1990-05-09May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
142
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 9, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Build-
ing, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Way, to approve Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda, to pull Item
4.3 from the Consent Agenda for discussion under Other Highway Matters, and to
accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Authorize Chairman to sign amended deed of easement granting
the Albemarle County Service Authority a sanitary sewer line easement at
Rivanna Park. (By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the Chairman
to sign the following amended deed of easement granting the Albemarle County
Service Authority a sanitary sewer line easement at the Rivanna Park):
THIS DEED OF AMENDMENT made this day of , 1990, by
and between THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, and THE COUNTY OF
ALBE~LE, VIRGINIA, Grantors and the ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHOR-
ITY, Grantee, hereinafter "Authority", whose address is 401McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, a deed of easement between the above-named parties dated
July 13, 1989, was recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County, Virginia, at Deed Book 1061, page 399, purporting
to grant an easement to the Grantee to install certain sanitary sewer
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the location of the easement for the sanitary sewer line
was incorrectly represented by the plat dated June 1, 1989, and
attached to said deed of easement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this deed hereby agree that the
new plat dated January 17, 1990, attached to this Deed of Amendment,
made by Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., and entitled "Plat Showing 20'
Wide Easement for Sanitary Sewer Line A-B-C-D To Be Dedicated to
A.C.S.A. Crossing Rivanna Park Property", shall replace the plat
attached to the aforesaid deed of easement at Deed Book 1061, page
399, which deed, together with the conveyance and warranty contained
therein, is hereby reaffirmed and shall remain in full force and
effect, except for the replacement of the plat.
Item 4.2. County Executive's Financial Report for March, 1990, received
for information as follows:
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
143
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1989 TO MARCH 31, 1990
GENERAL FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
47,205,381 38,494,985 8,710,396 - 81.55%
4,071,669 2,648,745 1,422,924 - 65;05%
182,370 32,374 149,996 - 17.75%
921~595 921~595 0 - 100.00%
52,381,015 42,097,699 10,283,316 - 80.37%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
NONDEPARTMENTAL
TOTAL
3,281,497 2,439,705 841,792 + 74.35%
1,190,246 865,237 325,009 + 72.69%
5,151,640 4,026,803 1,124,837 + 78.17%
1,878,248 1,283,478 594,770 + 68.33%
3,291,121 2,436,954 854,167 + 74.05%
27,003,594 20,153,740 6,849,854 + 74.63%
1,860,606 1,293,490 567,116 + 69.52%
1,425,255 954,518 470,737 + 66.97%
4,104,946 3,119,695 985,251 + 76.00%
3~193~862 2~631~845 562~017 + 82.40%
52,381,015 39,205,465 13,175,550 + 74.85%
SCHOOL FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
504,313 443,590 60,723 - 87.96%
17,793,385 11,725,730 6,067,655 - 65.90%
357,600 0 357,600 - 0.00%
27~431~258 20~147~316 7~283~942 - 73.45%
46,086,556 32,316,636 13,769,920 - 70.12%
EXPENDITURES
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
INSTRUCTION
ADMIN., ATTENDANCE, & HEALTH
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES OPERATION & MAINT
FACILITIES
TOTAL
36,026,619 23,387,844 12,638,775 + 64.92%
1,632,075 1,291,391 340,684 + 79.13%
4,071,242 3,050,335 1,020,907 + 74.92%
3,883,929 2,980,340 903,589 + 76.74%
472~691 385~457 87~234 + 81.55%
46,086,556 31,095,367 14,991,189 + 67.47%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
REVENUES
1989/90 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED
EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD
LOCAL SOURCES
COMMONWEALTH
NONREVENUE RECEIPTS
FUND BALANCE
TRANSFERS-IN
TOTAL
383,000 250,247 132,753 - 65.34%
527,040 75,000 452,040 - 14.23%
15,382,730 5,044,597 10,338,133 - 32.79%
1,424,520 1,424,520 0 - 100.00%
1~431~570 1,421,070 10,500 99.27%
19,148,860 8,215,434 10,933,426 - 42.90%
EXPENDITURES
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
APPROP YTD YTD YTD
GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION
JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
PUBLIC SAFETY
PUBLIC WORKS
EDUCATION
PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TRANSFERS
TOTAL
251,594 233,581 18,013 + 92.84%
29,908 0 29,908 + 0.00%
619,795 305,284 314,511 + 49.26%
2,223,089 426,420 1,796,669 + 19.18%
13,263,116 11,623,786 1,639,330 + 87.64%
2,010,555 659,241 1,351,314 + 32.79%
216,495 144,569 71,926 + 66.78%
534~308 0 534~308 + 0.00%
19,148,860 13,392,881 5,755,979 + 69.94%
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
144
OTHER FUNDS
1989/90 RECEIPTS
REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD
BALANCE COLLECTED
YTO YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 5,943
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299 23,089
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 668,109
CDBG-AHIP 0 181,191
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 24,013
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 108,486
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 86,515
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 925,627
CHAPTER I 510,628 239,069
CHAPTER II 51,893 3,833
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 25,127
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 8,725
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 0
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 6,392
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0
SLIAG PROGRAM 0 11,245
CBIP SEVERE 419,823 78,783
E. D. PROGRAM 557,501 72,653
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 313,285
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 361,511 205,520
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 8,120
30INT SECURITY 2,193,225 1,579,785
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 1,035,195 536,885
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862 498,952
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230 44,697
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331 35,697
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 50,801
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~670,037 1~679~695
TOTAL 11,922,960 7,422,237
(5,943)+ 0.00%
7,210 76.20%
(668,109)+ 0.00%
(181,191)+ o.oo%
(24,013)+ 0.00%
(108,486)+ 0.00%
(86,515)+ 0.00%
544,903 - 62.95%
271,559 46.82%
48,060 7.39%
23,873 51.28%
80,475 9.78%
0 0.00%
0 = 0.00%
(6,392)+ 0.00%
0 - 0.00%
(11,245)+ 0.00%
341,040 - 18.77%
484,848 - 13.03%
370,675 - 45.80%
155,991 - 56.85%
1,880 - 81.20%
613,440 - 72.03%
498,310 - 51.86%
218,910 - 69.51%
107,533 - 29.36%
816,634 - 4.19%
16,934 - 75.00%
990~342 - 62.91%
4,500,723 - 62.25%
89/90 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG
EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD
METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 8,361
SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 30,299 22,902
MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 0 594,515
CDBG-AHIP 0 192,486
GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 64,955
FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 0 407,813
DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 73,039
FOOD SERVICES 1,470,530 976,506
CHAPTER I 510,628 322,478
CHAPTER II 51,893 35,387
MIGRANT EDUCATION 49,000 33,637
MISC. SCHOOL GRANTS 89,200 56,595
FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 0
DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 0 500
DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 0 0
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 0 0
SLIAG 0 14,541
CBIP SEVERE 419,823 285,975
E D PROGRAM 557,501 346,678
COMMUNITY EDUCATION 683,960 385,882
TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 361,511 252,834
MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 8,120
JOINT SECURITY FUND 2,193,225 1,677,193
JOINT SECURITY-CAPITAL 1,035,195 998,365
JOINT DISPATCH FUND 717,862 525,969
JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 152,230 75,345
STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 852,331 11,359
VISITOR CENTER FUND 67,735 50,801
DEBT SERVICE FUND 2~670~037 1~679~306
TOTAL 11,922,960 9,101,542
(8,361)- 0.00%
7,397 + 75.59%
(594,515)- 0.00%
(192,486)- 0.00%
(64,955)- 0.00%
(407,813)- 0.00%
(73,039)- 0.00%
494,024 + 66.41%
188,150 + 63.15%
16,506 + 68.19%
15,363 + 68.65%
32,605 + 63.45%
0 + 0.00%
(500)- 0.00%
0 + 0.00%
0 + 0.00%
(14,541)- 0.00%
133,848 + 68.12%
210,823 + 62.18%
298,078 + 56.42%
108,677 + 69.94%
1,880 + 81.20%
516,032 + 76.47%
36,830 + 96.44%
191,893 + 73.27%
76,885 + 49.49%
840,972 + 1.33%
16,934 + 75.00%
990~731 + 62.89%
2,821,418 + 76.34%
,, ]
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
145
Item 4.3. Letter dated April 30, 1990, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, re: Highway Department's improvement project
advertisement schedule, received as information. (In his letter, Mr. Roose-
velt states that he intends to provide the Board with a quarterly report
beginning in July. He is also working on a report on the status of projects
currently under construction, and will try to send that information to the
Board in May for review. Mr. Bain asked that this item be pulled and dis-
cussed under Other Highway Matters. It is his intent to discuss the time-
frame on certain projects.)
Item 4.4. Letter dated April 30, 1990, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive
Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, giving notice of public hearing
on proposed changes in rates and fees charged by the Albemarle County Service
Authority, effective July 1, 1990, in accordance with Virginia Code Section
15.1-1260, was received as information.
Item 4.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for April 10, 1990 (par-
tial), received as information.
Item 4.6. News Release: National Drinking Water Week, May 6 through
Mary 12, 1990, received as information.
Item 4.7. Notice dated April 30, 1990, of an application filed with the
State Corporation Commission by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., for an
expedited increase in gas rates, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: February 7(A), March 14,
March 28(A), April 2(A), April 4(A), April 25(A) and April 30(A), 1990.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of April 2, 1990, and found them to be in
order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of February 7 (A) and April 4 (A),
1990, and found them to be in order with some typographical errors.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of March 14, 1990 (pages 17, beginning
with Item #7a - end) and found them to be in order with some typographical
errors.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of March 14, 1990 (pages 1 - 17, ending
at Item #Ta) and found them to be in order. He asked that the priority list
for the 1990-1996 Six Year Secondary Road Plan, set out in this portion of the
minutes include project numbers.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April 25 and April 30, 1990, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: West Leigh Subdivision Roads
Speed Limits Report (deferred from April 11, 1990).
Mr. Agnor said at its April 11 meeting, the Board asked the staff to
determine the number and location of all privately maintained roads in the
county which are dedicated to public use. Staff's review of available files
indicates that there are approximately 30 roads located sporadically through-
out the County. The total mileage is approximately seven averaging 0.2 mile'
per roadway/subdivision. Should the Board choose to adopt a policy esta-
blishing speed limits on private roads, staff recommends that it be limited to
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
146
road right-of-way dedicated to public use, but privately maintained. Mr.
Agnor said he thinks such requests would have a minimal impact on the Engi-
neering staff and enforcement should not significantly impact the Police
Department. The County Attorney has stated that each road could be considered
on a case-by-case basis and the Board need not be concerned about establishing
a precedent.
Mr. Bowie said there has been no additional information received from the
homeowners in West Leigh that they are in agreement with this request. In the
past, the Board has required signed petitions by the majority of the home-
owners for various types of requests and he thinks that would be appropriate
in this instance.
Mrs. Humphris suggested that it would be appropriate for the Board to
adopt a policy to set speed limits, but to be implemented only in those areas
in which a majority of the homeowners sign the petition. Mr. Bain said he can
agree with that suggestion.
Mr. Bowie said even though the total mileage (seven miles) of roads in
the County is not significant, he does not think the Board should get into the
business of setting speed limits.
Mr. St. John said an ordinance is needed before the Board can adopt this
type of policy. As is done with other regulations, when a new petition were
received the subdivision street or road could be added to the original ordi-
nance. The Board cannot presuppose that all of the speed limits would be the
same. Speed limits must be set pursuant to traffic and safety studies. In
addition, the Code of Virginia states that the governing body may, by ordi-
nance, establish these speed limits or delegate the responsibility or the
power to the County Executive to establish the speed limits pursuant to an
ordinance on a case-by-case basis.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Bowie that the Board should not be
debating speed limits.
Mr. Bain said he thinks that is an administrative function and he has no
problem delegating the responsibility to the County Executive. Mr. Bain said
this request came from a resident of West Leigh because the road is being used
for through traffic by the public. This road is used by more than the resi-
dents. He has personally spoken to some of the residents about setting a
speed limit.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem with adopting an ordinance to set
speed limits on private roads which are used for through traffic between two
state-maintained roads. Many of the roads in the County will not fit that
criteria.
Mr. St. John said he has already begun to draft language for an ordi-
nance. He suggests that the Board direct advertisement of the ordinance for
the June 13 meeting and notify the citizen in West Leigh of a need for a
petition. He does not think that the ordinance should mention a petition. A
petition would be a requirement for bringing the request before the Board.
The Code does not have any language regarding petitions. Mr. Bowie asked if
the County Executive could require a petition. Mr. St. John responded "yes".
Mr. Bowie asked if the Highway Department had any comments. Mr. Jeff
Echols, Assistant Highway Engineer, said the Highway Department has no in-
volvement with private roads.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to authorize the County Attorney to
draft an ordinance, for management by the County Executive, establishing a
policy to set speed limits on those private roads which are dedicated to
public use, but which are privately maintained and used as a through access
between two state-maintained roads, with the proviso, not to be included in
the ordinance, that more than 50 percent of the homeowners along the road or
in the subdivision must sign a petition requesting the setting of the speed
limit. The Board will consider adoption of such an ordinance at the June 13
meeting. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
147
Not Docketed: Mr. Cilimberg introduced Mr. Ken Baker, a new Senior
Planner for the Department of Planning. Mr. Baker is a resident of Albemarle
County and has been working as a Planner in Stafford County for the past year.
Mr. Baker worked in Stafford on Corridor Overlay Districts and the Chesapeake
Bay Act.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Request to Designate Portion of
Postal Route 4 "Airport Road".
Mr. Cilimberg said a petition has been received from several owners of
business properties along Route 649 requesting that the name "Airport Road" be
officially given to the road on the west side of Route 29 North. The staff
have identified eight of the 15 petitioners for the naming of Route 649 as
landowners/residents on Route 649. These petitioners represent nine of the 25
parcels adjacent to Route 649. Consent to officially name this portion of
Route 649 to "Airport Road" would enable businesses and residents to have
permanent numbered Airport Road addresses instead of having to use the Rural
Route and Box number addresses which must be changed from time to time as
development occurs. The section of road from Route 29 to Route 606 is the
entrance road to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. This is a section of
road that is getting new business development and is designated in the Compre-
hensive Plan as office, commercial and industrial development. The staff
supports designating the portion of Route 649, between Route 29 and Route 606,
as Airport Road.
Mr. Bain asked if Deerwood Subdivision has its own street addresses. Mr.
Cilimberg said "yes". Mr. Bowie said if this goes to public hearing, the
residents of Deerwood Subdivision should be notified. When a subdivision uses
a road as its access, he feels the residents should be notified of action
contemplated for that road.
Mr. James R. Hahn, who petitioned naming the road Airport Road, said this
road is already identified and known as Airport Road. The road is approxi-
mately eight-tenths of a mile in length from Route 29 to the exit/entrance of
the Airport. He thinks now is a logical time to go ahead and make it possible
for properties along the road to be more readily identified because as the
area continues to grow, it will become more expensive and more difficult for
the property owners to do.
Mr. Bowie noted that most of the landowners on the road are not signers
of the petition. Mr. Cilimberg commented that 53 percent of the petitioners
are landowners/residents, which represent 36 percent of the parcels adjacent
to Route 649. There are a number of the petitioners that the staff could not
connect to a parcel.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public
hearing for June 20, 1990, to consider naming the portion of Route 649,
between Route 29 North and Route 606, as "Airport Road". Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 9:30 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Amendment to Revenue Sharing
Program for County Primary and Secondary Fund.
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following memorandum dated May 4, 1990:
"According to the Virginia Department of Transportation, the total
amount of State matching funds available to Albemarle County for
revenue sharing projects in FY 1990-91, is $442,800. The total amount
of revenue sharing funds anticipated in the Six Year Secondary Plan
for FY 1990-91 was $465,000. The resulting shortfall is $22,200. The
Board may wish to reduce the County's matching contribution accord-
ingly or provide additional funds to cover the shortfall. This
situation also occurred last year and the Board's decision was to
reduce the County's matching contribution.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
The following projects were to receive revenue sharing funds in FY
19'90-91 according to the proposed 1990-96 Six Year Secondary Road
Plan:
Route 631, widening of Rio Road East
$250,000
Route 601, Bridge improvement over Buck Mountain Creek
50,000
Route 660, Bridge improvement, Rivanna River
75,000
Route 691, Park Road connection to Route 240, new road
construction
65,000
Route 743, intersection at Route 606
25~000
*TOTAL $465,000*
*State revenue sharing funds (to be matched one to one with County
funds)
Dan Roosevelt, VDOT Resident Engineer, has recommended that the
revenue sharing funds be allocated to three projects, Route 631 (Rio
Road East), Route 601 bridge improvement, and Route 743 intersection
improvement at Route 606. The Route 660 bridge project and Route 691,
Park Road connection to Route 240, would be funded entirely by secon-
dary funds. This is recommended in order to cover the shortfall and
to permit the proper timing for allocating revenue sharing funds.
Revenue sharing funds must complete the financing of a project in the
year in which they are being allocated.
Based on this recommendation, the following is the new recommended
allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds:
Route 631, widening of Rio Road East
$250,000
Route 601, Bridge improvement over Buck Mountain Creek
50,000
Route 660, Bridge improvement, Rivanna River
-0-
Route ~691, Park Road connection to Route 240, new road
construction
-0-
Route 743, intersection improvement at Rt. 606
*TOTAL
142~800
$442,800*
*State revenue sharing funds
The Planning Department endorses the recommendation of Mr. Roosevelt.
The proposed changes will not affect any project priorities, nor
significantly affect the timing of project development."
148
Mr. Bain asked the total cost of the Route 743 project. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that it is $325,000.
Mr. Echols said the Board received a letter dated April 25, 1990, from
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, State Secondary Roads Engineer, stating the status of
funds available. This year the amount of Revenue Sharing Funds available to
the state increased from $5 million to $10 million, but the requests also
increased. Thirty-seven counties requested funds, of which 18 counties
requested the maximum amount, $500,000. The total requests received amounted
to $11,291,960. Each county was granted approximately 88 percent of its
request.
Mr. Bain asked what happens if some of the counties that requested funds
cannot meet the match. Mr. Echols said if a county does not meet the match,
then the funds are returned and redistributed to those counties that were able
to meet their quotas. Mr. Echols said the action the Board needs to take is
adoption of a resolution indicating which projects should receive funds.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
149
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt a
resolution amending Albemarle County's requested allocation of Revenue Sharing
Funds for FY 1990-91. 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.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 33.1-75.1, the
Virginia Department of Transportation can provide state funds to match
county funds for the construction, maintenance or improvement of
primary andsecondary highways in the county; and
WHEREAS, a shortfall in the County Primary and Secondary Fund
Revenue Sharing Program has resulted in Albemarle County adjusting its
original request from $500,000 to $442,800;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Department of Transportation
participate in matching Revenue Sharing Funds for FY 1990-91 for the
following projects:
Route 631, widening of Rio Road East, #0631-002-128,C503, $250,000
Route 601, Bridge improvement over
Buck Mountain Creek,
#0601-002-225,B653, $ 50,000
Route 743, intersection improvement
at Route 606
#0743-002-235,C501 $142,800
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters from the Public and Board.
Regarding Item 4.3 from the Consent Agenda (letter dated April 30, 1990,
from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, re: Highway Depart-
ment's improvement project advertisement schedule), Mr. Echols said the
"advertisement date" is the date on which the Highway Department puts the
project out to bid and construction is usually three to four months from that
date. Mr. Bain asked about the schedule for the "Route 631 - Fashion Square
Entrance to Route 850" project. Mr. Echols said that "Route 850" should be
"Route 650". He said most of the construction times listed in the report are
estimates. This project is estimated to be completed within six months and is
to build new two and one-half lanes on the north side of the road, curb and
gutter on both sides of the road. There should be two lanes kept open through-
out most of the length of the project.
Mr. Bain asked why advertisement for the "Route 631 1.33 Mi. S. Route
64 ..." project is so far in advance (July, 1994). Mr. Echols said that date
is incorrect; the project is scheduled for advertisement in July, 1991.
Mrs. Humphris asked the segment of road for the "Route 654 - Route 1406
to Georgetown Road" project. Mr. Echols said that project is the four laning
of Barracks Road from the City limits to Georgetown Road. Mr. Bain asked why
advertisement of this project is not until April,.1992. Mr. Echols said the
cost of the project has increased considerably. Also, the Highway Department
has not yet held a public hearing on the project.
Mr. Bain said it was his impression that the "Route 708 Int. Route 631"
project would be completed with the opening of the Southern Regional Park.
Mr. Echols said the Department had some problems with that project. The
Department does not have a final alignment that it can present for public
hearing. It was determined that a church was in the right-of-way of the
alignment chosen. Therefore, the Department anticipates having to change the
alignment to go behind the church because it will be difficult to do anything
along the existing intersection. A definite alignment is necessary before
advertising for the public hearing.
Mr. Echols asked if the list provided is satisfactory. Mr. Bowie said he
has no problem with the format. Mr. Bain said he also has no problem with the
format, but, in the future, if there are significant changes in the advertis-
ing schedule of a project that an asterisk be placed alongside the project
title to bring it to the attention of the Board.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
150
Mr. Bain said he received a letter and pictures from some residents of
Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision, and he also received a copy of a letter from
the Highway Department in response to those concerns. He asked if the Highway
Department has met with any of the residents or received a response to its
letter. Mr. Echols replied "no". The work was done, the Highway Department
received a letter concerning the work and has responded to that letter, but no
other correspondence has been received.
Mr. Bain asked if the edges of pavement have been improved and if inspec-
tions of the work has to wait until the project is completed. Mr. Echols
responded "no" to both questions and said when the Department goes out to
inspect a road before taking it into the system, it looks at the height of the
shoulders in relation to the road improvements. The Department recognizes
that over time the shoulders will rise in elevation due to silt and debris
build up. Some streets are worse than others for that type of problem. This
is an extreme case which had gotten out of control. A curb and gutter would
eliminate the build up, but is more expensive construction and maintenance.
Mr. Bowerman said at the last day meeting he raised the issue of a
traffic conflict at the Route 29 North/Rio Hill Shopping Center entrance.
Since that time, Mr. Roosevelt has filmed approximately two hours of traffic
flow at that intersection, and has determined that there is an improvement
that can be made at that location to help the flow of traffic. Mr. Roosevelt
estimated that this improvement would cost between $3000 and $5000. Mr.
Bowerman said if the Board agrees with him, he would like to see this improve-
ment included as a project in Six Year Highway Plan, rather than using repair
funds. In June he plans to discuss this improvement and present a diagram
showing the improvement and Highway Department recommendation. He thinks this
will be a cost-effective improvement to that intersection which can prevent
fender benders and perhaps more costly damage. The situation, if it remains,
will be exacerbated when Berkmar Drive is extended through to Rio Road. He is
just providing this as information at today's meeting.
Regarding the Route 660 bridge project, Mrs. Humphris questioned the
integrity of the Environmental Impact Statement. When this project was first
discussed, she was not a member of the Board, but because of a concern raised
by a constituent, she read the Board minutes of the public hearing, read the
Environmental Impact Statement in the Highway Department's office and asked a
lot of questions. As a result, she has a lot of concerns. To achieve a
categorical exclusion, the Highway Department must certify to the Federal
government that all of the environmental concerns have been addressed. Some
of the documents that were supposed to be part of the EIS were not in the
office and she asked Mr. Roosevelt for those documents, but he has not gotten
back in touch with her. Included in this file was a letter from Mr. Agnor in
which he asked the Department to let him know the methods the Department would
take to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. There was no response to
Mr. Agnor's request in the files. When this project went to public hearing,
there were three alternatives, but in all the documents Alternative A was
termed the preferred alternative and was the one that everybody thought would
be the route. After public hearing, Alternative C was adopted. It is her
understanding that originally there were no particular environmental concerns
identified with Alternative C. However, it recently surfaced that whereas
Alternative A had a great impact on the bank at the bottom of Mrs. Rappolt's
property, it was later determined that the southern route from the other side
of the road impacted a perennial stream which was originally identified by
VDoT for study as a ditch. All of the environmental impact information that
came in was based on the preferred alternative without the information of the
impact on the perennial stream. That is where she questions the integrity of
the Environmental Impact Statement. She then asked what happens to the
integrity of this Environmental Impact Statement when it is obvious that the
Highway Department missed something. What happens when documents that are
supposed to be in the files are not there and responses to requests for infor-
mation are not there, and yet the Department is going to build this road
starting in June?
Mr. Echols said the environmental impact documents are not only reviewed
and approved by the Highway Department, but by several other agencies. He
said he could not answer Mrs. Humphris questions today, but will respond when
he has the information.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
151
Mr. Bowie suggested that the Highway Department respond in writing
because this item could have an impact on the whole project.
Mrs. Humphris said it also concerns her that the agency doing the work
does its own Environmental Impact Statement which she thinks could cause
conflict. This stream lies on one of the resident's property and now must be
moved back into the bank and still feeds into the Reservoir directly. She
thinks this is deserving of attention from the Board and Highway Department.
Mr. Way said in February, the Board received a letter from the Rivanna
Ruritan Club concerning protruding rocks on Route 53. He asked if anything
has been done concerning that. Mr. Echols said the Department has received
letters over the years concerning this problem where there is an area where
the rock from the mountain comes out and almost hits the pavement of the road.
Any work in there will be hard to do because it basically involves blasting
away part of the mountain. Route 53 is a State primary route. At the pre-
sent, he is not aware of anything scheduled to be done. Mr. Way said these
people should receive a response to their question.
Mr. Way said other communities within Albemarle County are allowed to
have parades without being interrupted by traffic. This was the case in
Scottsville for 50 years and about five years ago the situation changed and
traffic started coming through town during the parade. To look at the parade,
people must sit on the sidewalk. These people cannot see the parade when
there is a stream of traffic coming through and it is an extremely dangerous
situation. He has been told for five years the reason is because Scottsville
happens to be on a primary road and nobody can do anything about closing a
primary road. The other day the Tour de Trumpe came through the area. It is
very obvious that somebody can do something about closing a primary road. He
would like to know why Scottsville cannot have a parade like any other commu-
nity that is free of danger and people can observe it and not have to be
concerned about traffic. It is so disruptive. This is a main event for the
community. It is ridiculous that something cannot be worked out.
Mr. Bain offered motion to delegate the County Executive to take whatever
steps are necessary to stop traffic in the Town of Scottsville during the
Fourth of July parade. He agrees with Mr. Way and thinks that if Route 250
can be closed, then Route 20 can be closed. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion because every time he leans out of a
car to wave, somebody drives by from the other direction. There being no
further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie asked that the questions raised by Mrs. Humphris concerning
Route 660 be scheduled as an agenda item for the July meeting.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Lindsay Dorrier, re: Task Force on
Illegal Drugs.
Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Albemarle Commonwealth's Attorney, presented
the following memorandum:
"On April 16-17, 1990, law enforcement officials from throughout
Virginia met in Richmond at Governor Doug Wilder's Drug Summit to
discuss solutions to the drug crisis facing the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the United States. A number of solutions were proposed,
but most dealt with more law enforcement personnel, more treatment
options, more prevention and education efforts, better coordination
among agencies, and earlier education and intervention. During the
workshops in which I participated, I saw other communities in Vir-
ginia, such as Hampton, which had an aggressive community-based
policing and education effort to combat illegal drugs. Charlottes-
ville created a Task Force on Illegal Drugs in the Fall of 1989 to
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
152
study the issue and recommend solutions to drug problems in the City,
which solutions were incorporated in the City budget for Fiscal Year
1990-91. A drug czar in Charlottesville was recently appointed to
coordinate the anti-drug efforts in the City. The impetus for the
Charlottesville Task Force was citizen complaints about unsafe neigh-
borhoods as a result of open air crack cocaine markets.
During the Drug Summit, I realized that we in Albemarle County do not
know the extent of the drug problem in the County nor do we have an
integrated community-based approach to the problem. It's true that
our County law enforcement efforts to fight illegal drugs have im-
proved and our integrated Law Enforcement Task Force with the City of
Charlottesville and the University of Virginia is resulting in addi-
tional arrests. The DARE program in the County public schools is
attempting to address the anti-drug education issues. We have excel-
lent public and private treatment options in our community to deal
with drug and alcohol abuse.
However, there is no overall integrated co~unity-based anti-drug
program in Albemarle County nor do we know the extent or type of drug
problem that exists in the County. Both the City of Charlottesville
and the University of Virginia have studied the illegal drug problem
in their respective localities and both communities have issued
reports defining the problem and recommending community-based solu-
tions.
Before a decision can be made to empanel a task force on illegal drugs
in Albemarle County, a staff study should be done to define the
illegal drug problem in Albemarle County and outline the parameters of
community-based solutions to it. The drug problem is more diffuse in
Albemarle County and we must first define the extent of the problem
before we can propose solutions for it.
Therefore, I would recommend the following actions by the Albemarle
Board of Supervisors:
1. Commission Albemarle County Executive, Guy Agnor, with the
task of conducting a staff study of illegal drug use in Albemarle
County to determine:
a. The extent of the illegal drug problem in Albemarle
County, to include the sale and use of illegal drugs;
b. What types of drugs are used and by what citizens of the
County and how are they obtained;
c. What treatment options are available for substance
abusers in our community;
What anti-drug education programs are available for
juveniles and adults in Albemarle County and what is
their effectiveness;
e. How effective are anti-drug law enforcement efforts in
Albemarle County;
What community-based law enforcement, education, and
treatment support groups can be enlisted to aid the
government of Albemarle County in its anti-drug effort;
What potential solutions to the illegal drug problem can
be considered by a Task Force or the Board of Supervi-
sors;
What are the approaches for coordinating Albemarle
County anti-drug government and community-based efforts
with the City of Charlottesville and the University of
Virginia.
2. The County Executive will determine the composition of the
Committee to study the problem of illegal drug use in Albemarle
Gounty;
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
153
3. The County Executive will report the results of his study to
the Board of Supervisors in the Fall of 1990.
I believe that this approach to the drug problem in Albemarle County
will produce a cost-effective, coordinated approach to a problem which
a recent Gallup Poll indicated that 61 percent of Americans believe is
the greatest problem facing America. I will be glad to assist in any
way in the preparation of this study for the Board of Supervisors."
Mr. Dorrier said he has met with Mr. Gerald Strand, the City drug czar,
and they have proposed a drug summit be held this Fall to develop a coordi-
nated grant to apply to the Department of Health and Human Services for drug
use and alcohol abuse prevention demonstration grants. It is their hope to
receive $1.5 million for the Charlottesville-Albemarle community for preven-
tion and treatment purposes. This grant has to be filed by November 15,
therefore, he thinks that a committee is needed to study the extent of the
problem in Albemarle County. The County is not yet in a situation where it
has to react to a perceived crisis. He is asking that the County Executive do
this because a task force is a good idea if the problem is readily defined.
He does not think that is so in the County. The County Executive served on
the City's Task Force and knows firsthand how a task force works and he knows
the individuals involved and will be able to draw information from them.
Mr. Agnor said his staff can handle this project during the summer
months. He has discussed it with Mr. Dottier and indicated that he would
utilize the staff of agencies and departments already involved in drug issues.
He thinks that the Fall of the year for a report is a reasonable timetable.
Mr. Bain said he think it is appropriate to not over react at this point
and agrees with the recommendation.
The consensus of the Board was to direct the County Executive to form a
committee to study the extent of illegal drug use in the Albemarle County
using criteria outlined in Mr. Dorrier's memorandum. There was no further
discussion.
Agenda Item No. 8. Plat Appeal: Somerset Farms Preliminary Plat.
(Applicant requests deferral until July 11, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie read a letter, dated May 7, 1990, received from the Mr. Richard
Carter, representative of the applicant, requesting a deferral until July 11
due to difficulty in obtaining pertinent engineering information which he
thinks will benefit the Board in its deliberations.
Mr. Bain said he thinks that if the applicant plans to present new
information, the appeal should go back to the Planning Commission. The Board
should be hearing an appeal on what has been heard by the Commission, not on
new information not heard by the Commission. There is time that this could be
heard by the Commission and be back before the Board in July.
Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Bain's statement follows new Board policy that the
Board does not want to hear requests unless it has all of the input from the
Commission. She agrees that the Board should not hear anything that the
Commission has not heard or made a recommendation concerning.
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff does not know what the applicant intends to
submit. When the new information is submitted, the staff had intended to
review it and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether the information
was substantially different from that heard by the Commission.
Mr. Bowie asked if the appeal has to come before the Board for a motion
to refer it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes".
Mr. Bain said he brought this issue up now because he does not want the
applicant to think the Board will make a decision on the appeal on 3uly 11
especially if the staff thinks the information is significant enough that it
should go back to the Cox~ission.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
154
Mr. Bowie said in correspondence to the applicant, he should be told that
if he submits substantive new information, the appeal will be reviewed by
staff and if so advised by staff, the appeal may be referred back to the
Commission.
Mr. Way said he has never really understood the Board's policy concerning
these matters. He would like to know when something is referred back to the
Commission. He has no problem with a policy. Frequently the Commission will
hear a request and have certain concerns which are worked out by the time the
request comes before the Board. He does not think the Board should single out
one case. (Mr. St. John returned at 10:25 a.m.) He wants to make sure the
Board is consistent with any action it takes.
Mr. Bowie said he had problems in the past where a petition was denied by
the Planning Commission and the Board got the appeal with a lot of new infor-
mation which was designed to overcome the objections of the Commission. He
did not know if the new information addressed all of the Commission's con-
cerns.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to know whether the new
information would have changed the decision of the Commission.
Mr. Bowie said he would support a motion that if the information received
is essentially the same, the Board will hear the appeal, but if the informa-
tion changes, then the appeal would be referred back to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman said the Commission does occasionally indicate in its
deliberations what was defective about the application and what the applicant
could have done to make it approvable by the Commission. He thinks if that
information is provided in the report, then the petition should come forward
to the Board. If it is completely new information that the Commission has not
seen or heard, he thinks it should be referred back to the Commission.
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney if new information is received that
the Commission has not heard, if the Board could refer the request back to the
Commission. Mr. St. John said it has always been his opinion that when new
information is presented, the request should go back to the Commission even
with rezonings and special use permits. If there is a substantial alteration
or addition or something the Commission has not seen, the request should be
returned. In reviewing subdivisions and site plans which come to the Board on
appeal, the Commission is required by law upon denial to state why the appli-
cation is being denied and what could or must be done in order to get approval
of the subdivision or site plan. He thinks even with that input from the
Commission, if there is a change that would warrant approval by the Commis-
sion, the new information should go back to the Commission for approval. The
appeal should come to the Board in the same posture that the Commission denied
it or it should go back to the Commission if there are new things that were
not presented to the Commission.
Mr. Bowie suggested the Board accept the applicant's request to defer
the Somerset Farm's appeal until July 11, but indicate if he presents any
substantive new information, the plat would be referred back to the Planning
Commission. Motion for same was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by
Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Community Development, commented that if the
Board refers this particular appeal back to the Commission, the Commission
will likely refer the plat back to the staff because it is also the Commis-
sion's policy to not hear any new information until it has been analyzed by
the staff.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowerman said, having served on the Commission for a number of years,
it is his feeling that applicants sometimes get the idea that the Commission
is just there for "practice". He thinks the message must be conveyed by this
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
155
Board that the Commission's recommendations are not practice, that everything
that comes before this Board should be heard by the Commission to allow proper
review of their recommendations.
Mr. Bowie suggested staff draft a written policy so that the Board,
Commission and applicants all have the same information on what will happen
with appeals.
There was no further discussion.
The Chairman called a recess at 10:35 A.M. The Board returned to the
meeting at 10:49 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8a. Work Session: Corridor Overlay Ordinance with
briefing from the Piedmont Environmental Council.
Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, representing Piedmont Environmental Council,
said a month ago he saw a presentation by Land & Company, Assoc., on a corri-
dor overlay ordinance adopted by Leesburg, Virginia. Since the County is
beginning to consider this issue, he thought it might be helpful for the Board
to see how it was done for Leesburg. Land & Community Assoc., specializes in
rural and historic preservation planning. Present today are Mr. and Mrs.
Keller, the two principals in the firm. From his perspective, the key to the
ordinance is the architectural review, orientation of buildings and so forth,
not the setback and screening issues. The architectural review part of the
ordinance allows the opportunity to tinker with the orientation of the build-
ings and the general design of the buildings in order to minimize the impact
of the development. Although he does not know how extensive, there are some
resources in the community that are available to help with the design of
standards and help provide some leverage in terms of staff time. He knows
there has been some staff concern about the need for a historic protection
ordinance, but that it is very complicated and likely to be controversial. He
suggests that the County set up the architectural review board first and then
get into the overall historic preservation issue. He is concerned that if
everything is tied together, it will become a major issue and bog the whole
process down. He then introduced Mr. Tim Keller.
Mr. Keller said he is a native of the area and is interested in protect-
ing the environment and at the same time allowing for managed growth. Mr.
Greg Brittingham is a senior planner with this firm. He is formerly the
Planning Director for the Town of Culpeper and is a member of the Rural
Planning Caucus of Virginia. Mr. Brittinghamwas the project manager for the
Leesburg project and he will monitor the slide presentation that was designed
for Leesburg. If the County is considering adopting such an ordinance, it
needs to be tailored specifically for the County in order to be successful.
Using a slide presentation, Mr. Brittingham highlighted some of the
issues, design considerations and general concepts that had to be addressed
for the Town of Leesburg. The idea of the overlay district is similar to some
of the overlays use here in the County. The characteristics of the land are
controlled by whatever overall zoning categories are in effect and then the
overlay district design guidelines would be imposed over any zoning district
that happened to fall within the corridors. These corridors did include
residential, commercial and industrially zoned properties.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that Land & Community, Assoc., donated their time
this morning to this and do not expect any long range benefit.
Mr. Cilimberg presented his following memorandum dated May 4:
"Staff has prepared a draft Entrance Corridor Overlay District (EC)
which could be implemented with existing staffing levels. A more
sophisticated EC zone which would address matters of architectural
design would require establishment of an Architectural Review Board
(with possible need for additional staff). Staff has also prepared a
minimal (framework) draft of an Historic Preservation Overlay District
(HP) which would require establishment of an Architectural Review
Board (ARB) to implement. The HP zone would contain all EC regula-
tions governing razing/demolition of historic structures. Staff
suggests the following actions:
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
156
1. For the short-term~ adopt the current Entrance Corridor regula-
tions to be implemented by Planning and Zoning; and
For the long-term~ create an Architectural Review Board (ARB)
with the initial charge to develop architectural design standards
for inclusion into the EC zone as well as developing a compre-
hensive HP zone. To guide them in this effort, it is recommended
that the ARB obtain detailed entrance corridor design plans and
historic resource studies.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT (EC)
Recent events have prompted the Planning Staff to develop drafts for
new zoning overlay districts. The Board of Supervisors has become
increasingly concerned as to the character of development along major
roadway corridors, particularly in the Urban Area and in the vicinity
of historic sites. The City of Charlottesville's staff is actively
pursuing an entrance corridor zone to be forwarded to the City Plan-
ning Commission. Finally, the Code of Virginia has recently been
amended to provide localities relatively broad authority to protect
roadway corridors leading to historic areas or other general tourist
routes.
As stated earlier, the City has a draft ordinance, and Ron Keeler and
I met with City staff to assess the possibility of pursuing highway
corridor protection/enhancement measures as a joint effort with
Charlottesville. A comprehensive approach would extend well beyond
the draft ordinance staff has developed and would include:
o Development of specific corridor design plans (listed as #II in
the Comprehensive Plan Action Agenda, draft page 229);
o Establishment of an Architectural Review Board;
o Enactment of an Historic zoning district;
o Wholesale revision of 4.15 SIGN REGULATION;
o Reassessment of the SA
roadways.
Scenic Areas overlay district related to
In the interim, and given the current pace and scale of development,
additional regulation may provide some reasonable measure of protec-
tion. The initial EC overlay zoning district is intended to address
certain aspects of physical development. While this was developed
with an eye to the City's draft provisions, the intent is to address
County concerns since traditional County and City development patterns
are markedly different. In other words, the City and County staffs
have agreed to be flexible as to specific regulations.
The draft EC regulations would require increased setback, reduced
building height, increased landscaping/screening and special sign
regulations. This EC overlay zone could be implemented by current
Planning and Zoning staffs.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT (HP)
Staff has also developed a minimal Historic Preservation Overlay
District (HP) intended to track the language of Section 15.1-503.2 of
the Code of Virginia. The draft also reflects some aspects of a prior
County draft circa 1980, although provisions of this current draft are
more restrictive. As drafted, the regulations of the EC zone would
apply within HP districts together with additional regulations (certi-
ficate of appropriateness; razing and demolition). Implementation of
the HP zone would require creation of an Architectural Review Board.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
What the proposed EC zone does not address is matters of architectural
design. Such an effort is beyond the expertise and staffing levels of
the Planning and Zoning departments and would require establishment of
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting) 157
(Page 16)
an Architectural Review Board. An Architectural Review Board could be
authorized significant review and administrative powers relative to
the aesthetic components of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan:
Entrance Corridor Overlay District (administration)
Historic Preservation Overlay District (administration)
Scenic Areas Overlay District (administration), Section
32.7.9.8(c)(5) of Landscaping and Screening Requirements
(advisory)
Rural Preservation Development (advisory)
Variances, rezonings and other actions related to the
foregoing (advisory)
The Architectural Review Board would have powers and duties distinct
from and operate independently of the Planning Commission and Board of
Zoning appeals. The ARB would be created, appointed, and funded by,
and responsible to, the Board of Supervisors. The ARB should have its
own (exclusive) staff."
Mr. Bowie asked if compatibility and spacing of buildings was discussed.
Mr. Cilimberg responded "no". The staff feels more work is needed on the
architectural aspects with the type of analysis that was done for Leesburg.
An architectural review board is needed to implement architecture control.
The staff can deal with site designs in the review process for landscaping,
location of the buildings and, depending on resources, have architectural
design guidelines to offer to developers, but all that will take quite a bit
of work to accomplish. Mr. Bowie asked if the general concepts can be out-
lined in an initial ordinance for staff use. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is
already attempting to do just that.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the presentation was positive. Although he
is sure there are proprietary rights involved with the presentation given the
Board today, he would think the County could emulate portions of the Leesburg
ordinance. He thinks that an ordinance of this type in the County would begin
to get some cohesion to development along the entrance corridors in a short
period of time. Mr. Bowerman then offered motion to that the County move with
all haste consistent with present resources to implement an ordinance. Mr.
Bain seconded the motion. He thinks this could be beneficial to everybody.
Mr. Bowie asked what is the most the County can do short of having the
Architectural Review Board. Mr. Lindstrom said legislation allows creation of
an Architectural Review Board for this specific purpose. There is no need for
an entire historic ordinance. He asked if there is any reason the Board does
not want to create the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. St. John said standards for an Architectural Review Board need to be
published in advance. He does question whether those standards must be in the
ordinance and who drafts the standards. He does not know if the standards
have to be imposed by the governing body as part of the ordinance or if they
are just a manual used by the Architectural Review Board. The City has an
Architectural Review Board and maybe the County can solicit some input from
them.
Mr. Cilimberg said he thinks there will need to be an Architectural
Review Board established to work on the design aspects. An ordinance can be
amended at a later date to include those aspects. He thinks that the issue of
staff time will also have to be addressed.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the Code requires the Board to
develop a set of architectural standards and then appoint a group of archi-
tects to enforce those standards. It is his opinion that the Architectural
Review Board's main function is to study the surroundings and come up with
standards for adoption by this Board at the onset. The Architectural Review
Board should develop those standards, not vice versa.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
158
Mrs. Humphris said she sees no reason to delay creation of an Architec-
tural Review Board and doing whatever work is possible within the constraints
of existing staff time. There is no reason the Board should not ask the staff
to move forward with a complete plan, i.e., establishment of an Architectural
Review Board, an entrance corridor overlay district, and an historic preserva-
tion overlay district.
Mr. Way said the report states that "the Architectural Review Board
should have its own exclusive staff." He will not support hiring additional
staff at this time. Mr. Cilimberg said staffing needs have not yet been
identified and action by the Board today should not include that recommenda-
tion. It is his intent to inform the Board at the proper time of the staffing
requirements.
Mr. Bowerman then amended his original motion to implement the contents
of the staff report as soon as possible with the exception of additional
staff. Mr. Bain seconded.
Mr. Keeler asked if the Board wanted the staff to bring back an Entrance
Corridor Ordinance and an Ordinance to create the Architectural Review Board
for review or does the Board want to adopt a resolution of intent to refer
these matters to the Planning Commission. It will be necessary to amend the
Zoning Ordinance and create the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Tucker said the Board needs to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to provide for the overlay district and the architectural
review board to get this into the Planning Commission's work cycle.
Mr. Bowerman then amended his motion to adopt the following Resolution of
Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for an Entrance Corridor
Overlay District and an Architectural Review Board. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to provide a new district in the ordinance entitled
"Entrance Corridor Overlay District"; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this
Board at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 8b. Work Session: Rural Preservation Easement, draft of
form to be used for.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following report:
"Staff, with assistance of the County Attorney's office, has developed
a draft 'format' easement necessary to implement the rural preserva-
tion development (RPD) option of the RA, Rural Areas, zoning district.
To date two rural preservation developments have received preliminary
approval from the Planning Commission and are in the process of moving
towards final administrative approval. Two additional developments
have been submitted and are under review. In order to provide consis-
tent implementation from the outset, the following procedural steps
are suggested:
Schedule review of the draft easement document by the Board of
Supervisors at the earliest possible date. Since the document
has been reviewed as to form by the County Attorney's office, it
may be possible to include the draft easement as an item on the
Board's consent agenda;
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
159
After Board review, the draft easement should be forwarded to the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority of Albemarle County for
consideration. A meeting of the authority to consider the draft
easement (as well as to address organizational matters) could
avoid delay of pending RPD projects.
As to the content of restrictions of the draft easement, the following
comments are offered:
Staff recommends that in all cases the only 'by-right' RA use
which would require additional approval would be 'borrow, fill or
waste activity' on a rural preservation tract. Other uses may be
specifically limited or prohibited on a case-by-case basis.
On occasion, it may be appropriate to apply easements to develop-
ment lots as well as to the rural preservation tract. The draft
easement limits both development lots and the rural preservation
tract to one dwelling unit.
e
Individual easements would be tailored to the specific intent of
the RPD and may contain additional provisions related to:
Preservation of agricultural and forestal land and
activities;
Water supply protection;
Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources.
In closing, the draft RPD easement is intended as a 'backbone'
approach to be employed in all cases. Individual easements would
carry additional restrictions as offered or negotiated on a case-
by-case basis.
RURAL PRESERVATION DEVELOPMENT EASEMENT
This deed of easement, made this day of ,
19 , between , herein called the "Grantor",
and the County of Albemarle and the Public Recreational Facilities
Authority of Albemarle County, herein referred to as the "Grantee".
WHEREAS Chapter 17, Title 10.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
Sections 10.1.1700 through 10 1.1705, entitled "Open Space Land Act,"
was enacted to preserve open-space land in the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia, and authorizes, among others, any County or public recreational
facilities authority to acquire perpetual easements for the purpose of
preserving open-space land; and
WHEREAS, the Public Recreational Facilities Authority of Albe-
marle County has been created under the provisions of Chapter 29,
Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 1950, Sections 15 1.1271 through
15.1.1287 to accept, hold, and administer open-space land and inter-
ests therein; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that the
rural preservation development option shall be for the purposes of:
(a) preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
(b) water supply protection; and/or (c) conservation of natural,
scenic or historic resources; and
WHEREAS, the Rural Areas District contained in the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance states that the rural preservation development
option is intended to encourage more effective land usage in terms of
the goals and objectives for the Rural Areas as set forth in the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan than can be achieved under conven-
tional development; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of property to be developed
under the rural preservation development option of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, such property to contain a rural preservation
tract(s) together with development lots, defined as such therein;
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
160
NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the foregoing and in considera-
tion of the mutual covenants herein and theacceptance by the Grantee,
the Grantor does hereby grant and convey to the Grantee an open-space
easement in gross over, and the right in perpetuity to restrict the
use of, the real estate consisting of ( ) acres together with improve-
ments described hereinafter as:
Restrictions are hereby imposed on the development and usage of
the aforementioned real estate. The acts which the Grantor, their
heirs, successors in interests and assigns, covenant to do and not to
do upon the aforementioned real estate, and the restrictions which the
Grantees are hereby entitled to enforce, are and shall be as follows:
Permitted uses, except as otherwise limited herein shall be as
provided by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as the same
may be amended, provided that no rural preservation tract shall
be subject to borrow, fill, or waste activity without prior
approval of the Board of Supervisors or its agent;
me
Not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural
preservation tract nor on any development lot except as herein
expressly provided:
No rural preservation tract shall be diminished in area except as
herein expressly provided:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervi-
sors has approved this rural preservation development for the
following Rural Areas purposes and therefore the following
additional restrictions shall apply:
o Preservation of agricultural and forestal land and
activities; o Water supply protection; and/or
o Conservation of natural, scenic or historic resources.
Representatives of the Grantee may enter the property from time
to time for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the
terms of this easement after permission from or reasonable notice
to the owner or owner's representative.
Although this easement in gross will benefit the public as
described above, nothing herein shall be construed to convey to the
public any rights of access to or use of the property described
herein. Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns hereby retain
exclusive right to such access and use, subject to the terms hereof.
Acceptance of this easement by the County of Albemarle and the
Public Recreational Facilities Authority of Albemarle County is
authorized by Section 10.1.1701 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended."
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the
above outlined Rural Preservation Easement form and to forward it to the
Recreational Facilities Authority for review. Mr. Way asked if this Authority
has ever met. Mr. Cilimberg responded "no". There being no discussion, roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Regulations
(continued from April 11, 1990).
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, presented the
following proposed implementation program for designation of Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Areas:
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
"Priority #1: Adoption of Resource Protection Area Overlay (RPA).
1. Review regulations/requirements
2. Develop Maps/.assess impacts
3. Draft ordinance language
4. Review of draft/recommendation by Planning Commission
5. Public Hearing/adoption of RPA by Board of Supervisors.
161
Required Resources: Existing staff of the Department of Planning and
Community Development, Zoning Department, Engineering Department,
Office of Watershed Management, and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water
Conservation District.
Time frame: Short term, adoption of RPA within three months.
Priority #2: Adoption of Resource Management Area Overlay (RMA)
Designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPA).
1. Establish staff work group to develop options.
2. Review regulations/list of criteria.
3. Develop maps and assess impacts/feasibility.
4. Develop options for implementation:
initial feedback from Board of Supervisors;
Resolution of intent on a particular option.
5. Staff work group refines program/final options and develops
overlay:
feedback from Planning Commission and recommendations for
ordinance provisions.
6. Public Hearing and adoption of Resource Management Area
Overlay - Designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas by
Board of Supervisors
Required Resources: Staff work group composed of designated represen-
tatives from the following: Department of Planning and Community
Development, Engineering Department, Zoning Department, Office of
Watershed Management, and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District. In addition, one or more permanent identified staff to
develop and implement the program.
Time frame: Long term, adoption of RMA/CBPA's within nine months.
Priority #3: Consideration of Intensely Developed Areas (IDA).
1. Staff work group examines IDA designation.
2. Development of IDA overlay.
3. Consideration of IDA's by Planning Commission.
4. Action by Board of Supervisors.
Required Resources: Staff work group and continued work of permanent
staff person(s) from above.
Time Frame: One year to 18 months.
Immediate action items:
Designation of RPA's will require revisions to existing language in
the Zoning Ordinance. The RPA will be adopted as an overlay district.
The RPA overlay will be mapped along tributary streams as a 100-foot
buffer from the edge of the stream. Inclusion of contiguous nontidal
wetlands (connected by surface flow) to be determined from analysis of
maps and resources.
Items for consideration:
Grant funds may be available from the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
Department (CBLAD). The CBLAD has funding available to localities
besides funds provided by the Council on the Environment to Tidewater
localities as part of the Coastal Zone Management Program. Inquiry
has been made as to whether or not Albemarle is eligible for the CBLAD
funding.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Public hearings will be held following the selection of any alterna-
tive for implementation.
Adoption of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas will require careful
thought and adequate review to insure a meaningful result. Proper
administrative and enforcement mechanisms should be considered prior
to adopting a particular approach. Clear identification of authority
should be integrated into the process of developing a local program.
There will be a need for additional staff and resources. The extent
of this need will be determined to some degree by the approach taken
by the County in designation of Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas."
162
Mr. Bain asked what is meant by the statement "one or more permanent
identified staff to develop and implement the program". Mr. Robertson said
someone will be needed to administer the long-term program. The Watershed
Management Official's jurisdiction relates more specifically to the watersheds
and public drinking water supply impoundments and reservoirs. A county-wide
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas designation, by definition, goes outside of
that jurisdiction, so there would need to be consideration given as to who
would be given that responsibility. He has discussed with Mr. Cilimberg the
existing resources in the Planning Department and it was felt that for the
long-term both, administratively and enforcement wise, there would be the need
for some additional staff. There are still possibilities for grant funding as
a locality outside of the Tidewater jurisdiction.
Mr. Agnor said he has discussed expanding the function of the watershed
management office to include this area. He will need to discuss that with
City staff in order to revise the job description.
Mr. Robertson said the time frames in his report are fairly ambitious.
Designation of RPAs still involves some mapping. Review by the Planning
Commission and public hearings will make the process even longer.
Mr. Bain said it makes sense to him to move ahead on the RPA designation,
but wait on the RMA until after the County Executive has fully discussed
increasing the duties of the watershed office.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt
the following Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a
Resource Protection Area Overlay District. 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.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance to provide a new district in the ordinance entitled
"Resource Protection Area Overlay District"; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Con~nission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this
Board at the earliest possible date.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to Move Forward on Lickinghole Creek Basin
Project.
Mr. Agnor said the design phase of the Lickinghole Creek Basin Project
has been completed, and project cost estimates updated. Since preliminary
cost estimates are often changed after designs are completed, the design
engineer was instructed not to proceed past the design phase until project
costs were updated, reviewed, and authority to proceed given by the County.
The updated costs are well within the project budget, and, depending upon bid
results and land acquisition costs, the project could be completed with some
funds remaining. Since bidding is the next phase, staff prefers to not
discuss construction cost estimates, other than to report they are within
original budget estimates. Staff recommends the project proceed to the final
design, bid, and construction phase.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
163
Mr. Bowie said this project is already approved in the Capital Improve-
ments Program and unless a Board member objects, staff will proceed with the
next phase. There was no discussion and the consensus of the Board was to
proceed with the final design, bid and construction phase of the Lickinghole
Creek Basin project.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval: Alcohol/Drug Free Workplace Policy.
Dr. Carole A. Hastings, Director of Personnel/Human Resources, said in
accordance with Federal guidelines, the County must provide a policy that
informs employees of the dangers of drug use in the workplace, provide sanc-
tions, provide help to those people who have problems, and notify any Federal
contract holder of a County drug-related conviction within ten days of that
conviction. At the last joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and School
Board, a draft policy was discussed and she was given some directions. First,
the policy emphasizes the Employee Assistance Program. In an attempt to
encourage employees to come forward and acknowledge they have a problem, the
policy states that employees who are voluntarily seeking assistance for a
substance abuse program will not be disciplined. The policy states that the
County will provide a drug and alcohol awareness program, but emphasizes that
use of such substances in the workplace is unacceptable. The policy further
states that if an employee is caught using illegal substances in the workplace
or convicted for usage out of the workplace, that is grounds for dismissal.
The County will continue to comply with suspension and dismissal guidelines
that are already in place. An employee still has access to the grievance
procedure if he/she feels that he/she is being treated unfairly. Regarding
the use of alcohol in the workplace, an employee would be referred to EAP and
if necessary to a rehabilitation program. If the employee refuses treatment,
the policy provides for disciplinary action up to dismissal. If an employee's
primary occupation is driving and that employee is convicted of driving under
the influence, that also is grounds for dismissal from County employment. If
a person is convicted for driving under the influence and is an occasional
driver of a County vehicle, that person would be suspended from driving a
County vehicle. These stipulations also apply to driving convictions outside
of the workplace. The policy includes preemployment testing for safety-
related positions. The County Attorney has reviewed the list of positions. A
person can be referred to Martha Jefferson Hospital for a substance abuse test
if his/her performance gives rise to reasonable suspicion that the person
might be using drugs or alcohol in the workplace. For example if a bus driver
was involved in an accident, his/her supervisor would immediately send to get
a substance abuse test. Mr. Bowie asked if that is any County vehicle acci-
dent or just a school bus. Dr. Hastings said that is not specific in the
policy, but it could be added in the policy. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it
should be automatic because of possible litigation. Mr. Bain said he does not
agree with that and has a problem because the County driver may not be the one
at fault. Mr. Way said he has no problem with the language as it is written
and leaves it to the discretion of the supervisor.
Mr. Bain questioned the language in Paragraph B, Section IV "... if they
suspect such usage in the workplace." A person could be affected in the
workplace, but the usage is not in the workplace. Dr. Hastings suggested
rewriting the language to state "if they suspect the person is under the
influence in the workplace." Mr. Bain said he thinks that language would be
more consistent with the rest of the policy.
Mr. Bowerman said the "Under the Use of Alcohol" section should be
"alcohol or driving impaired" because a person can be driving impaired under
the influence of legal drugs. He does not think there should be any distinc-
tion made between alcohol and substance abuse of substances which are legal by
prescription. He can see no distinction between being under the influence of
alcohol and under the influence of valliums. Dr. Hastings agreed to rewrite
Section III "Use of Alcohol or Legal Drugs".
Mr. Bain asked if employees who are on legal substances are encouraged to
let their department head know on a regular basis. Dr. Hastings said language
to that effect was in one of the other versions, but has been deleted from
this one. She will add it back into the policy. (Mr. Bain left the meeting
at 11:58 A.M.)
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
164
Mr. Bowie asked why lifeguards were not added as one of the safety-
related positions requiring testing. Dr. Hastings said the testing is not
meant for temporary employees and lifeguards are temporary summer help. It
was agreed to add lifeguards as a safety related position requiring testing.
(Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 12:00 noon.)
Mr. Bowie asked if the School Board has seen the latest revision. Dr.
Hastings said the School Board will review it Monday night.
Dr. Hastings clarified that when this policy goes into effect it is not
intended that current employees be tested.
Mr. Bowerman said he would rather read the final draft before adopting
the policy. The Board decided to add the policy to the following Wednesday's
meeting for adoption. Mr. Bowie said he is in agreement with the revisions to
the Policy.
Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriations: Erosion Control Defaults: Stowe
Park and Laurel Ridge Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor said when security for bonds are foreclosed, the County cannot
spend the funds without authorization from the Board. Authorization from the
Board gives the County the authority to bid the projects for completion of the
work. The bonds are for the Stowe Industrial Park in the amount of $35,090
and Laurel Ridge Subdivision in the amount of $4840.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the amount of the bonds will cover the work. Mr.
Agnor said he will not know until the bids are received next week. The funds
will not be spent unless the bids come in at that amount.
Mrs. Humphris asked how often someone defaults on a bond. Mr. Agnor
replied that there are two or three a year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the follow-
ing resolutions appropriating the funds from defaulted bonds for erosion
control at Stowe Industrial Park and Laurel Ridge Subdivision. 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.
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EROSION BOND DEFAULT:
PLANS #868 & #945
EROSION CONTROL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100041000331905
MAINT:STOWE PARK/ECP #868 & #945
TOTAL
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
$35~090.00
$35,090.00
AMOUNT
2100051000510100
APP. FROM RESERVE FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$35~090.00
$35,090.00
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EROSION BOND DEFAULT:
SUBDIVISION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
LAUREL RIDGE
AMOUNT
1100041000331910
MAINT: LAUREL RIDGE SUBDIVISION
TOTAL
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
$4~840.00
$4,840.00
AMOUNT
2100051000510100
APP. FROM RESERVE FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$4,840.00
$4,840.00
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
165
Not Docketed: Mr. Cilimberg distributed copies of the 1989-2010 Compre-
hensiv~ Plan to the Board members. Planning will begin immediately to sell
the document to the public. The cost of printing was a little more than
$12,000 for the su~r~ary and the Plan. Planning intends to charge $15 to
County residents for the Plan, $4.00 to County residents for the summary, $20
to non-county residents for the Plan and $5.00 to non-county residents for the
summary. The Plan will also be placed in the various libraries and people can
come in the Department and review the document.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel (For Interviews -
Boards and Commissions).
At 12:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to
adjourn into Executive Session for Personnel, Section 2.1-344.A.1, and for
Legal Matters relating to the Nativity Scene, Section 2.1-344.A.7. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:28 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way certifying the
Executive Session as set out below.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors-has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr.
Perkins and Mr. way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session - Blake Hurt: Task Force on Residen-
tial Development and Watershed Protection.
Mr. Blake Hurt said the purpose of the task force is to study areas of
land use in this County and gather information for public distribution to make
sure there is a clear idea of the results of research on the subject of land
use. He gave the following report:
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
166
"Estimates made using the official County method show that all developed
land in' the watershed, plus ongoing construction activity, account for about
eight percent of the soil loss (suspended solids) and 13 percent of the
phosphorus in runoff in the watershed.
In contrast, agricultural activity contributes about 65 percent of the
soil loss and phosphorus in runoff in the watershed. Considered solely from
the point of view of water quality protection, the conversion of active
pasture and cropland to residential use would result in a net benefit. In
view of the role of agricultural activity as a polluter, the opportunity under
the Chesapeake Bay PreservationAct to impose buffer zone requirements on
farmers would be of great benefit to the watershed.
Strict enforcement of erosion control and runoff control regulations is
an effective means of protecting water quality in the watershed from the
impact of development. Effective erosion control during construction and
permanent runoff control measures can be designed to allow low to medium
densit-y (0.5 to 2.0 dwelling units per acre) residential development without
noticeable increases in non-point source pollution in the watershed.
For example, calculations made using the official County method show that
runoff controls can be designed so that a residential development of the
density of the Willoughby Subdivision could be built on a wooded parcel of
land without increasing runoff or associated pollutants from the completed
subdivision. Calculations made using other methods also show that it is
possible to achieve this result, although a higher level of control would be
required.
Research conducted in the Maryland Piedmont indicates that water quality
degradation occurs when development causes impervious cover in a watershed to
approach 15 percent. The South Fork Rivanna Watershed, which is currently
less than one percent impervious, has ample capacity to absorb more low-
intensity development before a negative impact would result.
Analysis of several alternative development options shows that policies
which specifically encourage the planting of trees on open land in conjunction
with residential development could more than offset any potential negative
impact.
Reliance on erosion and runoff controls rather than on rural areas (RA)
zoning would increase the flexibility of the Comprehensive Plan in responding
to changing residential needs and facilitate the development of low to medium
density housing in appropriate locations, especially those near or bordering
existing growth areas, villages and communitieS.''
Mr. Hurt then summarized the background of the South Fork Rivanna Reser-
voir which began operating in 1966 as the principal source of public drinking
water for the Charlottesville and Albemarle County area with a design life of
60 years. After that time, the safe yield of 12 million gallons per day (MGD)
would begin to decline. The watershed draining into the reservoir encompasses
approximately 243 square miles and comprises one-third of the total area of
the County.
There have been three major studies of the watershed and reservoir
beginning in 1977, when the Reservoir was severely eutrophic due to high
loadings of phosphorus. In that year, a report by Betz Environmental Engi-
neers stated that if the phosphorus runoff within the reservoir were not
abated, the ability of the water treatment plant to produce an acceptable
water supply might be in jeopardy. Betz also examined the rate of storage
loss in the reservoir due to sedimentation. The report projected that the
reservoir could maintain its safe yield of 12 MGD until the year 2036, or ten
years beyond its original design life. The report also estimated that point
sources (principally Morton Frozen Foods in Crozet) contributed 24 percent of
the total annual phosphorus loading to the reservoir. Undeveloped land
contributed 32 percent, agriculture contributed about 27 percent, and deve-
loped land about 16 percent. Later studies were done by F. X. Browne Associ-
ates in 1979 and in 1982. A bathymetric study was completed in 1989 by James
Reed Associates.
Mr. Hurt said Albemarle County has taken steps to protect water quality
in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed through a number of policies as a result
of these studies. Albemarle County relies upon several regulatory approaches,
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
167
such as the Runoff Control Ordinance and land use controls as embodied in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. He then discussed the post-
development performance standard provision of the Runoff Control Ordinance.
The requirement is that post-development conditions must be at least as good
as pre-development conditions, and could be better due to the added imposition
of maximum allowable pollutant loadings. He said developers are required to
prepare detailed calculations of pre- and post-development runoff. Many
professional engineers in the area, as well as some County staff members, are
skeptical of the method of computation mandated by the Guidelines to the
Runoff Control Ordinance. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) used in the
Guidelines may not be accurate when used to calculate the pre-development
runoff from small parcels of land, and may be even less reliable in estimating
post-development conditions.
Regardless of the method of computation, Mr. Hurt feels there is a
troubling degree of subjectivity and arbitrariness in the process. For
example, the amount and type of canopy and ground cover on a site slated for
deVelopment is a key factor in determining the results of the pre-development
calculations of runoff quantity and quality. This, in turn, can determine how
difficult it will be for the developer to comply with the terms of the runoff
control ordinance. Mr. Hurt said there is no practical way to measure exist-
ing site conditions precisely, and the process must rely on the professional
judgment of engineers working for the developer and the County. Unfortu-
nately, these two parties often do not agree, and the outcome is determined
through time-consuming and frustrating debate. One conclusion of this report
is that a fairer, more consistent approach to measuring pre-development and
post-development conditions should be adopted other than relying strictly on
the USLE.
Mr. Hurt said the most fundamental approach to watershed protection is
the control of land use within the watershed by means of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. When used effectively, land use controls can
prevent pollution problems by establishing land use patterns that are consis-
tent with water quality protection, open space preservation, and other envi-
ronmental objectives. At the same time, land use controls provide for orderly
and rational economic development. A major drawback of reliance on land use
controls, however, is that they do not apply to agricultural activities, which
are major contributors of runoff and associated pollutants. Mr. Hurt said
that the use of zoning to restrict the density of residential development in
the watershed is probably the most controversial approach used by the County.
Albemarle has designated the land within the South Fork Rivanna Watershed
(with exceptions for established villages and communities) as a Rural Area
(RA) zone. He said this is an effective way to help protect the watershed,
although it may not be as effective as it is thought to be. For example, Mr.
Hurt said it could be better to have tighter controls on development, tighter
control on the soil erosion measures during construction, and tighter controls
on agricultural uses near the watershed, rather than using zoning to control
development.
Mr. Hurt then discussed Table 1 on Page 11 of the report regarding
calculating pollutant loadings for pre- and post-development conditions. He
said the table shows that uncontrolled suspended solids generated by seven
specific subdivisions listed in the chart is substantially less than that from
all of the pre-development sites, without the need for a detention pond. He
said the chart shows that cropland has the highest amount of pollutant poten-
tial in pre-development conditions, and wooded land has the least. Therefore,
agricultural use presents the biggest problem according to the chart. In
post-development conditions, none of the seven subdivisions has as much
pollutant loading capability as the agricultural uses listed. He said agri-
cultural use must be weighed against water quality and development.
Mr. Hurt said many studies of water quality make reference to the detri-
mental impact of non-point source suspended solids generated by construction
activity and urban development. However, relatively few studies have rigor-
ously examined changes over time in a given watershed relative to urbanization
or compared water quality among several watersheds with various levels of
urbanization. He said there is a lack of research in order to determine the
correct path.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
168
Mr. Hurt said the Task Force recommends further research and public
discussion to resolve the following issues:
1)
Should a revised method be adopted for implementing the performance
standard of the Runoff Control Ordinance? Should the Runoff Control
Ordinance be based on specific engineering design standards and runoff
control practices instead of a mathematical performance standard? Should
Albemarle County hire a consultant to make recommendations?
2)
3)
4)
Given the large sediment and nutrient contributions from cropland and
pasture in the watershed, should Albemarle County adopt the buffer zone
requirements for agricultural activities which are contained in the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations? Should conservation incen-
tives be incorporated into the land use tax program and the cluster
building option of the zoning ordinance?
Which is more cost-effective and maintainable in the long run, regional
detention ponds, on-site controls, or a combination of both? Should the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority continue to be responsible for the
maintenance of all on-site controls as stated in the Buck Mountain Reser-
voir Agreement? Should a stormwater management utility be created?
What is the current water quality status of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir and the current storage capacity of the Sugar Hollow and Ragged
Mountain reservoirs?
5)
What will be the economic and environmental impact of adding flashboards
to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam?
6)
Should tougher erosion controls be required for all single family homes
built within the watershed?
Mr. Blake concluded his report by asking the Board to consider this
report in hopes that it will be of use in planning policies.
Mrs. Humphris said this report may result in movement toward requiring
best management practices for land under the land use taxation program. Mr.
Bowerman agreed and added that the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act which
includes 100-foot setbacks will go a long way in addressing problems Mr. Hurt
raised.
Mr. Bowie suggested that Board members read the report and that an
afternoon work session be scheduled at the June day meeting for further
discussion. No one objected to his suggestion.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Request from Citizens for Albemarle to Identify
Land Use Petitions.
Mr. Agnor said staff examined the costs related to a recox~endation by
Citizens for Albemarle to include information in advertisements that would
identify whether or not a petition is in a designated growth area. Mr. Agnor
reported that the additional costs for legal advertisement for Board of
Supervisors' meetings would be approximately $3.50 for each petition. On an
annual basis, the cost would be approximately $1950. If the same designation
is used in Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals advertisements,
there would be an additional cost of $1200.
Mr. Jack Marshall, representative of Citizens for Albemarle, said he had
no idea it would cost this much to add a few words to the advertisements. He
feels it is important, however, for citizens to know whether requests for
changes in properties are in designated growth areas. He suggested that the
clarifying words be added to the agendas which are mailed to members of the
public. Perhaps there could be an abbreviated phrase in the advertisement as
well.
Mr. Bowie asked if the staff reports have such a designation in them.
Mr. Cilimberg said they do. Mr. Cilimberg also noted that there are some
changes in Virginia State Code requirements effective July 1, which require
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
169
notification as to whether a particular proposal is consistent with the
Comprehansive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the advertising budget in his
Department would not be sufficient to cover these additional costs.
Mrs. Humphris said the intent of this request is admirable, and everyone
is surprised at the cost to implement the request. In light of the expense
and budget constraints, she feels that the best idea is to add a note to the
agendas rather than in the paid advertisements which would indicate whether or
not a property is within a growth area. The Board concurred with her sugges-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint Mr. Mitchell E. Neuman to the
Regional Jail Board, with said term to expire on May 22, 1993, and Mr. Ralph
Ross to the Con~nunity Services Board, with said term to expire on June 30,
1993. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Mr. Bain asked for a brief update on the status of the new urban elemen-
tary school site. Mr. Agnor said a report on the cost of the project and the
desire of property owners to sell or not will be brought to the Board in the
near future.
Mr. Bain reported that two staff members and he and Mrs. Humphris
attended the Virginia Department of Transportation Roundtable Discussion held
in Culpeper on May 8. He said it was a productive session regarding the
planning aspects of subdivision developments and coordination between VDOT and
various agencies. He said the issue was raised regarding inspection of roads
being accepted into the State system, and the answer was that no one is
inspecting these roads. He said if those roads have to be improved within a
few years of their acceptance into the State system, it will have to be paid
for from the County's secondary road allocation. That is why it is important
that inspections be done.
Mr. Bowerman said in the interest of good government, and to inform both
the public and other members of the Board, he wished to make a statement
regarding his personal business. He said he found a business that would give
him personal satisfaction and would not conflict with his responsibilities as
a member of the Planning Commission. When he filed his financial disclosure
form on December 31, he had no business interests that would pose any con-
flict. Today he filed a new Statement of Business Interest because he not
only has hundreds of retail customers, he also has commercial customers such
as Virginia Power, and others. Mr. Bowerman said he does not see this as
posing any conflict of interest; however, he would abstain from any discussion
of Board matters in the event a conflict should develop.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concern about the approval of SP-90-19 for
Multi-Cable TV at the May 2 meeting. The fact that the original special use
permit approved on July 18, 1979, included a TV tower and a small building,
but made no mention of satellite dishes. She said she is concerned that
satellite dishes have appeared on the site without any knowledge of the County
staff or possibly without the required permission. She wants to know if the
satellite dishes are in violation of the original permit. Mr. Bowie said his
impression of the discussion last week was that the Zoning Administrator had
ruled that satellite dishes were ancillary uses. Mrs. Humphris said the
statement was made that the Zoning Administrator had not made a decision one
way or the other.
May 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
170
Mr. Bowie said he misunderstood the response by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Ag~or said he would ask the Zoning Administrator to give a report on this
special use permit.
Mr. Bowerman said a contract has been let for $550 to Dillard Company to
patch the potholes on Peyton Drive. Work is to be completed by June 2, 1990.
Mr. Way said he is going to offer a motion to continue the nativity scene
case for several reasons. He believes that the nativity scene is a proper
symbol of free speech and should be allowed as stated in the original appeal.
He also feels that until this question is resolved for the citizens of
Albemarle County, other forms of litigation could be brought against the
County along similar lines. From a financial point of view, if the County
wins its case, there will be no additional cost. For these reasons, Mr. Way
offered a motion that the County Attorney be instructed to continue this case
to the U. S. Supreme Court. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick from the Piedmont Environmental Council spoke as a
follow-up to earlier discussions regarding corridor protection. She said
there is money available from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
for grants for community preservation plans. A grant could be beneficial in
getting additional st.afl help to implement corridor protection legislation.
She said the deadline for application is June 8.
Not Docketed: At 3:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and
seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of
discussing specific individual personnel under Virginia State Code Section
2.1-344.A.1.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 4:45 P.M. the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immedi-
ately offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman certifying the Execu-
tive Session as set out below.
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.
MaY 9, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
171
VOTE:
AYES:
Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins
and Mr. way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn.
At 4:47 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned.
CHAIRMAN