1990-01-17January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on January 17, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman and F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Deputy County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.;
County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald Keeler;
and Chief of Community Development, Mr. David Benish.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie. He welcomed the Webelow's den of Cub Scouts, Pack 206,
from Hollymead and their leaders, Messrs. Johnson, Maupin and Mercer. He
asked the Scouts to lead the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed: Mr. Way welcomed migrant workers from the Covesville area
who are attending the meeting as part of their English and Civic classes. He
also welcomed their teacher, Mr. A1 Kiss.
Mr. Bowie then presented a gavel to Mr. Way in honor of his two years as
Chairman of the Board, the gavel which he had used during this time.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Bain, seconded
Mrs. Humphris, to accept the items on the consent agenda as information.
There was 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.
Item 4.1. Letter dated January 4, 1990, from the Commonwealth of Virgin-
ia, Department of Education, addressed to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Division
Superintendent, re: approval of a grant in the amount of $33,730.00, under
ESEA Chapter 1, Migrant Education, for Fiscal Year 1990; received for informa-
tion.
Item 4.2. Letter dated January 3, 1990, from Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr.,
Department of Transportation, State Location and Design Engineer, re: approv-
al of Project 0671-002-191, C-501, C-502, B-646, for Route 671 over the
Moormans River; received for information as follows:
"I would like to take this opportunity to advise that the Common-
wealth Transportation Board of Virginia, at its December 20, 1989,
meeting, approved the location and major design features of the
above project as proposed and presented at the September 28, 1989,
public hearing with provisions for painting the steel beams a rust
tone color, erecting a three-rail, aluminum hand rail with an
anodized treatment to match the color of the beams, and utilizing an
exposed aggregate treatment on all visible concrete surfaces."
Item 4.3. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for November, 1989;
received as information.
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for January 4, 1990,
was received as information.
9O
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Agenda Item No. 5. Crozet PTO, Comments on new School Gym.
Ms. Rachel Collier, President of the Crozet Elementary School PTO,
addressed the Board. On behalf of the PTO and over 300 concerned parents, she
said, she would like to express concern about the installation of a tile-on-
concrete floor planned for the gymnasium of the new Crozet Elementary School.
She said the new school is intended to serve the community and the gymnasium
is to be built larger than usual to allow for growing enrollments and to
encourage its use by members of the community. She said that a tile-on-
concrete floor would be a poor surface for children to play on, nor would such
a floor be suitable for community recreational activities, such as youth and
adult basketball.
Ms. Collier then read an excerpt from a letter written by Dr. Joe Gieck,
Read Athletic Trainer at the University of Virginia and Assistant Professor in
Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at the University Medical Center. In his
letter dated December 12, 1989, Dr. Gieck wrote concerning the tile and
concrete floor proposed for the new Crozet school: "To put down a concrete
and unyielding surface is to set up a hazardous condition for participants
using such a surface. The classic sports injuries we see on a daily basis are
those of over-use, compounded by exercise on an unyielding surface. As a
result, many dollars over the cost of a wooden floor will be spent on medical
bills. The gym will not be utilized as it could be because of the injury-
producing surface and more importantly, the health of the individuals in the
Crozet area will suffer."
Ms. Collier said the PTO also contacted Mr. Hunter Johnson, the General
Manager of the Atlantic Coast Athletic Club, and Mr. Steve Muslin, a trainer
at the Club; several physical therapists and representatives of the field of
orthopedic medicine. Ms. Collier said all these people agree that a tile and
concrete floor is not in the best interests of the children. She said that
representatives of the County have told the PTO that the issue of the gym-
haslum floor is not one of money, but of parity: other elementary schools in
the County have tile and concrete gymnasiums. Ms. Collier said she thinks the
new Crozet school is different. The gymnasium atlthe new school will not be
used for a cafeteria or an auditorium, but only for athletics. Ms. Collier
said the PTO and school staff are willing to use ~he old furniture at the
Crozet Elementary School for the new Crozet school, if the money saved can be
used to pay for a wooden gymnasium floor. Eventually, new furnishings could
be provided on a gradual basis. Ms. Collier suggested that the Board consider
a new policy, beginning with the new Crozet school, to have all gymnasium
floors constructed in safer, more resilient materials. She then presented
petitions signed by over 300 parents of school-aged children in the Crozet
area.
Mr. Emery Taylor, the Vice-President of the Crozet Community Association,
addressed the Board. On January 11, 1990, the Association unanimously passed
a resolution supporting the request by the Crozet Elementary School PTO that
the gymnasium floor for the new elementary school Ge made of hardwood, rather
than tile and concrete. Mr. Taylor said the members of the Association
believe that sports injuries such as shin splints, sprained ankles, fractures
and concussions occur more often, and with greater severity, on concrete
floors than on hardwood floors. Because the gymnasium at the new Crozet
school will be used only for athletics, and does not have enough room for
bleachers, there will not be a chance of tables, Chairs and people with street
shoes damaging the hardwood floors.
Mr. Vernon Jones, former President of the Crozet Elementary School PTO,
addressed the Board. He presented copies of a letter to the Board from Dr.
Jeff Wolfrey of the Earlysville Family Health Center, dated January 17, 1990.
In his letter, Dr. Wolfrey that he has seen child=eh with musculoskeletal
injuries which he believes have stemmed from the concrete and tile flooring in
place at the Broadus Wood Elementary School. According to Dr. Wolfrey, the
additional cost of hardwood flooring would be warranted based on the many
years of wear and tear that the students will be exposed to in physical
education class.
Mr. Jones said he also received from Mr. Mark Fletcher, Director of the
Intramural-Recreational Sports for the University of Virginia, a comparison of
the costs of installing and maintaining hardwood and synthetic floors. Mr.
Jones handed copies of this comparison to the Board, noting that the total
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
annual maintenance cost of a hardwood floor is $5,783, while a synthetic floor
costs $8,460 a year.
Mr. Bob French, a parent of a child who attends Crozet Elementary School
and the coach of the girls' basketball team, spoke next. He does not think
parity should mean that all children in the County's elementary schools have
equally good chances of hurting themselves when they fall on the gymnasium
floors. He would like to see this problem corrected.
Mr. Bowie thanked members of the PTO for their comments and asked if any
members of the Board cared to make a statement.
Mr. Way said he believes that wooden floors are safer and less expensive
to maintain than concrete and tile floors. He would like to know the exact
difference in cost between the two types of flooring. He said he thinks the
Board is being called upon to set a policy with regard to gymnasium floors in
other schools, such as Stony Point and Yancey Elementary Schools. If the
gymnasiums are being built as recreational facilities for the community, then
he thinks that might justify the expense of installing wooden floors.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of the Parks and Recrea-
tion Department, to speak to this issue. Mr. Mullaney said he thinks the
wooden floor is undoubtedly a better surface for recreational activity than a
concrete and tile floor.
Mr. Way asked if the staff of the Parks and Recreation Department planned
more recreational activities in the future for the community in the gymnasiums
of elementary schools. Mr. Mullaney said that all the schools' gymnasiums are
being used at least five evenings a week to host recreational programs for the
community. He thinks any new gymnasiums will also be heavily used by the
community.
Mr. Perkins said that he and the citizens oflCrozet thought the gymnasium
floor would be wooden until they were asked to pick what color tile they
wanted. He pointed out that the community of Crozet is a growth area and the
new gymnasium will be heavily used by the growing population, which he thinks
justifies the installation of wooden floors in the gymnasium and makes the new
Crozet school different from other elementary schdols. He said the lower cost
of maintaining a wooden floor would eventually pay for the higher cost of its
installation. He said the PTO has been raising money for this project and he
asked Ms. Collier how much the PTO was willing to>contribute. Ms. Collier
said the PTO has raised about $8000, which had been intended to fund equipment
for the new school. If it is necessary, she said,: the PTO is willing to apply
these funds toward the installation of a wooden floor in the gymnasium. She
suggested that there may be funds already allocated for the Crozet Elementary
school that could be applied toward the cost of the flooring.
Mr. Perkins said the Principal of the Crozet Elementary School has
indicated his willingness to use old equipment and furnishings for the new
school, rather than buy new equipment. Mr. Perkins said there is also $50,000
in a contingency fund established for the Crozet School project. With funds
from the PTO, the money saved by using old equipment and the contingency fund,
Mr. Perkins said, there should be enough money to install the hardwood floor.
He added that the Board can request that the School Board have the wooden
floors installed, but the final decision rests with the School Board.
Mr. Bowie agreed that this is a decision the School Board must make. He
suggested that representatives of the Crozet Elementary School PTO provide the
information just presented concerning the cost and safety of wooden gymnasium
floors versus concrete and tile floors. He said he supports the concept of
wooden floors for this gymnasium, but he thinks the proposal should be placed
before the School Board.
Mr. Bain said the Board could make a statement recommending that the
floors in school gymnasiums used by the public be wooden. He said the Board
could also recommend that the gymnasium floors in all elementary schools be
wooden.
Mr. Bowie said he is worried that the Board will be called upon to
appropriate more money to pay for wooden floors, unless the Board sets a
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
92
precedent by recommending that the funds set aside for furnishings for the new
school' be redirected to paying for the wooden floor. He repeated that he
believes this matter should be handled by the School Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way to establish a committee, composed of Mr.
Way, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Mullaney and representatives of the School Board, which
would recommend to the Board a policy on the subject of wooden gymnasium
floors for the new Crozet Elementary School and other elementary schools.
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.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend the Albemarle
County Code, Chapter 4, Animals and Fowls, Sec. 4-19, by the addition of North
Pines Subdivision, as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2 and January 9, 1990.)
Mr. Tucker said the Board received a petition Signed by 107 residents of
North Pines subdivision, which represents 91 of the 120 lots in the subdi-
vision.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Joseph Crookston addressed the Board. He said some residents of the
subdivision have incurred the expense of installing "invisible fences". While
these fences keep their dogs from straying off their property, they are
powerless to keep other dogs from coming onto the property. There have been
several cases of large dogs straying onto protected property and mauling the
smaller dogs that live there. Mr. Crookston said there are five dogs that run
in a pack and these dogs are aggressive. He said extending the leash law to
the North Pines subdivision will help control this nuisance.
Ms. Pat Cross, a resident of North Pines subdivision, addressed the
Board. She owns two dogs and supports the leash law. She said that one of
her dogs was attached by the pack mentioned by Mr. Crookston. She asked the
Board to extend the leash law to North Pines subdivision.
Ms. Cecile Curtain, a resident of North Pines subdivision, addressed the
Board. She said she is afraid to take her ten-month old daughter for walks
because the dogs might attack her baby.
Mr. Colin Crawford, a resident of North Pines subdivision, addressed the
Board. He said this subdivision is surrounded by woods, pasture, a river and
a mountain. He thinks the dog leash law is good for some areas, but not this
subdivision. He said the leash law will be difficult to enforce in this
remote, rural subdivision. He said he believes t~e residents of North Pines
subdivision should meet together through the Homeowners' Association to work
out their problems, rather than bring this issue before the Board. Before
this meeting, he said, he had not heard of any indidents involving vicious or
aggressive dogs. He asked that the Board delay acting on this issue until
everyone in the North Pines subdivision is aware that the leash law may be
extended into their neighborhood.
Mr. Martin Frazier, a resident of North Pines subdivision, addressed the
Board. He said the petition to extend the leash law was presented at a
meeting of the Homeowners' Association. He said the pack of dogs is becoming
such a problem that some neighbors may start shooting the dogs.
Mr. Paul Hartman, a resident of North Pines subdivision, addressed the
Board. He said extending the leash law would help residents protect the
beauty of their property.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning the extension of the leash
law, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the
Board.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
93
Mr. Bowie said the Board generally approves the extension of the leash
~~--l~a~-t 50 percent of the property owners in a subdivision have
signed a petition requesting that extension. Mr. Tucker said that the Clerk
has verified that the 91 signatures on the petition are valid and represent a
majority of the property owners in North Pines subdivision.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt
the following ordinance extending the leash law into the North Pines subdivi-
sion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, SECTION 4-19
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, Section 4-19 of
the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the following
addition as an area where dogs are prohibited from running at large:
Division 2. Running at Large
Sec. 4-19. In certain areas,
(29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in
Deed Book 703, pages 742, 743 and 744.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: To receive public comments on local
community development and housing needs and potential projects in relation to
Community Development Block Grant funding for a project in the County.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 10 and January 13, 1990.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community of Development, presented the
staff's report as follows:
"The Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program (VCDBG)
includes three objectives: (1) to increase business and employment
opportunities; (2) to conserve and improve housing conditions; and,
(3) to improve the availability and adequacy of community facili-
ties. There exists thirty project types which may be considered for
a grant application from the VCDBG program. Two types of grants
will be funded on a competitive basis under the 1990 VCDBG: (1)
Community Improvement Grants (construction grants) approximately
$19,300,000 in grants in two rounds, maximum $700,000 grant per
project; and, (2) Planning Grants - approximately $400,000 in grants
under one round, maximum $25,000 grant per project.
Virtually all VCDBG applications must d~monstrate that the project
provides primary benefit to low and moderate income persons. Low to
moderate persons are defined as individuals whose family income is
less than 80 percent of the median family income for like size
families within the same area. Such VCDBG proposal must demonstrate
that: (1) Fifty-one percent or more of project beneficiaries are
low and moderate income residents, or, (2) the project serves an
area where 51 percent or more of residents are low and moderate
income, or, (3) 51 percent or more of the jobs created are available
to low and moderate income residents. Documentation of benefit to
low and moderate income persons must be provided by one of four
methodologies: (1) participation in the project is limited to low
and moderate income persons based on eligibility criteria, or, (2)
the project facility is designed for use by protected groups, or,
(3) the project service area eligibility is based on low/moderate
income data from the 1980 U.S. Census, or, (4) an income survey for
the project service area.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
The following is a list and description of VCDBG eligible projects
that have been identified for Albemarle County by the Planning
staff. The only request for County sponsorship that has been
received to date is from the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
(AHIP).
Project I: Housing R~_hmhilitation-Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program
Project Description: A rehabilitation housing grant would focus on
upgrading substandard owner occupied and/or rental units. AHIP
received a Community Improvement Grant in 1987 for a housing reha-
bilitation program which is now drawing to a close. With this
previous program, fifty-seven previously substandard homes were
rehabilitated. Securing another grant would permit AHIP to continue
to focus on upgrading existing substandard housing in the County.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Ail AHIP projects recipients must be
low and moderate income persons. AHIP maintains a waiting list of
such families and individuals who desire rehabilitation assistance.
Income for all potential participants is verified.
Relative Priorities: The upgrading of the County's housing stock is
a high priority in Albemarle County as evidenced in the Comprehen-
sive Plan, past CDBG projects, and the social program review funding
process. Housing Rehabilitation ranks in the highest priority group
for both the region and the state.
Other Project Funding Sources:
1. The County provides administrative funding for AHIP.
The Charlottesville Housing Foundation provides low interest
loans to families for housing rehabilitation.
Other potential sources include the Farmers Home Administration
Rural Housing Preservation Grant program from the Department of
Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services Discre-
tionary Grant Program and the Virginia Housing Partnership
Fund.
Other Information: AHIP has an ongoing program of housing rehabili-
tation for qualifying families and units in Albemarle County. In
addition to its current VCDBG, AHIP has also undertaken major
owner-occupied housing rehabilitations with previous VCDBG funding.
A new VCDBG application for AHIP would require a needs assessment to
determine new target areas.
Project 2: Low and Moderate Income Housing Subdivision
Project Description: Development of a single family detached
housing subdivision to be made available for ownership to qualifying
low to moderate income families and individuals. Such a project
would be intended to provide affordable home ownership opportunities
to this targeted income group. VCDBG funds could be used to pur-
chase property, cover site development costs and/or write down
mortgage financing costs for purchasers.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Ail eligible purchasers must be low to
moderate families. Income verification will be necessary.
Relative Priorities: The upgrading of the County's housing stock is
a high priority in the County as evidenced in the Comprehensive
Plan, past CDBG projects, and the social program review funding
process. Concern over the limited home ownership opportunities in
the County for lower income groups has been an issue of discussion
in the Comprehensive Plan review and by the Board of Supervisors, as
well as for various housing advocacy groups. Housing Site Develop-
ment is in the highest group of regional priorities and the second
highest group of state priorities.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Other Funding Sources:
1. In a recent report, County staff identified over $700,000 worth
of potential project development costs that the County might
fund.
Financial assistance from several non-profit organizations
including the Charlottesville Housing Foundation.
Loan funds through the Virginia Housing:Development Authority,
Farmers Home Administration, and/or the Virginia Housing
Partnership Fund.
4. Participation by the private sector.
Other Information: This project concept was presented to the Board
of Supervisors in January of 1989. The Board expressed an interest
in undertaking such a project. A reservation of funds through the
Virginia Housing Development Authority has been obtained for this
project. The Charlottesville Housing Foundation, Planning staff,
and the County Housing Coordinator at Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission have been attempting to locate sites for the
subdivision and obtain additional funding sources. However, prop-
erty has not been secured for this project. Therefore, application
for funding in this year's VCDBG process would be considered prema-
ture unless property can be obtained in the very near future. This
project holds great promise for consideration in next year's VCDBG.
Project 3: Crozet Co~nunity Improvements
Project Description: Improvement project for the Community of
Crozet could be designed as multi-purpose grant for: Housing
Rehabilitation (51 percent to 79 percent of total grant); sewer line
and lateral extensions; flood and drainage facilities.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: An income survey would need to be
performed to determine qualifying target areas for such a project.
Relative Priorities: Residential improvement projects rank in the
highest priority group in both the state and regional priorities.
Other Information: Crozet is designated as a growth area in the
County Comprehensive Plan. It is important to not only encourage
growth there, but also maintain the quality of the existing communi-
ty for the benefit of its residents. Such improvements could
encourage further investment and growth in the community.
Project 4: $cottsville Comity Improvements
Project Description: This project could extend water and sewer
utilities north to the Scottsville Shopping Center, undeveloped
property designated for industrial service use, and/or existing
low/moderate income residential areas. There is a history of water
quantity and quality problems at the shopping center and Stoney
Point Subdivision. The industrial site lacks adequate facilities to
support development.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Such a project would provide utilities
to existing and potential residential, commercial and industrial
development. Additional expansion of commercial activity and
development of industrial uses could provide jobs targeted for low
moderate persons. An income survey would need to be performed to
determine qualifying residential target areas.
Relative Priorities: Sewer and water facilities rank in the highest
Priority group in both the state and regional priorities.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
96
Other Information:
Commitment from an industry proposing to develop at the industrial
site, or businesses wishing to develop at the shopping center or
other commercial sites, would be necessary before making grant
application. Such development must target additional employment
opportunities or services for low-moderate income persons to receive
VCDBG funding.
Project 5: Possible Pro~ect: Farmer's Market:
Project Description: Purchase and develop a facility to accommodate
local farmers to market their goods to the public. Other uses of
this facility may include the option of allowing farmers to sell
wholesale to local retail businesses; and/or incorporating a produce
packing area for commercial distribution.
Low/Moderate Income Benefits: An income survey would likely need to
be conducted to document a 51 percent benefit to low/moderate income
persons. It is widely known that the cost of land and farm produc-
tion expenses is generally not recovered from the sales of agri-
cultural products. This cost-benefit disparity is especially great
for cropland farmers. The enhancement of a marketplace for local
products may encourage: a diversification of the agricultural
economy and related industries; new jobs in the sector; retention of
existing jobs and farm operations.
Wages paid in Albemarle County in the Agricultural Sector (as
reported by the Virginia Employment Commission) are 84.5 percent of
the average for Virginia. However, it may be difficult to verify
primary benefit to low/moderate income persons with this project.
Relative Priority: "Other economic activities" rank in the lowest
priority group of state priorities and next to highest priority
group for regional priorities.
Project 6: Emergency Medical Service In Scottsville
Project Description: Land acquisition and development for a new
rescue squad facility in the Scottsville area.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: The facility would serve the Town of
Scottsville (including the proposed Scottsville School elderly
housing project) and most of Rural Area 4. The 1980 Census reported
a median family income in 1979 of $16,498 in this area (or 80
percent of the median family income for the County). A further
survey of the income of the rescue squad service area may be neces-
sary to determine need and benefit. This wodld be a difficult
undertaking considering the size of the service area and the likeli-
hood of meeting VCDBG criteria adequately enough to qualify for
funding.
Relative Priorities: Emergency public facili~ties rank in the next
to lowest priority group of the state priorities and priority group
of regional priorities.
Priority 7: Conversion of Scottsville School to Apartments -
Jordan Development Corporation
Project Description: Conversion of part of the old Scottsville
School to thirty-four units for rent to low income elderly. Ail
units are committed for rental assistance through the Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation Program administered by the County. VCDBG
funds would be used to finance part of the rehabilitation work,
defray costs of the County for additional land purchase and asbestos
removal, and/or cover grant administrative costs.
Low/Moderate Income Benefit: Ail renters would be low to moderate
income elderly. Income verification will be necessary.
Relative Priorities: The provision of adequate housing for County
residents of all income groups is one of the goals of the County's
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Comprehensive Plan. Adaptive eeuse is in the highest group of
regional priorities and the second highest group of state priori-
ties.
Other Pro~ect Funding Sources:
1. A commitment for bank financing of up to $1,000,000.
o
Financing from the multi-family rehabilitation loan program of
the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund~
3. Funds from the Jordan Development Corporation.
A request was made last year for VCDBG funding for this project.
However, the project was not funded. Jordan Development is proceed-
ing with project development through the use of other funding
sources. Staff is of the opinion that other.projects hold greater
potential for VCDBG.
~,m~mr~: It is not anticipated at this point that any of the
projects listed above will necessitate displacement of County
residents. The County's use of VCDBG funds over the last five years
has been dedicated to housing rehabilitation projects either through
the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation or AHIP. The
VCDBG citizen participation process requires that the Board of
Supervisors, at this public hearing, receive comments from the
public before making a decision on which project, if any, it wishes
to pursue for funding. Staff is prepared to provide its priorities
and recommendations following the close of the public hearing."
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jeff Chouchas, Executive Director of Bloomfield, a residential
facility for disabled children, addressed the Board. He said there is a
growing need for housing for disabled individuals after they have graduated
from a program such as Bloomfield. He said this housing should be available
to individuals with low and moderate incomes and should be accessible to
wheelchairs. He asked that the Board and staff consider the need for housing
for disabled individuals during the review of the CDBG grants.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker if housing provided by AHIP and other projects
being considered by the staff would be accessible to handicapped people. Mr.
Tucker said that Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director of AHIP, could answer that
question.
Ms. Tapscott said that AHIP has a list of over 100 people who are waiting
for housing or repairs to be made to existing housing. In the past two years,
AHIP has completed 57 rehabilitations, using funds from CDBG. She said that
AHIP has also used CDBG funds to secure funds from other organizations, such
as the Farmers Home Administration and the Department of Social Services. Ms.
Tapscott urged the Board to apply for additional funds for housing rehabilita-
tion. In the cycle of CDBG funding that began in 1985, she added, Albemarle
County submitted the highest scoring application in the State.
Mr. Francis Fife, Executive Director of the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation, addressed the Board. He asked the Board to apply for an addi-
tional CDBG of $300,000, which would bring the total request to $1 million.
Mr. Fife said the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is anxious to provide a
housing development in the County with affordable, single-family housing for
people who need it. He said the State has allocated some funds to the Founda-
tion that may be lost if the housing project is delayed.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning the grants, Mr. Bowie closed
the public hearing and~placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Benish said the staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to
proceed with the application for up to $700,000 to be used for the housing
rehabilitation program with AHIP. Since this is a housing program, Mr. Benish
continued, the County is also eligible for a second block grant of up to
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
98
$300,000. He recommended that the Board authorize staff to proceed with the
application for this second block grant, which would be used for the low to
moderate-income housing subdivision. He said that staff would then work with
the Charlottesville Housing Foundation to acquire property for the subdivi-
sion. He said the applications and the specific details of the project would
appear before the Board for a public hearing sometime in late February or
March, 1990. If property has not been obtained for the housing development,
he said, the staff may not proceed with the application for this project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to authorize the
staff to begin development of applications for CDBG funding for the maximum
amount of $1,000,000 for the following projects: Project 1: Housing Rehabil-
itation-Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) in the amount of
$700,000, and Project 2: Low and Moderate Income Housing Subdivision in the
amount of $300,000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-89-100. Charles H. & Anna A. Nelson. Public
hearing on a request to locate a second single-wide mobile home on 5.4 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located on the north side of Rt. 715, approx.
1.5 miles west of the intersection of Rt. 20 and Rt. 715. Tax Map 121, Parcel
24. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2 and
January 9, 1990.)
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, presented the staff's report as
follows:
"Staff Comment: To date no contact with the applicant has been made
by the Planning Department. Ail contact has been between the Zoning
Department and the applicant. The proposed mobile home location is
indicated on a tax map submitted by the applicant. Note that no
plat exists for the property. The Zoning Department has verified
the proposed location and has stated that the location is approved.
The location is in an area of deciduous trees. Currently five
mobile homes are located within one mile of this site. The mobile
home will not be visible from the state road. The only dwelling
which will be visible is that of the applicant's brother.
Two letters of objection to this request have been received. Both
letters are from out of state landowners. Both letters state a
general objection to the request.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, Staff recommends the following conditions of
approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
o
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for the district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to the base of
the mobile home is to be completed within 30 days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screen-
ing to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Adminis-
trator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condi-
tion and replaced if it should die;
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
6. Mobile home is not to be rented."
99
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-100, with the approval of the
six conditions recommended by staff and adding a seventh condition as follows:
"This permit is issued for Anna Nelson and her immediate family only."
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked the applicants if they
would like to address the Board. Mrs. Anna Nelson said she does not under-
stand why her neighbors complained about the mobile home, since they do not
even live in Virginia.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this request, Mr. Bowie
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Ms. Humphris to approve
SP-89-100 subject to the seven conditions set out below. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
1. Albemarle County building official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for the district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to the base of
the mobile home is to be completed within 30 days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to
the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screen-
ing to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Adminis-
trator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condi-
tion and replaced if it should die;
Mobile home is not to be rented.
This permit is issued for Anna Nelson and her immediate family
only.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-89-99. Trustees of Mount Ed Baptist Church.
Public hearing on a request to allow for the construction of an educational
wing to an existing church. Property located on Rt. 635, approx, one mile
southwest of the intersection of Rts. 635 and 692, zOned RA, Rural Areas. Tax
MaP 85, Parcel 22A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 2 and January 9, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report as foillows:
"Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct an
educational wing to the existing church. This addition is to
provide adequate facilities'for the current and future needs of the
church. No immediate increase in membership is proposed. However,
this addition is intended to accommodate 50 additional members.
There are currently approximately50 members.i
Summary: Staff has reviewed this request for!cOmpliance with
Section 32.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and finds that this request
is in compliance. Therefore staff recommends approval.
Staff Comment: Comment on the historical importance of Mount Ed
Baptist Church has been obtained from Mary Joy Scala, Senior
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
~_OO
Planner. The church is a good example of late antebellum Greek
Revival architecture which is unaltered. The proposed addition is a
detached building with a connection to the existing structure. This
method of expansion should preserve the historical importance of the
existing structure. No response has been received from the State
Division of Historical Landmarks.
This site does have existing problems with sight distance. Ade-
quate sight distance must be obtained at the time the expansion is
constructed. To obtain adequate sight distance the entrance must be
relocated slightly to the north and a bank graded.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to SP-89-99 for
Mount Ed Baptist Church subject to the following conditions:
1) Administrative approval of site plan approval to include:
a)
County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordinance to
include all impervious coverage on site;
b) Health Department approval;
c)
d)
Fire Official approval; and
Virginia Department of Transportation approval of commer-
cial entrance;
2)
Day care and other non-worship uses shall require a separate
permit;
3)
Location of building is to be in general compliance with
attachment A (on file in the Clerk's office)."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-99 subject to the four condi-
tions listed in the staff's report. Mr. Keeler added that condition #1 should
be amended to read: "A building permit shall not be issued until the follow-
ing conditions have been met". Conditions la, lb and lc remain the same.
Condition id is amended to read: "VDoT issuance of a commercial entrance
permit". Condition #2 should be amended to read as follows: "Day care and
other nob-worship uses shall require a separate special use permit."
Mr. Keeler said the expansion proposed by the applicant, a detached
building which will be connected to the existing building by a breezeway, is
consistent with the recommendation of the Virginia Division of Historic
Landmarks.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Gerald Shifflet, Chairperson of
the Mount Ed Baptist Church Building Committee, addressed the Board. He
offered to answer any questions members of the Board may have.
Mr. Bain asked the size of the existing church building. Mr. Shifflet
said the existing building measures about 44 feet Wide by 60 feet long. He
said the original church is 200 years old and cannot be modified.
Mr. Bain pointed out that the addition would nearly double the size of
the church. He asked how the new wing would be used. Mr. Shifflet said the
new building would house Sunday School classes, meetings of the Batesville
Chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous, and the church's social activities. He said
that the church is trying to attract young people to its congregation.
Ms. Humprhis asked how many people the original church seated. Mr.
Shifflet said about 150 people could be seated in the building, perhaps more
if the balcony were used. He said the original building is large, but cannot
be easily modified to suit the purposes intended for the new wing.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this application, Mr. Bowie
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
101
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that the new wing will be used for purposes
other than those mentioned by the applicant, such as daycare. He said he
realizes that such a use would require a special use permit, as stated in the
second condition, but he is concerned that once the building is there, grant-
ing such special use permits becomes rather automatic. Mr. Bain said he is
not happy with the idea of granting churches in the rural area permits for
uses that are not related to worship. He said he will support this request,
but he is concerned nonetheless.
From a social point of view, Mr. Way said, he believes that churches are
logical and appropriate places for daycare. From a planning point of view, he
said, he understands Mr. Bain's concern.
Mr. Bain said he only wanted to put his reservations on the record. He
then offered motion to approve SP-89-99, subject to the conditions as amended
and set out below. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. There was 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.
(Note: The following are the conditions of approval:)
1)
A building permit shall not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a)
County Engineer approval under Runoff Control Ordinance to
include all impervious coverage on site;
b) Health Department approval;
c) Fire Official approval; and
d)
Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a
commercial entrance.
2)
Day care and other non-worship uses shall require a separate
special use permit;
3)
Location of building is to be in general compliance with
attachment A (on file in the Clerk's office).
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-89-104. Edwin Childress. Public hearing on a
request to allow for the construction of a church facility on 6.778 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property located nine-tenths of a mile south of its
intersection with Rt. 641. Tax Map 21, Parcel 16. Rivanna District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on January 2 and January 9, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site is relatively flat on an open
field. A residence and a barn presently exist on the property and
their future is undetermined at this time. Two single-family
residences are adjacent to the south and the property to the north
consists of relatively dense woods and a single-family home.
Staff Comment: The Paran United Methodist Church currently has 210
members with a typical Sunday attendance of 80 persons. The appli-
cant estimates the new building will be between 6,000 and 8,000
square feet with seating for 200 people. Although current plans are
for a seating capacity of 200, the applicant has requested a limit
of 400 to allow for future expansion. The maximum seating capacity
in either case is subject to Health Department approval of septic
drainfields.
In addition to the regular services on Sunday, the church plans
fellowship education and community events. The education rooms are
considered an accessory use to the church operation and therefore do
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
102
not require a separate special use permit. No day care is antici-
pated at this time.
Discussion of this petition will focus on traffic and compatibility
with adjacent property.
Traffic: Route 606 is a gravel road with a travel width of eight to
ten feet. The traffic count indicates 50 vehicle trips per day and
it is considered non-tolerable.
This site also has frontage on Route 29. In the past, it has been
County policy that if any property fronts on both Route 29 and
another state road, that the access not be on Route 29. This
assists in limiting the number of major access points on Route 29.
An access to Route 29 to serve this property would be slightly
offset from a crossover. The Virginia Department of Transportation
has recommended both right and left turn lanes if access is estab-
lished to Route 29. Also, this is an area of high speed traffic and
rolling grades on Route 29.
Staff has estimated the potential traffic generation for the church
to be an average of approximately 30 vehicle trips per day with the
majority of the traffic generation occasioned by regular Sunday
services. Applying this figure to the private road requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance, this would be the equivalent amount of
traffic generated by three to five residential lots. The width of
travelway required for three to five lots is 14 feet. Therefore,
staff recommends a condition requiring the widening of Route 606 to
14 feet from the church entrance to Route 763.
Compatibility: A single-family residence surrounded by mature trees
exists to the north. Two single-family homes exist approximately
200 feet to the south~ In staff's opinion, the church would not be
obtrusive to the neighborhood. In addition, staff has made the
applicant aware that extensive landscaping will be required for site
plan approval and that no mature trees shall 'be removed prior to the
approval of a landscape plan.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with criteria for
issuance of a special use permit and it is staff's opinion that a
church in this location would not be obtrusive nor out of character
with other uses in the area. No direct access to Route 29 should be
permitted. Improvements to Route 606 recommended by staff (14-foot
travelway) are more modest than those recommended by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (18-foot travelway) but will accommo-
date two way traffic.
Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following
conditions:
Seating capacity to be determined by adequate septic system
area, not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 400 persons;
Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other
non-worship uses, will require amendment to this petition;
Site plan approval to include Planning Con~nission approval of
landscaping;
Widening of Route 606 to 14 feet from the church entrance to
Route 763;
Trees over 1 1/2 inches caliper shall not be removed without
staff approval and extensive landscaping shall be provided in
excess of the minimum required in the Site Plan Ordinance
especially along Route 29;
6. No access to Route 29 North."
103
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
Mr. Keeler said the landscaping required by the fifth condition would
depend' on the site plan submitted. If the church were to be built between
Route 29 and the parking area, then the only landscaping necessary would be to
enhance the building.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-104, subject to the six
conditions set forth in the staff's report.
Mr. Bowie asked if requiring that the section of Route 606 be widened to
14 feet rather than the 18 feet recommended by VDoT would cause the County
problems in the future. Mr. Keeler said "no".
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Ferguson, Chairman of the
Trustees for Paran United Methodist Church, addressed the Board and offered to
answer questions. He said the Trustees planned to build a church that would
be a credit to the County.
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this application, Mr. Bowie
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr.
Perkins to approve SP-89-104 subject to the six conditions set forth below.
There was 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.
(Note: The following are the conditions of approval.)
Seating capacity to be determined by adequate septic system
area, not to exceed a maximum fixed seating of 400 persons;
Sanctuary or classroom expansion, or daycare and other non-
worship uses, will require amendment to this petition;
Site plan approval to include Planning Commission approval of
landscaping;
Widening of Route 606 to 14 feet from the church entrance to
Route 763;
Trees over 1 1/2 inches caliper shall not be removed without
staff approval and extensive landscaping shall be provided in
excess of the minimum required in the Site Plan Ordinance
especially along Route 29;
6. No access to Route 29 North."
Agenda Item No. 11. SP-89-106. Central Fidelity Bank. Public hearing
on a request to allow for a bank with a drive in window to be located on a
vacant 6.37 acre parcel. Property located in the Gardens Shopping Center
north of Albemarle Square, zoned C-l, Commercial. Tax Map 45, Parcel 104.
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 2 and
January 9, 1990.)
Mrs. Humphris said she owns a few shares of stock in the Central Fidelity
Bank. While she feels that she can, in good conscience, vote on this request,
she prefers that this information be disclosed. In response to a question
from Mr. St. John, Ms. Humphris said that neither the income from the stock
nor the percentage of the Bank's stock that she owns would require that she
disqualify herself from participating in this decision under the conflict of
interest legislation. She said her disclosure is voluntary, not required.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site (Parcel D) is presently vacant and
is within the Gardens Commercial Center. The site has only internal
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
104
access. In December, 1989, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors approved SP-89-85 for Taco Bell to allow a drive-through
window and fast-foOd restaurant on the adjacent Parcel E.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 3150
square foot bank with a drive-through window facility. The appli-
cant states as justification for this request: 'The financial insti-
tution is a by-right use, compatible with current zoning. The
drive-through feature is in character with the surrounding land
,
USe.
Staff Comment: A drive-through window facility requires a special
use permit because of concerns of internal traffic circulation and
traffic generation. In reviewing the preliminary site plan with the
Engineering Department, staff opinion is that the site plan ade-
quately addresses these concerns in the proposed design.
It is staff's opinion that this petition is in general harmony with
the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of this special use permit with the following
conditions:
Landscaping shall be in accordance with the preliminary site
plan dated December 12, 1989;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-106, subject to the two
conditions set forth in the staff's report. He said the applicant has agreed
to model landscaping on the site after the landscaping plan approved for the
Taco Bell restaurant, which addressed the Board's concerns about the visi-
bility of the site from Route 29 North.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. Mr. Woody Palmore, a representative
of Central Fidelity Bank, addressed the Board and'offered to answer any
questions. There were no questions. Since no one else wished to speak
concerning this special use permit, Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Way to
approve SP-89-106 subject to the conditions set out below. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded Vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Landscaping shall be in accordance with the preliminary site
plan dated December 12, 1989;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Agenda Item No. 12. ZMA-89-18. Redfields Development. Public hearing
on a request to rezone 276 acres from R-l, Residential to PRD, Planned Resi-
dential Development, resulting in 656 lots. Property located adjacent to
Sherwood Farms, and bounded by Sunset Road and 1-64. Tax Map 76, Parcels 2lA,
22A, 23, 24B, 47, and 49. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on January 2 and January 9, 1990.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report:
"Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing residential and
open space areas as follows:
Gross Residential Density, 656 units
105 Single family lots on 109.34 acres
551 Cottage and attached units on 166.63 acres
2.38du/acre
0.96du/acre
3.31du/acre
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Use Acreage Percentage Total
Residential 176.23 63%
Public road right of way 13.56 5%
Open Space 81.29 29%
Recreation Center 4.89 2%
105
Staff Comment: Section 8.5.4 of the Planned Development Regulations
requires the Commission in its recommendation to the Board to
include certain findings.
The remainder of the staff report will address these issues.
Comprehensive Plan/Relation to Surrounding Area: Redfields is
located in Neighborhood 5. The Comprehensive Plan recommends
low-density residential in this area with a range of one to four
dwelling units per acre, but allows for clustering of dwellings at
higher net density to maintain sensitive environmental areas.
Proposed gross density of Redfields is 2.38 dwelling units per acre.
Multi-family units are proposed.
Site Characteristics/Relation to Surrounding Area: Several loam
soils are present on this site, with moderate to severe limitations
on development. The Soil Conservation Service has stated that
'generally the ridges will have deep, well-drained soils. The
steeper side slopes will have soils very shallow to hard rock. The
majority of soils on this site are very erosive.'
Areas with slopes of 25 percent or greater exist on this site.
Staff has worked with the applicant to put most areas of critical
slopes into open space. Several lots, 19, 41, 42, 61, 62 and 69
have significant areas of critical slopes. Staff may recommend that
these lots be enlarged or eliminated at the time of final plat
review.
The Engineering Department has stated that the proposed storm sewer
layout appears to be 'grossly inadequate'. Staff will require that
the Engineering Department approve drainage plans prior to Planning
Commission review of the final plats.
Comment has been received from the adjacent property owner. The
letter requests that additional buffers be provided between
Redfields and the adjacent property. The adjacent property is
currently zoned R-l, Residential. Additional setbacks between
similarly zoned properties have not typically been required; how-
ever, staff does believe that only single-family lots should be
allowed adjacent to other properties.
Open Space: The applicant is proposing to place approximately 81.29
acres or approximately 29 percent of the development into open
areas. These areas consists primarily of areas with slopes of 25
percent or greater and hillocks. However, significant areas of
potentially developable land are noted as open space. Staff opinion
is that the proposed open space is consisten~ with the open space
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4.7, and Comprehensive
Plan recommendations. The applicant is further proposing a 4.89
acre tract as an active recreation center. This area is to be
located near the entrance to the development.
Transportation:
External Roadways: The Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDoT), has stated that Route 631 is currently non-tolerable and
that Route 781 is non-tolerable with the development approved but
not yet constructed. VDot does have plans to' improve the road
network in this area. The applicant has inclhded proffers which
limit the number of dwelling units to 276 (the number currently
allowed by right without rezoning) until such time as the Route 631
improvements have been completed. The original plan reviewed by
VDoT included some areas that are outside of ~he growth area. The
applicant has revised the plan to eliminate those areas that are
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
106
outside of the growth area. The applicant has submitted a traffic
study which indicates that this development would result in 4907
vehicle trips per day. VDoT has stated verbally that they will
require additional traffic studies in order to insure that all
internal roads are designed adequately.
Internal Roadways: The applicant is proposing to provide curb and
gutter for internal roads except for roads A and B. Roads A and B
would be constructed in rural cross section; staff can support this
request. Roads A and B are the collector roads within the subdivi-
sion and there are very few lots which will access these roads.
This proposal is similar to the road network found in Forest Lakes.
The Engineering Department has stated that they can support the
applicant's proposal provided that access is limited as shown on the
application plan. Staff will ensure that all future phases will
have limited access to roads A and B.
Public Utilities: A 20-inch water line is located on-site. The
sewer lines from this site eventually connect with the Moores Creek
interceptor which is scheduled for improvement in the spring Of
1990. The Albemarle County Service Authority has stated that 'the
maximum elevation for providing 20 pounds per inch of water service
at a flow of three gallons per minute is 580 feet' The applicant
is proposing development at elevations greater than 580 feet. In
order to adequately serve the development, water pumping stations
and/or water storage facilities will be necessary. These facilities
will be installed by the applicant only after approval from the
Albemarle County Service Authority has been received and the Service
Authority will determine the method of improvement.
Schools: Children from this development will attend Rose Hill
Elementary School, Walton Middle School and Albemarle High School.
Summary: Staff opinion is that the Redfields PRD generally satis-
fies the requirements as to findings by the Commission under Section
8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regards roads, utilities, public
facilities and services. The applicant has made several changes to
the Application Plan based on staff recommendations.
Approval of this rezoning does not relieve the applicant of any
requirement of the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, or any
other applicable law except as specifically modified or waived by
the Board in this approval. Likewise, approval does not preclude
the Planning Commission from exercise of its ~discretion in future
site plan and subdivision review.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-89-19 subject to the following
revisions, modifications and agreements:
Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions.
No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes
of 25 percent or greater~
All roads, with the exception of roads A and B and the private
road to serve Lot 106, shall be built to VDoT standards for
urban cross section and placed in the Secondary System at time
of development of those residential areas utilizing those
roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in accordance with
VDoT standards for rural cross section and placed in the
Secondary System at the time of development of the residential
areas utilizing those roads.
Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such
time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with
Phase 1.
There shall be only single-family detached dwellings adjacent
to Tax Map 76, Parcel 49B.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
107
Addendum to ZMA-89-18, Redfields Development: The purpose of this
addendum is to clarify the applicant's request and the required
revisions, modifications and agreements.
The applicant is proposing a total of 656 units on this site. A
total of 96.9 acres or 35 percent of the site is noted on the plan
as open space. Only 276 units are to be constructed until such time
as Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of
the Department of Planning and Community Development. A total Of
561 units may be approved with the dedication of all open space
except for that shown in Phase 6. Phase 6 is not approved for
development and is open space. The applicant has stated that they
may seek to amend the PRD at some time in the future to allow
development in Phase 6. However, the current proposal does not
allow for development in Phase 6 and no development in Phase 6 can
be supported at this time."
"December 3, 1989
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
The County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
The Redfields Residential Community
PRD Zoning Application Revision
Samuel Miller District/Albemarle County, Virginia
Dear Wayne:
As you know, our office submitted on October 23 the Redfields
residential community zoning application for a change of use from
the R-1 district to the R-4 and R-10 districts. Pursuant to our
meeting this past Monday, we have attempted to incorporate the
recommendations by staff addressing the initial zoning submission
package. In this regard, this correspondence serves to formally
amend the Redfields zoning request to seek a PRD, Planned Residen-
tial Development district to overlay the entire 276-acre tract.
Thus, the PRD district will substitute for the R-4 and the R-10
districts in our current application.
The significant aspects of this amended application which incorpo-
rates staff recommendations and the PRD concept are as follows:
A reduction in total residential units from 867 to 656
dwellings.
A reduction in gross residential density from 3.14 to 2.38
units/acre.
A maximum neighborhood density not-to-exceed 4.0
units/acre in any given residential neighborhood or
development phase.
e
A commitment not to construct more 'than 276 dwelling units
prior to the completion of VDoT's 5th Street extension
project, which is scheduled to commence July, 1991 with an
anticipated completion of November, 1992.
We agree with you that the PRD zoning approach affords a greater
opportunity to establish a general development plan for Redfields
which is fully compatible with the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine
Avenue Neighborhood study and subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ment adoptions by the County. In this regard, I believe our recom-
mended PRD development plan establishes an environmentally sensitive
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
land use approach while adhering to the range of County planning
goals for this area.
Our new PRD Development Plan responds to the major directives of the
original LDS study for the Miller Tract (Parcels D1 and D2):
existing steep slopes and vegetation have been preserved, low
density has been allocated to the westerly sector of the site,
medium density has been organized near the easterly sector and close
to road access, and the LDR recommendation for a 'planned unit
development with mixed density' has been followed.
In light of these considerations, we feel that the Redfields pro-
posal is consistent with the County's visions for this sector of the
Urban Area. For your review and continued input, I am forwarding a
copy of the PDR Development Plan and pertinent conditions relating
to this proposal.
As additional comments and concerns arise, please keep me advised.
We are deeply interested in seeking Commission action on this matter
at their first meeting of the New Year and your assistance in this
pursuit will be deeply appreciated.
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on November 27. With
warm regards, I am
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE ACIP"
108
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 4,
1990, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-89-18 subject to the following
revisions, modifications and agreements:
Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions. No
driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25
percent or greater.
All roads with the exception of roads' A and B and the private road
to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation (VDoT) standards for urban cross section and placed in the
Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas
utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall be constructed in
accordance with YDoT standards for rural cross section and placed in
the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential
areas utilizing those roads.
Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time
as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the satisfac-
tion of the Department of Planning and Community Development.
The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase 1.
There shall be only single-family detached dwellings south of
road L.
6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B.
Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, 3, and 4 found in
Attachment D.
8. Compliance with conditions of addendum.
9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
Mr. Keeler suggested that the fourth proffer be deleted, since the third
condition recommended by the Planning Commission states the intent of the
proffer more clearly than the proffer. Mr. Keeler said the Commission author-
ized the staff to approve final plats for the lots, but the Commission re-
served the right to review the final plats for areas with steep slopes and the
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
unresolved issue of whether there will be an above-ground water storage tank
to serve.this property.
Mr. Bowie asked what impact the proposed development would have on
schools in the area. Mr. Keeler said the applicant anticipates that all the
lots will have homes built upon them within ten years. Over this period, the
development would result in about 125 new students at Gale Elementary School,
which has been planned to hold about 200 more students than now exist in the
district. The proposed development would add 72 new students to Walton Middle
School, which would have room enough for the new students. The development
would add 105 new students to either Albemarle or Western Albemarle High
School, depending on how the County is redistricted.
Ms. Humphris asked how the width of the 20-foot buffer was determined.
Mr. Keeler said that Dr. and Mrs. Ian Stevenson, the adjoining property
owners, requested a buffer between their property and the proposed development
to deter trespassers and lessen the noise. The Zoning Ordinance sets 20 feet
as the minimum width for a landscaped buffer; however, the provisions in the
Zoning Ordinance do not apply to buffers separating two properties developed
with single-family residences.
Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing.
Mr. Frank Cox addressed the Board and said he is representing the current
owners of the Redfields property, Mr. Ben Miller and Mr. Percy Montague, III,
and the contract owners, Mr. Percy Montague, IV, and Mr. Gaylen~i~ts. Mr.
Cox said the application before the Board is the result of ten years of
planning and design. He said the plan is compatible with the recently com-
pleted Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood study and addresses
the. staff's comcerns about roads, schools, drainage, wetlands and steep
slopes. The development will be confined to seven or eight defined neighbor-
hoods on the lower, more gently sloping areas of the property; the steeper
slopes and ridges will be left as open space. Mr. Cox said he believes that
the development will add between 150 to 200 new students to the schools over
the next ten years, slightly less than the staff's estimate. Mr. Cox said he
believes that about 60 percent of the residents of the proposed development
will be families with children; about 40 percent will be "empty nesters",
families with no children.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the four agreements listed in the appli-
cant's letter dated December 3, 1989, are not identified as proffers. He
asked if the applicant considers these four statements to be proffers. Mr.
Cox said "yes"
Mr. Steven Von Storke addressed the Board and said he owns a lot in
Sherwood Farms, an adjoining subdivision. He believes the Redfields property
is suitable for the high density development proposed by the applicant and
agrees with the Commission that the portion of property shown in Phase 6
should be left as open space. Mr. Von Storke said he hopes the Board will
remember over the years why this portion of the property should be open space.
Mr. Jack Stoner, who owns and lives on property adjacent to the Phase 6
portion of the Redfields property, addressed the Board. He said he supports
the concept of the proposed development, but he is concerned about some of the
details, particularly the 95 units which the developer originally planned for
the Phase 6 area. He said the developer may return to the Board with a plan
for the development of this area, even though the current application calls
for the Phase 6 property to be left as open space. He is also concerned that
a water tower may be constructed Within view of his property. He said most of
the open space shown in the application is unbuildable land, so he does not
think the developer is giving up much. Mr. Stoner asked that the Board
insure, over a long period of time, the protection of the property shown in
Phase 6.
Mr. Wayne Olive, a resident of the Sherwood Farms subdivision, addressed
the Board. He is concerned about the density of the proposed development and
the possibility that there may someday be an acces~ to the development from
Route 29 South, through the Sherwood Farms subdivision.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
]_10
Since no one else wished to speak concerning this request for rezoning,
Mr. Bowie closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that the ninth condition recommended by the Commis-
sion would prohibit access from the proposed development through the Sherwood
Farms subdivision. He asked Mr. Keeler to address the speakers' concerns
about open space.
Mr. Keeler said the developer could build 561 units before declaring any
portion of Phase 6 as open space. Once the developer receives approval for
anything over 561 units, he will have to dedicate the open space shown in
Phase 6. If 561 or fewer units are built, and the developer decides he wants
to build on the property shown in Phase 6, the deVeloper will have to submit
another rezoning application and go through the same process as this applica-
tion.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the sixth condition recommended by the Planning
Commission, which limits the access of future lots to roads "A" and "B",
should be more specific. Mr. Keeler referred to a memorandum dated Decem-
ber 19, 1989, from Mr. Peter Parsons of the County Engineering Department,
which stated: "It is our recommendation that cu=b and gutter be required on
all of the proposed roads. The applicant, however, is proposing curb and
gutter on all roads with the exception of roads 'A' and 'B', the collector
streets. While our previous recommendation remains unchanged, if a rural
cross-section is allowed for the collector roads, entrances should be strictly
limited as shown on the preliminary plat, and all lots should access 'inter-
nal' roads only." Mr. Keeler suggested that the sixth condition be reworded
as follows: "Future lots will have limited access to roads 'A' and 'B' in
accordance with the Engineering Department's comments dated December 19, 1989
and found in Attachment A of the staff's report".
Mr. Bain said he believes this application accords with the recommenda-
tions for density in the Jefferson Park Avenue/Fontaine Avenue Neighborhood
study. He also thinks the proposed development is appropriate to its location
in the urban area of the County.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Ms. Humphris to
approve ZMA-89-18 subject to the conditions as amended; the addendum as
recommended by the Planning Commission; and the proffers set forth in a letter
dated December 3, 1989, to Wayne Cilimberg signed by Frank D. Cox, Jr.,
verbally verified by the applicant before the Board tonight, and deleting
proffer #4 in said letter.~ The conditions as recommended are set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Each lot shall comply with current building site provisions.
No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes
of 25 percent or greater.
Ail roads with the exception of roads Aand B and the private
road to serve lot 106 shall be built to Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDoT) standards for urban cross section and
placed in the Secondary System at time Of development of those
residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A and B shall
be constructed in accordance with VDoT standards for rural
cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of
development of the residential areas utilizing those roads.
Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such
time as the Route 631 improvements have been completed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with
Phase 1.
5. There shall be only single-family detached dwellings south of
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
road L.
6. Future lots will have limited access to roads A and B.
7. Acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 2, 3, and 4 found in
Attachment D.
8. Compliance with conditions of addendum.
9. No access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision.
Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation of Audit Report.
Mr. Perkins, a member of the Audit Committee, presented the FY 1989 Audit
Report. The accounting firm of McGladrey and Pullen conducted the audit and'
prepared the report, which consists of two sections: Section I, Compliance
Matters, and Internal Accounting and Administrative Controls; and Section II,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Information. According to the report,
the County administered each of its major federal financial system programs in
compliance in all material respects with state a~d federal laws and regula-
tions. Nor did the evaluation of the County's internal control systems
disclose any condition that McGladrey and Pullen believed to be a material
weakness in relation to a federal financial assistance program.
Mr. Perkins said the firm also prepared a letter offering constructive
recommendations and comments, which staff has reviewed. Mr. Perkins said that
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, is present to answer any questions.
Mr. Perkins added that the auditors could be present at the Board's meeting on
February 14, 1990, if the Board so desires. Mr. Perkins said the Board should
also meet in executive session to discuss the hiring of an auditor for the
current fiscal year.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
accept the Audit Report. 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. Perkins said the auditors were asked at the pre-audit meeting to
include the following statement in their report: "Even though the County has
complied with all state and federal laws and conforms to generally accepted
accounting principles, this does not mean that all operations were done in the
most prudent and effective manner". Mr. Perkins said the auditors refused to
include such a statement, since their task is not to determine the effective-
ness of the County's financial statements. Mr. Perkins said he believes that
the Board now has a way to determine the efficiency of the County's spending:
the Fiscal Resources Advisory Committee. Mr. Perkins said the Committee has
made several recommendations and he believes the Board should move to act upon
them, particularly recommendations 7 through 10 on page 8 of the Fiscal
Resource Advisory Committee report. Recommendation #7 calls for the estab-
lishment of an internal audit function; recommendation #8 suggested that
budget guidance encourage reduced spending in all areas of County government,
encourage departments to return surpluses and to use zero-based budget;
recommendation #9 requested an audit of the schools budget to determine if the
growth in spending was compatible with the growth in enrollment; and recommen-
dation #10 asked that the Board consider establishing a standing Fiscal
Resource Advisory Committee.
Mr. Bain said he cannot support acting on Mr. Perkins' recommendation
tonight, since this item was not on the agenda and he would like a chance to
reread the Committee's report. Ms. Humphris agreed.
Mr. Way suggested that the Board hold a work session on the Committee's
recommendations. It was decided to hold this work session at 3:30 P.M. on
February 7, 1990.
112
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
Agenda Item No. 13a. Update, Forestry Department Plans for the Blue
Ridge Hospital Site.
Mr. Bowie said the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation has
withdrawn its plans for the Blue Ridge Hospital Site. After receiving this
information, Mr. Bowie said,.he and other members of the Board decided not to
attend a meeting in Richmond on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the site. Nevertheless, Mr. Bowie said, he wrote another letter to the
Council on the Environment Stating the Board's opposition to the EIS. He then
asked Mr. Tucker to brief the Board on the possibility of limiting water and
sewer service to the Blue Ridge Hospital Site.
Mr. Tucker said the Board may wish to consider amending the service
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide water and
sewer service to existing structures only on the Blue Ridge Hospital Site, to
bring service to this site in compliance with the surrounding rural area.
Mr. Bain asked why this site was included in the service area in the
first place. Mr. Tucker said the last time the service boundaries were
amended, the site was being considered for the replacement hospital, so it was
left within the service area of the Service AuthoTity.
Mr. Bain suggested that staff make sure there are no other parcels of
land in the County which are shown as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan,
but still lie in the service boundaries of the Service Authority. Mr. Tucker
said he thinks the Blue Ridge Hospital site is the only parcel shown as a
Rural Area that is provided with both water and sewer service. He/~e are
many rural parcels that receive water service to existing structures only.
Mr. Bowie said he would support a motion to bring the service area
boundaries of the Service Authority into compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan in the case of the Blue Ridge Hospital Site.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt a resolu-
tion of intent to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to allow water and sewer to existing structures only on the
Blue Ridge Hospital property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphr~s, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None. ~
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appropriation: Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA) Bonds.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Board authorize the first interest payment of
$581,142.00, due June 15 1990, on the 1989 VPSA bond issue. He recommended
that funds to cover this payment be transferred from the General Fund contin-
gency line item to the Debt Service Fund.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve
the appropriation by adopting the resolution set forth below. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1989/90
FUND: Debt Service
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: Interest on Virginia Public School
Authority Bonds, due June 15, 1990. Legal fees related to bond
issurance.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1990068000920029
1100095000999990
1100093010930003
1900060100312100
Interest-VPSA 1989 Bonds
General Fund Contingency
Transfer to Debt Service
Legal Fees-Bond Issurance
TOTAL
$571,548,50
(571,648.50)
571,6'48.50
9~493.50
$581,142.00
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
REVENUES
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
113
2990051000512004
2900051000510100
Transfer from General Fund
Appropriated from Capital
Improvements Fund Balance
TOTAL
$571,648.50
9,493.50
$581,142.00
Agenda Item No. 14b. Appropriation: Police Communication Equipment
Grant.
Mr. Tucker asked that the Board authorize the expenditure of funds to
match grant funds to be received from the Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice. Total cost of the communication equipment is $47,084 with 88 percent
of this ($41,434) being funded by the State and 12 percent ($5650) funded by
the County. Mr. Tucker recommended that the $5650 be transferred from the
contingency line items for public safety to the Police Department's budget.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
approve the appropriation by adopting the resolution set out below. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR: 1989/90
FUND: General
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
tions Equipment.
State grant funds for Police Communica-
EXPENDTITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031010800300
1100095000999990
Communications Equipment
General Fund Contingency
TOTAL
$47,084.00
(5,650.00)
$41,434.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100024000240420
Communications Grant-State
TOTAL
$41~434.00
$41,434.00
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: June 7(A), August 9 and
October 18(N), 1989.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes for August 9, 1989, and found them to be in
order.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to appoint
Mr. Walter F. Johnson as the At-large member on the Planning Commission, for a
term to expire on December 31, 1992. 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. Tucker handed out copies of the appendix to the Child and Youth Task
Force report.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
114
Mr. Perkins suggested that the Board meet in executive session to select
an auditor for this fiscal year.
Mr. St. John announced that the case involving the number of development
rights of a parcel on Garth Road will be heard at 9:30 A.M., January 19, 1990.
Mr. Way thanked members of the Board for the gavel presented to him in
gratitude for his service as Chairman.
Mr. Bowie pointed out that the Fourth of July falls on a Wednesday this
year. He said the Board will meet on Thursday, July 5, instead of Wednesday.
Mr. Bowie said the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) is hosting a
reception for state legislators on February 5, 1990, from 5:00 P.M. to 7:30
P.M. He asked any Board members interested in attending this reception to
speak to the Clerk.
Mr. Bowie asked for the status of the ordinance concerning inoperable
vehicles. Mr. St. John said the Division of Motor Vehicles recently released
new guidelines for the disposal of inoperable vehicles; if these guidelines
are not followed, the County could be forced to pay back the money collected
for each disposed vehicle. Mr. St. John said the ordinance has been rewritten
to incorporate the new guidelines and should be scheduled on an upcoming
agenda.
Mrs. Ella Carey, Deputy Clerk, said the ordinance will be advertised for
February 7, providing the County Attorney supplies the proper wording for the
advertisement.
Not Docketed: Executive Session: Personnel. At 10:27 P.M., motion was
offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn to executive
session to discuss personnel matters in accordance with section 2.1-344.A.1 of
the state code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
At 10:40 P.M., the Board emerged from executive session. Motion was
offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Ms. Humphris to adopt the following
certificate stating that the executive session complied with state law.
CERTIFICATE OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative record-
ed 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.
January 17, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
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. Adjourn. At 10:42 P.M., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Bowerman to adjourn until 3:30 P.M. on February 7, 1990. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN