of a letter from Mr. Dennis
Rooker, sent to Mr. John Milliken, Chairman of the Commonwealth Transportation
Board. The letter refers to some problems with the DEIS on Route 29. One of
the problems was the omission of the impact on University Village which
results in a condemnation value of approximately $19 million, and in lost tax
revenues to the County for one year alone that is $142,000.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 P.M.
CHAIRMAN