1990-03-07March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
213
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 7, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 8:17 p.m.),
Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr.
Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney (arrived at 9:14 p.m.); and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item NO. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way,
seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize the Chairman to sign a plat for the
Rivanna Park under Item 4.1 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the other
items as information. 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: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
(Mr. Bowie announced that Mr. Bain and Mr. St. John would be late for
tonight's meeting. The local bar association is meeting this afternoon to
make a recommendation for the replacement of Judge Gerald Tremblay.)
Item 4.1. Authorize~Chairman to sign Plat showing park access road and
right-of-way for proposed improvement of Route 1421 known as Elk Drive
adjoining Rivanna Park, which incorporates three drainage easements and one
right distance easement required by the Virginia Department of Transportation:
CERTIFICATE OF PLAT
The attached plat, and courses and distances description made by
Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., certified Land Surveyor, Charlottes-
ville, VA, dated June 1, 1989, and revised January 18, 1990, situate
in Rivanna District, of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and being
the same land acquired by the said City and County, by deed dated 19th
day of February, 1986, from the Estate of Mary Mahanes, of record in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 872, page 1, is hereby confirmed and submitted for record
in the aforesaid Clerk's Office.
Item 4.2. Letter dated February 22, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, addressed to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, re:
pavement patching. This letter is in response to questions made at the
February 14 Board meeting, concerning the type of patch material used for
temporary patches along the secondary system this winter. Mr. Roosevelt
responded that the Highway Department has been using a patch stone which is
finer than crusher run in an attempt to both stabilize the roadway and soak up
the moisture which exists at many locations. The material is definitely a
temporary patch and in most cases will need to be replaced by more popular
patch material such as crusher run stone or plant mix. This replacement will
be done later in the spring once weather conditions improve. Received as
information.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
214
Item 4.3. Letter dated February 23, 1990, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, addressed to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, re:
primary and urban road system preallocation hearing date changed from April 16
to April 9. The time of 10:00 a.m. and the location is the Culpeper District
Auditorium remain the same. Received as information.
Item 4.4. Letter dated February 16, 1990, from Mr. D. E. Ogle, Assistant
Highway District Engineer, addressed to Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, re:
notification of location and design public hearing on the Ninth and Tenth
Streets Connector. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 15, 7:30
p.m., in the Buford Middle School Auditorium. The purpose of the public
hearing is to consider the proposed design of 9th and 10th Streets from the
intersection of 9th Street and Cherry Avenue to 0.07 mile north of Main Street
(on 10th Street) in the City of Charlottesville. Received as information.
Item 4.5. Department of Planning & Community Development's staff report
on an alternate site selection for the Department of Forestry project. The
Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed site at its February 27
meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Planning Commission made any comments concern-
ing the Department of Forestry's site selection. Mr. Cilimberg said the
Commission agreed with staff that although the site is not in compliance with
the County's Comprehensive Plan for office development, the site is preferable
to the original site selected. The Commission felt that it could work with
the Department of Forestry and its' consultant to make sure development of the
site is good. If this is the actual site, it will need to be designated for
public institutional use in the Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman of the
Commission stated that while this change would be made to recognize the
Department of Forestry's site, it should not be expected that the Commission
would change any other land use designation in that area for any land other
than the residential uses currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan for the
Hillcrest property.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the architect for the project is receptive to
additional study of other site alternatives. Mr. Cilimberg said the archi-
tects stated that other sites were not feasible. The Board will eventually
receive an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this site. At this time, Mr
Bowie stated that this item is scheduled for discussion by the Board at the
March 14 meeting.
Item 4.6. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for January 30,
February 13 and February 20, 1990. Received as information.
Item 4.7. 1989 Fourth Quarter Building Report, as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. During the year 1989, 882
permits were issued for 1309 dwelling units. In addition, 57 permits were
issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of
$2500 for a total of $142,500. Of the 882 permits, 66 were for condominium
units. Received as information.
Item 4.8. Quarterly report of services and expenditures from October 1,
1989 to December 31, 1989 for JAUNT. Received as information.
Item 4.9. Superintendent's Memorandum No. 46, dated February 21, 1990,
from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Education, re: 199D-92
Biennium Budget, as amended, and revisions to 1989-90 Entitlements. Received
as information.
Item 4.10. Letters dated February 23, 1990, from Mr. Hugh C. Miller,
Director, Department of Historic Resources, re: following properties in
Albemarle County placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and endorsement to
the National Register of Historic Places: Blue Ridge Farm, Walker House and
Gallison House. Received as information.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
215
Item 4.11. Report on Audit for Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit
Court Of the County of Albemarle, for the year ended June 30, 1988, as pre-
pared by the Auditor of Public Accounts, Commonwealth of Virginia. Received
as information.
Item 4.12. Notice from the State Corporation Commission, dated February 9,
of an application of Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of
expenditures for new generation facilities pursuant to Va. Code SectiOn
56-234.3 and for a certificate of public convefiience and necessity pursuant to
Va. Code Section 56-265.2. Received as information.
Item 4.13. Notice from the State Corporation Commission, dated February 5,
of an application of J & B Enterprises, Inc., and LUV Bus, Inc., to transfer
certificate of public convenience and necessity as a special or charter party
carrier No. B-314. Received as information.
Item 4.14. A copy of the 1989 Annual Report of Albemarle County was,
received as information.
Item 4.15. Letter dated February 26, 1990, from Mr. J. S. Hodge, Chief
Highway Engineer, in response to letter dated February 22, 1990, from Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, re: Surveys Charlottesville
area. Received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-89-24. Phil Sansone. A public hearing on a
request to rezone 29.59 acres from R-i, Residential, to R-10, Residential.
Property, known as Wilton, is located on the east side of Rt. 20 North, south
of its intersection with Rt. 1421 (Elks Drive). Tax Map 78, Parcels 8 and
58I. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 20 and
February 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said, the applicant, in a letter dated March 5, 1990,
indicated that significant changes have been made to their plan and, there-
fore,-he requests that ZMA-89-24 be referred back to the Planning Commission
for additional review.
Mr. Bowie asked if anyone from the public was present to speak regarding
ZMA-89-24. There was no response.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
accept the applicant's request to refer ZMA-89-24 back to the Planning Commis-
sion. 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: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item No.' 6. A public hearing to receive comments on the 1990-96
Six Year Secondary Road Plan along with the 1990-91 budget for road projects.
A total of 67 projects have been identified. The total funds estimated to be
available for the six year period are approximately $20,376,735. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on February 20 and February 27, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg said there are 65 items prioritized, including unpaved road
projects, totalling approximately $45,800,000 in this Six Year Secondary Road
P~g~. During the 1990-96 period, 34 projects are pr%posed for funding, in
p~-rt or in whole, using either secondary road funds or revenue sharing funds.
In addition, nine unpaved road projects are proposed for funding in part or in
whole. The total funds available for the six year period are estimated to be
$20,376,735, in secondary funds, and $5,930,000 in revenue sharing funds, to
be split 50/50 by the County and State.
March 7, 1990 ~Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
216
Mr. Bowie acknowledged receipt of letters and petitions from the citizens
of Minor Hill and Townwood in which the residents expressed concern in that
the timetable for completion of the extenstion of Greenbrier Drive (Priority
#28) from its intersection with Whitewood Road to the intersection of
Hydraulic and Rio Roads was inappropriate considering improvements that are to
be made to Hydraulic and Rio Roads.
Mr. Bowerman said he has discussed the concerns raised in letters from
residents of Townwood and Minor Hill with Mr. Dan Roosevelt, the Resident
Highway Engineer. The substance of the concern from the residents is that
Greenbrier Drive Extended between Whitewood Road and the Rock Store on Rio
Road would be constructed prior to improvements to Hydraulic and Rio Roads,
and would, therefore, serve as a conduit to take much of the traffic off those
two arteries and change patterns so traffic would continue through Townwood
Subdivision and behind Minor Hill. Improvements to Hydraulic Road and Rio
Road are listed as priorities 21 and 22, respectively. Construction of
Greenbrier Drive Extended is priority 28.
Some of the resident's concerns are because of funding. Initial funding
for Greenbrier Drive is shown prior to the improvements of Hydraulic and Rio.
The funding available for Greenbrier Drive Extended is from State Revenue
Sharing Funds. Since Revenue Sharing Funds are matched 50/50, the Highway
Department tries to spend those funds first.
Mr. Bowerman said he has talked with Mr. Roosevelt, who is in agreement,
that although a priority has not' been formally adopted by the Board, improve-
ments to Greenbrier Drive Extended does come after that of Hydraulic Road and
Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt also agreed to direct funds for Greenbrier Drive in
such a way as to expedite the planning for Hydraulic Road and Rio Road improve-
ments.
The public hearing was opened.
Mrs. Joyce Olsen, a resident of Route 667. She read from 'two letters
from Mr. Roosevelt in response to citizen's requests to pave Route 667. In
one letter it is stated that a 40 foot right-of-way along Route 667 was
dedicated in 1968 which indicates that residents have been trying to do
something for 22 years for this one mile stretch of road. The Highway Depart-
ment has had all necessary right-of-way donations since 1987. The problem is
more than just the mile of road, but all the additional construction, truck
travel and accidents that occur need to be considered. She then asked how
much consideration the Department of Transportation gives to Board requests
concerning roads.
Mr. Way asked how the priorities for unpaved road projects were estab-
lished. Mr. Roosevelt said priorities #1 through #4 were brought forward from
the adopted 1988 Six Year Plan. Priorities #5 through #15 are being added to
the plan for the first time. Priorities #5 through #12 all have right-of-way
available which was received between April 1, and November 1, 1988. The roads
are listed in the plan in accordance with the criteria for priority adopted by
County staff. Priority is heavily weighted toward traffic count, although not
totally. Priorities #13 through #15 were recommended by the Planning staff
and supported by his office. If a currently funded road project falters in
the plan, then Route 667 could be moved forward.
Mr. Perkins said he thought a portion of the road, where right-of-way was
dedicated between 1968 and 1977, had been paved. Mr. Roosevelt said prior to
1976 there was some right-of-way donated and a section of the road improved,
but there was not enough donation for the Highway Department to extend the
project through the entire area. It has only been since April, 1988, that
sufficient right-of-way has been available on the remaining section for
improvement.
Mr. Bob Short, a resident of Old Forge Road, next addressed the Board.
He is present to speak to Route 656, Georgetown Road, frequently referred to
as the "western bypass" of Albemarle County. Georgetown Road was built many
years ago as a two-lane residential road and is bordered by residential
development. The Highway Department presently estimates that 9000 cars per
day travel this road and priority #8 in the plan lists intersection improve-
ments for Georgetown Road which would increase traffic and speed. Tied into
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
217
this improvement is priority #36 which is major improvements to Georgetown
Road. He handed in a letter dated March 7, 1990, from Mr. Lincoln M. Young, a
resident of 1700 Old Forge Road, who is opposed to the projects. He thinks
the County needs to realize that Charlottesville and Albemarle County will
continue to grow and that growth cannot be stopped. As a result of this
growth, roads are needed, not just the widening of Route 29, but also address-
ing the fact that a bypass is needed, but not on Georgetown Road.
Mr. Homer Richey, a resident of Sturbridge Road, said he opposes any
widening of Georgetown Road. Georgetown Road is a speed hazard now and will
become more so if it is widened. Presently it is difficult to enter Old Forge
Road from Georgetown Road and widening Georgetown Would worsen the situation.
He thinks that too much land is being put under concrete and asphalt. More
attention should be given to property owners and taxpayers rather than to
motorists. It is true that Georgetown Road is a handy way to avoid Route 29,
but he does not think it should be altered to accommodate motorists who wish
to avoid Route 29 North traffic.
Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair, a resident of the west side of Georgetown Road,
presented a letter dated March 7, 1990. She feels that planning must be done
from the top down. This means that there must be a broad plan which recogniz-
es how each part of the plan supports the big picture. Clearly planning for
Georgetown Road and Rio/Hydraulic Roads must be done in conjunction with
planning for Route 29. It is good planning to knoW the effects of upgrading
Rio and Hydraulic Roads to four lanes, west of Route 29, before making major
changes to Georgetown Road. Such major changes would bring the homes along
Georgetown Road dangerously close to what would become a high speed road.
These changes would cut off the residents' front yards, trees, shrubs and
parking spaces without proving the necessity for a'mini-bypass through the
residential neighborhood. She feels that the threatened damage to their
properties, their quality of life, and the value of their property is so
severe, it puts them "under a death sentence".
Mr. Dan Harrington, a resident of Terrell Subdivision, off Georgetown
Road, said he has lived in Charlottesville for ten.years. He thinks George-
town is a unique part of the community of Albemarle. It not only houses the
"ritzy" section, but it has moderate income housing, low income housing, a
day care center and apartments. Georgetown is a neighborhood. It is a place
where the residents can walk their dogs and ride their bikes. He agrees with
the previous speaker that Georgetown is rapidly turning into a bypass for
Charlottesville. He resents the fact that Georgetown will become the "scape-
goat" for not dealing with Route 29 North, not dealing with a western or
eastern bypass, or for not dealing with the so-called Ivy Creek Parkway. It
appears to him that neighborhoods like Georgetown are being sacrificed. There
are a lot of homeowners, renters and children in the area who will be severely
affected by the widening of Georgetown Road.
Mr. Bowie asked how many people in the audience were present concerning
Georgetown Road. Approximately ten people riased their hands. He then asked
Mr. Roosevelt the timing for improvements to Georgetown Road relative to
improvements to Route 29 North, Rio Road and the Western Bypass. Mr. Roosevelt
said there are two projects proposed for Georgetown Road. The first project
is widening to provide turn lanes at Old Forge Road and Inglewood Drive which
are scheduled for construction later this year. The second project is widen-
ing throughout the entire length of Georgetown Road which is not currently in
the plan and is being considered as an addition to,the plan. If the project
is added it would not be until 1996 or later that funding would be available.
He anticipates that there should be some information about Route 29 before the
ultimate plans for Georgetown Road are carried forward.
Mr. Tom Trevillian, a resident of Route 610, next addressed the Board.
Route 610 has all of the necessary right-of-way donated, and he would like to
reiterate the residents concern for pavement of the road being done as soon as
possible. The condition of the road has not improved. There is considerable
danger to many of the people who travel the road. In 1984 the traffic count
on Route 610 was 250 vtpd. Since that time twelve ~new homes have been built
and a large tract of land subdivided into twelve lots~ The residents are
anxious to get the road improved.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
218
Mr. George Bates, a resident of Route 647, said he was present to make
some general comments about roads in the Rivanna District and about unpaved
roads as a whole in Albemarle County. He mentioned Route 647, an improvement
of .93 of a mile where one landowner is holding out on dedication. Route 686
and Route 687 are atrocious. He described the poor drainage conditions of
Route 616. He mentioned other roads in the Keswick area that need improve-
ment. He mentioned a long dirt road in the Greenwood area which runs through
the Newtown community, and has a curve so steep that school buses have to
stop, back up to the railroad tracks and then pull forward to go around the
curve. These roads go through communities inhabited by the older population.
He thinks there should be a category in the Six Year Plan that would take into
consideration these communities of older people who have been living in
Albemarle County for about 35 years. These are the life-time residents of
Albemarle County who are not getting benefits because of roads like Route 29
North, or in the urban ring and the growth areas. Although these roads are
not heavily traveled', the County should not forget them. Most of the people
who live on these roads have limited resources and limited access to Board
proceedings. He is present to reiterate that these older people are also
taxpayers with inflationary pressures on them. There should be a category
created for these roads, that although they do not have the traffic problems,
they have drainage, dust and hazard problems. People live on these roads and
do not have the resources available to attend a Board meeting to explain their
situations.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Roosevelt for any comments concerning the roads
mentioned by Mr. Bates. Mr. Roosevelt said it is correct that none of the
roads mentioned are in the Six Year Plan. All of the roads qualify as needs.
The Department of Transportation did a Statewide Transportation Study and the
Albemarle County portion of that study showed that there were needs exceeding
$300 million. The Board's list of 62 projects runs to $47 million. The
Department has available for improvements between $20 million and $26 million.
His argument is that only the top five percent of the needs in the County can
be funded.
Mr. Walter Eades said two years ago he acquired all of the necessary
signatures from property owners for donated right-of-way for Route 605. At
that time, it was his impression that it would take from three to five years
to get the road improved. He has just been informed by the Planning Depart-
ment that Route 605 is not in the present Six Year Plan. This means that it
will be at least eight years before anything will be done to the road. This
is a relatively inexpensive road to improve and he would ask that it be
included in this Six Year Plan.
Ms. Joyce Burton, a resident of Townwood Subdivision, thanked the Board
for recognizing the concerns of residents in Townwood and Minor Ridge. She
hopes the Board will work with the residents in the future as continuing
concerns of these two developments come forward.
Mr. Martin Vess, a resident of Grassmere Farms, said the residents are
anxious to get Route 679 paved. Route 679 is #9 on the priority list. It is
a gravel road with poor visibility, frequent school bus traffic and with the
approval of another subdivision that will access off of the road, traffic flow
will increase by as much as 50 percent.
Mrs. Marsha Payne Howard, a resident of Proffit Road, next addressed the
Board. She grew up in the Proffit community and thus it holds a special
significance for her. Proffit is a unique community with a diverse background
of residents and a strong sense of community pride.- The Proffit Neighborhood
Association is active and concerned about the community. There is an organ-
ized neighborhood watch, a twice-a-year cleanup, community picnic and presently
a historical survey being taken of the community. She thinks the proposed
improvement to Proffit Road (priority #31) would prove injurious to the
community and lead to faster speeds, heavier traffic and the possibility of
more accidents in the neighborhood. Improvements would create dangerous
conditions that do not presently exist.
Mr. C. Jared.Loewenstein, Vice-President, Proffit Neighborhood Associa-
tion, handed out and read a statement dated March 7, 1990. (Mr. Bain arrived
at 8:17 p.m.) After reading some of the history of Proffit, Mr. Loewenstein
said the bridge on Proffit Road is in need of some minor repairs and better
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
219
ongoing maintenance. Replacement of this historic structure, only a few
examples of this type remain in Albemarle County, would change irrevocably
this section of road into a high-speed motor way. Such a change would destroy
much of the village character of Proffit forever, by altering the very heart
of their historic neighborhood. A new, larger bridge at this location would
also force intensive, modern traffic demands upon a road whose ancient design
makes it highly unsuitable for such usage. Many areas in Albemarle County
contain structures of diverse types which contribute significantly to the
visual character and scale of their neighborhoods, as well as to the histori-
cal records of those neighborhoods' existence over time. The Proffit railroad
bridge is such a structure. It forms an important component of their neigh-
borhood's physical and historical heritage which, if lost, would deprive the
community of much of its individual history and would generate other negative
changes in the immediate area. The residents urge the Board to remove this
project from the priority list.
Mr. Fred Gerke, Planning and Zoning Chairman of the Proffit Neighborhood
Association, handed out and read a statement concerning the proposed replace-
ment of the Proffit Road railroad bridge. He reiterated that the residents
are in opposition to the proposed project. On the surface, the project is
inviting and logical. There are safety problems with the present bridge, the
result mainly of a policy of "benign neglect" on the part of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad towards maintaining the bridge. The problem of maintenance
is worsened by heavy truck traffic which sometimes ignores posted weight
limits which go unenforced. In the five years he has lived near the bridge,
there has never been a vehicular accident at the bridge. The problem lies not
with the bridge, but with Proffit Road. The road is ill-suited for its role
as a major connector road in a booming and increasingly suburban area.
Improvement of this bridge opens up Proffit Road to heavy trucks on a road
with almost nonexistent shoulders. The existing bridge is more of a bottle-
neck than a safety problem. Replacement of the bridge is the missing link in
what is a "de facto" eastern by-pass. Proffit Road is a major connector road
which will become, with this bridge replacement, a minor arterial, but with
the design capability of a major collector. The impact of the bridge replace-
ment will be even worse on the surrounding community which will have to put up
with the increased safety, noise and air pollution problems. Many of the
homes in historic Proffit pre-date modern zoning regulations with minimum
setbacks and Highway Department entrance permits. These are the residents who
will suffer most and find life on the "new" Proffit Road intolerable. Proffit
is a vigorous and unique community whose quality of life and .viability are
threatened by this project. He urges the Board to remove the Route 649 bridge
replacement from the Six Year Road Plan. He then asked all of the persons
present concerning this project to stand. Half of the people, approximately
25 people, in the room stood.
Mr. Bowie said in the previous Six Year Plan, the Board had a similar
situation in that it removed a bridge project from the Plan. He then asked
Mr. Roosevelt to explain what happened as a result of that action. He also
stated that this is not County money.
Mr. Roosevelt said two years ago the Board attempted to delete another
bridge project from the Plan. At that time, the Department indicated that it
would not allow the County to delete the project. The crux of the matter is
whether the Department will allow the County to drop this project from the
Plan. The choices available are lose the bridge, dead end the road on both
sides of the bridge, or replace the bridge. The Department recommends that
the bridge be included in the Plan and replaced. If Route 649 is included in
the Plan as is currently shown, it will be near the end of this Plan. An
actual expenditure of large amounts of money and time on the design of the
bridge will not occur for two to three years. The Department has agreed to
use some general planning money to investigate various alignments before any
expensive financing is done on the project. The Department is certainly
willing to work with the County to do this. He thinks there is a solution
that could meet both the needs of the Department and the needs of the County.
Mr. Gerke stated that the problem is not so much with the alignment as it
is with the replacement of the bridge.
Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Roosevelt if he is saying the only alternative is
to either replace the bridge or close the road and dead end it on both sides.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
220
Mr. Roosevelt said if the bridge is not replaced, that will be the choice.
The bridge will not be repairable and vehicles will not be able to be driven
across it. The Department is not going to install another one-lane, three-ton
weight limit bridge at that location.
Next, Ms. Diana Mead, asked if the plans for Priority #19 (Route 678
Intersection with Route 250) are to cul-de-sac the road or if there is to be
an intersection at this location. Mr. Roosevelt said that plan is being
designed by the County Engineering Department and he has not yet seen the
plans. The Department is flexible either way to make a connection or a
cul-de-sac. Ms. Mead said she would prefer that it be cul-de-saced because it
is directly in front of her house.
Ms. Mary Bryant, speaking for the Westfield Road's Homeowners~Associa-
tion, thanked the Board for helping keep the park on Whitewood Road as it is,
disallowing the school at that location, and for delaying the road that is
going to go through.
Mr. Jack Taggart, a resident of Grassmere and representing the Homeown-
ers' Association, was present to speak to Route 679. This road is approxi-
mately nine-tenths of a mile that dead ends at Gra~smere Subdivision. The
road is the last gravel road project on the priority list. Recently the
Planning Commission approved another subdivision that would access Route 679.
At the Commission meeting, two Commission members had been out to see the road
and felt it was unsafe and thus did not vote to approve the subdivision. This
road has an average of six to eight accidents a year. The Commission was
informed that it could not deny the subdivision plat based on that reason
alone and so it was approved. The expense for improving the road would not be
considerable. When the residents previously came before the Board, they were
told that if they got their dedicated right-of-way before November 1, the road
would be in the plan and prioritized by the date all necessary documentations
were received. Documentations were completed in August, 1988, yet the road
appears last on the priority list. He asked that the road be given considera-
tion. He asks that its priority be established as of the date the actual
paperwork was completed.
Mr. Arthur Watson, speaking to the Route 649 bridge project, said safety
has been addressed as a theoretical issue. Last year Route 649 was paved,
which has made it passable and as a result he has been run off the road twice
in the front of his farm in the past six months. There is already a safety
problem on the road and increasing traffic will not help the road. He then
asked why the Highway Department is involved since it was his understanding
that it is the responsibility of the railroad for the upkeep of the bridge.
In response to Mr. Watson, Mr. Roosevelt said .the railroad is responsible
for the maintenance of the bridge. Although it is the railroad's bridge, it
is the Highway Department's road that runs across the bridge. If the bridge
is not safe or capable of carrying vehicular traffic, then the Highway Depart-
ment will not allow cars to travel on the bridge. Eventually the bridge will
reach a point where it is not repairable, or able to keep the weight limits up
to a level of traffic that should use that road and can use it. The railroad
does not have to maintain the road and will not do anything to try to improve
the bridge as a transportation source.
Mr. Nell Chassman, a resident of Albemarle County, but not a Proffit Road
resident, said he is gratified to hear the people from Proffit speak tonight.
He likes to drive around the County and one of the joys he has is driving over
the bridge on Proffit Road. This is one of the natural areas in the County.
Every little special element removed from the County seems to be a requirement
of the Highway Department. The Highway Department should have a say in safety
factors, but factors that contribute to the quality~of life should not be
infused in this process. He thinks a way should be developed so cooperative
participation can be strengthened when it comes to dealing a fiat on the part
of the state.
Mr. Ed Bolesho (name phonetic) a resident of Proffit Road, said he moved
here ten years ago because it was a nice area, but the area is beginning to
resemble New York. Little by little the callous attitude is creeping in with
an interest in money and so-called progress. It seems to him the intention is
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
221
not to put pressure on the railroad, but to put additional traffic on the
road. He asks that the Board members search their consciences and do the
right thing.
Mrs. Sharon Chilcote-Doner, a resident of Minor Hill, said she is
delighted with the County's decision to maintain the green space on Whitewood
Road. She and her husband oppose the proposed improvements to Greenbrier
Drive. There may need to be a reevaluation for the road since a school will
not be built at this location. If the improvements must be done, a buffer
should be installed and as much of the green space.as possible maintained.
The residents appreciate the Board working with them on this issue.
Ms. Wilda Davis, a resident of Route 605, said she also thought this road
was scheduled for pavement in this Six Year Plan, but after comments tonight
it appears it is not. She knows that funds are tight, but she asks that funds
be put where the greatest needs are. Generations of people in her community
have waited for pavement of this road. She appreciates any efforts to see
that work is done on this road and encourages the Board to seriously consider
the resident's request.
Mr. Bill Klimmek, a resident of Route 605, said if the County does not
intend to make improvements to the road, then it should considering doing
minimal sight distance improvements so that people can make a safe turn on the
road.
Mr. Bruce Heeds, a resident of Route 605, said this road is listed as
priority #10, and asked if the priority list would change for the next Six
Year Plan or if the roads currently in the plan would move up. Mr. Bowie
responded the roads would move up in order. In addition, if a road comes up
for funding and there is not sufficient right-of-way donated, then funds for
that road move to the next project on the list.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he appreciates all of the comments and thanked the people
for coming to the meeting. Although he knows Mr. Roosevelt would like a
decision from the Board tonight, there is some additional information he would
like to get before making a decision. He would like to add that much of what
has been discussed are design and timing matters, as opposed to priority.
Mrs. Humphris said although she has stated her position twice
before, she feels compelled to make furthe~ comments about Georgetown Road.
There has been discussion about protecting the quality of life in the neigh-
borhoods. She cannot imagine that Mr. Bowie would want a four-lane road
through Stony Point; Mr. Perkins a four-lane road through Crozet; Mr. Bowerman
a four-lane road through Woodbrook or Mr. Way a four-lane road through Scotts-
ville. The real issue is "what is the value of planning?" The Board spends a
lot of time talking about long range planning. Through the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance, the Board told those people who live on Georgetown Road
and the surrounding area that this would be a good neighborhood to live in.
Now it is thought to be easier for cars to move if Georgetown Road is widened
to make it faster, quicker and straighter. She is more concerned about the
people who live there and who have an investment in the neighborhood. She
does not think the Board should renege on the planning that it put into place
to make that neighborhood. These cars are giving the residents air pollution
and noise pollution. These improvements are a quick and easy solution and
do not relate to the long range road plan, much less the Comprehensive Plan.
Common sense would dictate that the Board wait to see the effects of the
four-laning of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road, west of Route 29, and what is done
to Route 29, before deciding to degrade this neighborhood. She does not think
this is showing any vision. She agrees that these improvements would make
this area a mini-bypass. If the Highway Department continues widening and
straightening roads to make them faster for cars to travel, what will be left?
She knows that the Highway Department builds the roads, but this is the
resident's community and she thinks it should be as the residents want it to
be. Instead of faster and straighter, why not slower and safer? She thinks
these improvements would be a major mistake and leaVing this project in the
plan would be reneging on the promise made to the people. She thinks that the
Board should honor the commitment it made.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
222
Mrs. Humphris then offered motion to remove the four-laning of Georgetown
Road (Route 656), priority #36, from the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, with
the idea of not restoring it until such time as the Board sees the results of
the Rio Road and Hydraulic Road four-laning, (west of Route 29) and the
results of the plans to upgrade Route 29 North. Mr. Bowerman seconded the
motion.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Board is here tonight to decide the top priority
needs, not the merits of improving Route 656. Although the Board may not
agree, he thinks that Route 656 is a need. The Highway Department considers
it a need and recommends that Route 656 be in the Plan. However, if the Board
decides to adopt the plan without it, he does not believe the plan will be
rejected. This is a road in which the 1988 traffic counts indicated almost
13,000 cars per day. That number of cars are traveling on Georgetown Road
whether the people like it or not and the County should take care of that
need. The Department is not recommending wideningthe road for some antici-
pated need in the future, but for a need that is already here. The Board can
decide whether it wants the road on the priority list or not.
Mr. Bowie said if Route 656 is left in the plan and decisions on Route 29
could make a difference to the project, could it then be removed from the
plan. Mr. Roosevelt said once a project is in the plan, it is difficult to
delete it, especially if funds are expended. One of the problems with the
Route 671 bridge project was that money had been spent. He will restate his
comment that if the Board does not include the project in the plan, the
Department will still accept the plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she has been told that once there is a line on a map
designating a possible road, it stays there foreveM and never gets erased.
She thinks it is important that instead of encouraging traffic on Georgetown
Road, the Board discourage the traffic. The Board has had discussions about
the importance of encouraging traffic reduction strategies in the urban area
and planning alternatives. She suggests it is important at this time that the
Board slow down and think about what is best for the people in the area. For
the people in the area, she feels the Board should remove priority #36 from
the Six Year Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said he has mixed emotions about this project. He feels
that improvements are necessary on Georgetown Road and that adjacent neighbor-
hoods are now being affected because of the traffic that wants to use
Georgetown Road. He is also aware of Mrs. Humphris' concern. He is also
aware that the improvements scheduled for Barracks Road to allow right turning
movement of traffic at the light at Georgetown/Barracks Roads, would help
alleviate the problems occurring on Bennington Road. He also is aware that
there are other major improvements scheduled which have not been decided,
including the Route 29 situation. Regardless of the Board's decision tonight,
nothing will happen in the next couple of years. He is willing to support the
motion and reevaluate this question in a couple of years.
Mr. Bain said he has the same mixed emotions expressed by Mr. Bowerman.
The Board can look at this issue again at some time in the future as improve-
ments are made to other roads in the urban area. He also thinks the turning
improvements at Georgetown/Barracks Roads can make some difference. He will
support the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he sympathizes with what has been said, but the Board has
been discussing the traffic problem on Georgetown Road for years. These
improvements have been in the plan for some time. Mr. Cilimberg said these
improvements were adopted as part of the ComprehenSive Plan as an essential
element of the road system. Mr. Bowie said he has trouble supporting the
motion when the Board is just getting to the first stages of the project after
so much discussion in the past.
Mr. Way said the project has been discussed every year by the Board and
has always had the same debate. At each of the debates, the Supervisor
representing that area and the people living in the area have never changed
their position on the project; they have always been opposed to it. He thinks
that should carry some weight.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
223
Mr. Perkins said it seems to him that if Georgetown Road is carrying that
much traffic today, four-laning it would increase it by several more thousand
cars. This is a neighborhood and he thinks the improvements will only worsen
the situation for the people who live there. He will support the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg said he would suggest moving the project to the bottom of
the plan rather than removing it totally from the plan. That would keep it in
planning, but not have it within any funding schedules that will involve the
Highway Department committing funds to the project or beginning any wOrk.
That would help when the Route 29 study is done and the traffic model is in
place. The project would become priority #57 and everything else in the plan
would move up a number in priority.
Mr. Bowie said he would feel more comfortable supporting that suggestion.
It would mean not putting the project in the plan until these other decisions
about Route 29 and so forth are made. That seems a better way of doing long
range planning.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it would make it easier for the staff to do plans
and traffic studies if the project remained in theiplan as the last priority
item. Mr. Cilimberg said it would make a difference in dealing with long term
funding by the Highway Department. He does not think the Highway Department
will lose sight of the project even if it is deleted from the plan. It would
also make it easier from a planning standpoint to look ahead at that kind of
potential project and to incorporate it into the traffic study.
Mrs. Humphris asked for assurance that dropping the Georgetown Road
project to priority #57 would not put a line on a map or cause "any wheels to
start turning" that cannot be stopped by the Highway Department. Mr. Cilim-
berg said a line is already on a map, the project is in the Comprehensive Plan
and the project is in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study and
whatever action is taken tonight will not remove those act.ions that have
already taken place.
Mr. Roosevelt said if the project is moved to.priority #57, it will not
be funded and thus no wheels will turn at the HighWay Department. No Depart-
ment funds will be expended on the project.
Mrs. Humphris said in the interest of good planning for the County, she
will amend the motion. She appreciates the support Board members gave her for
her previous motion. She believes the Board members would be more comfortable
to amend the motion to move priority #36 (Route 656, Georgetown Road) to
priority #57, thus everything moves up a number priority, in the Six Year
Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Bowerman, as seconder, accepted the amended motion.
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 said after hearing some of the comments tonight, he would like
to talk further with Mr. Roosevelt before adopting the plan.
Mrs. Humphris said she also has questions on several of the projects.
She then offered motion to defer action on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan
until March 14, 1990. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Regarding the unpaved roads, Mr. Way said he would like to make it clear
that he will not vote to change the priority listing of the unpaved roads.
The priority list has been made and he does not think it is fair to overstep
people who have waited just as long as the next person on the list.
Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Way, but he does think there are some
questions that merit looking into.
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.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
At 9:14 p.m., the Chairman called a recess.
p.m. The Board reconvened at 9:28 p.m.
224
Mr. St. John arrived at 9:14
Agenda Item No. 7. A public hearing to solicit public input on the
proposed Community Development Block Grant application to be submitted to the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development on the 1) housing
rehabilitation project to include the Esmont, North Garden, Covesville, Bates-
ville, Crozet, Midway, Afton, and Keswick areas; and 2) the housing site
development project. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 28, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the following project summary:
"Project Description: Albemarle County, in conjunction with Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), proposes to rehabilitate for-
ty-seven substandard homes in the County currently occupied by owners
(single-family detached units). All rehabilitation will bring the
units up to, or will exceed, Section 8 minimum standards. Thus, all
conditions that qualify the units as substandard (lacking partial or
complete plumbing and/or major exterior or interior structural prob-
lems) will be addressed.
The County proposes to use CDBG funds for the following activities:
construction, labor, building materials;
administration.
Grant funds would be leveraged with other funds to implement the
project. Administration of the project would be the responsibility of
Project Beneficiaries: Forty-seven iow-moderate-income families will
benefit from the housing rehabilitation project. There are a total of
105 project beneficiaries in the following project areas located
throughout the County: Alberene, Esmont, Covesville/North Garden/
Heards, Proffit, Batesville/Afton, Midway, Crozet, and Chestnut Grove.
Income eligibility will be verified by AHIP which maintains a waiting
list of such families who desire rehabilitation assistance.
Amount of Request: Albemarle County will request $700,000 in CDBG
funds for implementation of this project. These funds will be lever-
aged with funds from the County, the Charlottesville Housing Founda-
tion, and the Farmers Home Administration. The leveraging funds will
be in the following amounts: Albemarle County - $380,234;
Charlottesville Housing Foundation - $150,400; Farmers Home Adminis-
tration - $27,120.
Total project cost will be $1,257,754."
The public hearing was opened.
Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director, AHIP, said she is present to answer any
questions.
Mr. Bain asked if there is still a long waiting list of rehabilitation
projects after the 47 projects proposed for this grant. Ms. Tapscott said in
the eight designated target areas, AHIP has identified 148 substandard housing
units. In order to make a strong application, it is necessary to have more
than the targeted 47 units so as to allow for the people who cannot get
financing. A student survey done by the graduate planning class at the
University of Virginia identified in 1988, 547 definite substandard units
throughout Albemarle County. Mr. Bain asked if this grant is in addition to
other funding requests that come through the normal budgetary process for
AHIP. Ms. Tapscott replied "yes". In addition AHIP is currently working on a
Farmer's Housing Administration Preservation Grant Program and that funding
should carry AHIP through October, 1990. Hopefully, if the CDBG funding is
approved, it can be combined with some of those funds from FHA to effect
larger rehabilitations for more needy families.
225
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following
resolution requesting $700,000 of Virginia Community Development Block Grant
for a housing rehabilitation project to address 47 dwelling units:
R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
WHEREAS, that pursuant to public hearingS, the County of
Albemarle wishes to apply for $700,000 of Virginia Community Develop-
ment Block Grant funds for a housing rehabilitation project to address
forty-seven (47) dwelling units;
AND WHEREAS, $380,234 from Albemarle County, $150,400 from the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation and $27,120 from Farmers Home
Administration will also be expended on this project; it is projected
that 105 persons will benefit from the implementation of this project,
all Of which are low- and moderate-income persons;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate
documents for submittal of this Virginia Community Development Block
Grant application.
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. Cilimberg said the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission have received a commitment from a
landowner in Crozet on some property that could be utilized for a low-income
housing project similar to a project in Nelson County. The staff has not
evaluated the specifics of the site for site development. There are some
flood plains and steep slopes in the 40 acres, but!there appears to be approxi-
mately 25 acres of developable land. The proposed project would necessitate
approximately ten acres, thus allowing excess acreage for another project.
Mr. Cilimberg then presented the following project description:
"Project Description: The goal of the Albemarle County and
Charlottesville Housing Foundation Affordable Housing Project is to
develop thirty single-family detached homes at'a construction cost
less than $70,000 each. The homes would be sold to low- and moder-
ate-income families. Subsidies could result in purchase prices as low
as $40,000.
Under this proposal, Community Development Block Grant funds will be
used to obtain and develop the site for the Affordable Housing
Project. Expenditures will include, but not be limited to:
- Purchase of land;
- Purchase of professional development services;
- Site development including water, sewer, roads, bridges, and
other facilities;
- Off-site development requirements; and
- Project administration.
ESsentially, these block grant funds, combined with public and private
matching funds, will be used to purchase the site and then prepare the
site to support the construction of thirty single-family detached
homes. The specific site of the project is an approximately 40-acre
parcel adjoining the Orchard Acres Subdivision.
Project Beneficiaries: Thirty low- and moderate-income families will
benefit from this project. Eligibility will be determined by Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 guidelines. The upper limit of
this income by family size is:
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
226
Family Size
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
20,6--50 23 ,~00 26 ,~50 29 ,~50 31 ,~50 33,750 35 ,~50 36, ~00
Based on the average household size of 2.66 persons per household,
this project will provide affordable housing benefits to between 80
and 106 low- and moderate-income persons.
Amount of Request: The County of Albemarle will request $300,000 in
CommunityDevelopment Block Grant funds to support the purchase and
development of a site for the Affordable Housing Project. Grant funds
will be matched in the amount of $331,714 from Albemarle County and
$181,714 from the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. The total
project cost is projected to be $813,428.
In addition to the aforementioned funds for site development, CHF has
Virginia Housing and Development Authority loan reservations in the
amounts of $1,000,000 for construction and $1,000,000 for low-interest
mortgages.
Mr. Cilimberg said Charlottesville Housing Foundation has received a
commitment of funds from the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. Present at
tonight's meeting are Mr. Frances Fife, of CHF, and Mr. Chuck Gerhardt,
Housing Coordinator with Thomas Jefferson Planning iDistrict Commission, who
can elaborate on the proposed project. This is now a project with the oppor-
tunity to apply for a substantial sum of money in CDBG funds. The commitment
to move forward and request these CDBG funds does not require any appropri-
ation from the Board tonight. The Board can wait to see if the CDBG request
is approved before discussing funding from the County.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County has $331,000 available for this project.
Mr. Agnor replied "no". Mr. Cilimberg said a commitment would probably have
to come from the County in July or later in the Fall.
Mr. Perkins asked if any of the $331,000 is recoverable. Mr. Cilimberg
replied "no", the funds would be an actual grant from the County.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a fund would be established for the repayment of
the mortgages which could be used for further improvements. He would like to
know what the money is being used for if the County and the federal govern-
ments are making grants.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Frances Fife, Executive Director and Vice-President, CHF, 'said there
are no partnership funds for this project. AHIP is presently using partner-
ship funds for their rehabilitation projects. The monies put toward this
project, from CHF and Albemarle County, would be on a deferred loan basis.
CHF asks the County to commit these monies and if these properties are sold at
some future time, CHF would be repaid. It is their hope that the County would
commit its money to continue to be used by CHF for other projects.
Mr. Bowie asked if the $331,000 would be repaid to the County. Mr. Fife
said $31,000 is for the employment of a person to administer the program and
it would not be repaid. CHF asks that the County commit $300,000 to be used
for low income housing for this project and any money that comes back from
sale of the property would be retained by CHF for other housing projects.
Although the money could come back to Albemarle County, he is recommending
that it be retained by CHF and not returned to the County. CHF has been
searching for property for more than a year. The situation for low and middle
income people in Albemarle County and Charlottesville is bad. Housing is
simply not available.
Mr. Gerhardt said he has spent the last eight months trying to find
property. He had a lot of help from various people, agencies and County
departments. In order to find a site with public water and sewer nearby, a
state maintained roadway nearby, and relatively flat land, it must be located
in a growth area, so a good price is not easy. Development of this project
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
227
could happen over the next two years. The need is' here for this type of
project. Mr. Bowie said his one question is "does the County get the money
back?" Mr. Gerhardt said Mr. Fife explained that. The County will see a
return on the money from taxes.
Mr. St. John asked how this request relates to the contract the County
had with CHF a year ago whereby $300,000 was set aside to purchase/acquire
property. The terms of that contract required that the $300,000 be returned
to the County out of the grant proceeds. Mr. Bowie commented that the Board
never appropriated the $300,000. Mr. St. John said that is true, but there
was an agreement that if property was acquired or made available, the Board
would appropriate the funds on condition that the $300,000 would be returned
to the County. Mr. Fife said that contract related to purchasing individual
properties that would go under the Rental Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Bowerman said he is concerned that the expenditure of County monies
not accrue solely to the benefit of the recipients and their houses. In the
event that the houses are sold, the money should be reinvested in the com-
munity on an ongoing basis. It is not as important to him whether the money
is returned to the County or stays with CHF. It is more important that the
money be recycled.
Mr. Bowie said if mortgages are involved, there would have to be a
proviso so that the people do not sell the houses for a profit. Mr. Cilimberg
said details such as this would be written into the grant application. Mr.
Bain asked if the Board will see the terms of the grant request. Mr. Cilim-
berg said "no", the grant must be submitted by Friday.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the County does not have available its
share of the money. Mr. Agnor said if the project were to move forward, the
funds would have to come out of the General Fund Balance. If a grant is
offered to the County, the Board has the opportunity to either accept it or
reject it.
Mr. Way asked the current zoning for the proposed site. Mr. Cilimberg
responded R-6. Mr. Bain asked if there is an option on the property to
purchase or if it is just an agreement. Mr. Cilimberg said CHF has a written
commitment on the property at this time.
Mr. Perkins said he supports the project, but he hopes that before the
project moves forward that there will be time for public input from the Crozet
community. Mr. Bain said he thinks that is appropriate. Mr. Bowie said he
agrees that there should be time for a public hearing either at the County
Office Building or in Crozet.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following
resolution requesting $300,000 of Virginia Community Development Block Grant
funds for a housing site development project:
R E S 0 L U T I 0 N
WHEREAS, that pursuant to public hearings, the County of
Albemarle wishes to apply for $300,000 of Virginia Community Develop-
ment Block Grant funds for a housing site development project;
AND WHEREAS, $331,714 from Albemarle County and $181,714 from the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation will be expended on this project,
it is projected that eighty persons will benefit from the implementa-
tion of this project, all of which are low- and moderate-income
persons;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive, is hereby authorized to sign and submit the appropriate
documents for submittal of this Virginia Community Development Block
Grant application.
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.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
228
Agenda Item No. 8. A public hearing on a resolution of intent of the
Board Of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority service
area relating to the Blue Ridge Hospital site and to the Michie Tavern site.
(Deferred from February 21, 1990.)
Mr. Bowie said this item was deferred from the February 21 meeting so
that Michie Tavern and the University of Virginia could be properly notified.
Today he received a letter from the University stating they had not been
notified and thus requests a 30-day delay. :
Mr. Cilimberg said the property holder was notified. Unfortunately the
notification did not get through the proper communication channels to person-
nel at the University. The Planning office did not copy the University and
did not realize the University did not receive Board agendas. It was a loss
of con~nunication.
Mr. Jack Taggert, who was present, said he wo~ld like to reserve his
comments for the official public hearing.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer action
on an amendment of the Albemarle County service area boundaries until
April 11, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Lindsay Dorrier for approval of grant
for Regional Drug Prosecutor.
Mr. Bowie said this item wilt be deferred until March 14, 1990.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments.
Mr. Bowie commented that, although it has been advertised, no applica-
tions have been received for the Emergency Medical Services Council. Mr.
Agnor said he contacted the EMS for a nominee and it was suggested that Mr.
John Hood be appointed to the Council. Mr. Hood has expressed his willingness
to serve. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
appoint Mr. John Hood to the Emergency Medical Services Council, replacing
with said term to expire on December 31, 1991. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie said the Board needs to reappoint Mr. Werner Sensbach from the
University of Virginia as the nonvoting member of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Agnor said he contacted the University concerning this reappointment and
was told that the Board would be notified in mid March about the appointment.
Mr. Way said he has been told that when there is a study by the Planning
and Coordination Council, the Technical Committee appoints various citizens to
a subcommittee. He was informed that the Supervisor in whose district the
property lies also makes a recommendation for people to serve on the commit-
tee. If that is the case, and if it is appropriate, he would like to make
recommendations. Mr. Agnor responded that is appropriate. Mr. Way then
offered motion to nominate Rev. Daniel Lowe, Mr. Dan Jordan (or his designee)
from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom to
the committee which will study the Blue Ridge Hospital property. Mr. Bowerman
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.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
229
Mr. Bowie said he has received notification from VACo that it received
the resolution adopted by the Board requesting appointment of Mr. C. Timothy
Lindstrom to the Tayloe-Murphy Commission on Population Growth and
Development. As information, at its meeting on February 21, the Board adopted
a resolution requesting VACo on consider Mr. Lindstrom. No appointment has
yet been made.
Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: September 6(A), September 6(N),
September 20(A), September 20(N), October 11, October 18(N), November 15(A),
November 29(A) and December 6 (A), 1989; January 17(A) and February 21(A),
1990.
Mr. Bain had read the minutes of October 11, 1989 (pages 1-28) and found
them to be in order with some typos.
Mr. Perkins had read all of the minutes of September 20(A), 1989, and
September 20(N), 1989 (pages 1-11), and found them to all be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read all of the minutes of February 21(A), 1990, and
found them to be in order.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes of January 17(A), 1990 (pages 1-15),
and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of September 20(N), 1989 (pages 20, #14 -
end), and all of November 29(A), 1989, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the
minutes as read.
Mrs. Humphris asked, as a matter of procedure, when a motion is made to
approve the minutes as read, should she and Mr. Bowerman participate in the
vote although they were not Board members at the time of the meeting. Mr.
Bain said they could vote on the minutes for the meetings they attended or
abstain, whichever is preferred.
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.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Ms. Carrie Loney, a student at Murray High School, addressed the Board.
She asked that the Board members who voted to reject the funding for the child
education care program at Murray High School reconsider their position. She
is three months pregnant and is under a lot of pressure due to the pregnancy,
due to school and due to relationships surroundinglthe pregnancy. Speaking
here tonight is not easy for her, but it is something she has to do for
herself and for her friends. She needs to consider this baby and she needs to
consider her education, both of which are important. Her mother was also a
teenage parent and had to quit school to take care of her. She never received
her high school diploma and to this day is in a "financial crunch". She does
not just want her high school diploma. She is a straight "A" student and
feels that she deserves a college degree. She wants to have a positive affect
on her society. She wants to be able to give back to society what she hopes
it will give to her. Not only does she desire thiS, but she is determined to
have it and will do anything that it takes to reach those goals. She is not
only thinking about herself, but about the baby, and what it deserves. It is
important for her to be able to give her baby what these Board members have
been able to give their children, things that she never had because of her
mother's situation. She wants to be able to send her child to college. This
pregnancy was a serious accident. She did consider the consequences of having
a sexual relationship. She is engaged and plans to get married. She does not
want to be punished for this accident. She asks that the Board help her to
reach her goals. She does not want to be on welfare for the rest of her life,
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
230
nor does she want her children to grow up the way that she did. She wants to
be like some of the people who were here earlier tonight talking about their
con~nunity. She asks that the Board please take the money so that the child
care program can get started.
Ms. Tina Rutherford, a student at Murray High School, thanked the Board
members that did come out to see Murray and asked that the other ones come out
also. She is not here tonight to represent Murray. She is present, as a
young female and to represent her friends. She is not pregnant, but knows
that it is a possibility. Funding for this program may be hard for the County
to do, but this is a grant. She does not think renewal of the grant would be
hard to get. There is more to this than the Board members understand and it
is an important issue. If the Board does not understand, then it should
listen to the cries of the people.
Next to address the Board, Ms. Katherine Stove, said this is an important
issue. She and her boyfriend have talked about this issue. She has some
close friends who are in need of these services and would like to see them get
the same education that she is getting. If the Board would talk to the
students in Albemarle County, it would find that most of them feel the same
way. These students should not be penalized because they made a mistake.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Michael Brown, said he is not a student at
Murray, but a county resident in the Charlottesville District. He would also
like to address the issue of child care for the high school students. He
thanked the Supervisors that requested more information before making commit-
ments that may haunt the County in the future. He supports this child care
grant and if for some reason it does not work out, then the Board should try
another program. He is not here to ask the Board to embrace teenage pregnan-
cies. The Board needs to realize the problem is already here and by doing
nothing the problem will just multiply and the County will have to deal with
the children's children. He urges the Board to reconsider the grant. To deny
these pregnant teenagers their education is an added burden on society.
Mrs. Judy Willy, the mother of a Murray High School student said she is
present tonight because her son asked her to drivehim over. She has been
sitting here since 7:30 this evening and have never been so bored before. She
thinks that the Board members must have a little bit of rebel in them or they
would not be sitting where they are. She asks that the members rethink their
position on the child care grant.
Mr. Agnor said the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association has
finished their two studies. There will be a press release concerning the
studies this Friday at 1:30 p.m. JCFRA is scheduled to make a presentation to
the Board on March 21.
Mr. Agnor said he has been asked to acknowledge and agree to the Tour de
Trump bicycle race~~ig~hrough Albemarle County in May. He thinks this is
a courtesy because the organization has received approval for the race from
the Governor of Virginia, the Department of Transportation and the Virginia
State Police to use the state highway system.
Mr. Bowie commented that he was asked to give a welcoming speech.
Mr. Bain said he read in the October minutes that the Board would receive
an update on proposed ordinance revisions and asked if that update is in the
process. Mr. St. John said he was not sure. Staff is presently working on
some of the amendments to bring to the Board in the near future. Mr. Bowie
asked that the staff prepare a list of the revisions and their status.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to speak to the people who came tonight
to address the issue of child care. He is not an insensitive person. He
understands how difficult it was for those students that would be affected by
the program to come before the Board and discuss themselves and their problem
and he appreciates it. He also appreciates Mr. Brown and Mrs. Willy speaking
and their understanding of the problem the Board was faced with. He then read
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
231
the following excerpt from a letter he received from a resident of Albemarle
County: "Few persons could argue with the intent of the child care proposal
and its laudable premise. It is unfortunate that the majority vote by the
Board of Supervisors has been perceived by some as a rejection of the problem
of teenage pregnancy, rejection of these student's needs and their children's
needs, and a rejection of the concept of quality child care programs. I know
this is not where you are coming from. I believe in part the public emotion
generated by this vote is a reflection of the general frustration of the
schools, concerned adults and social service agencies to deal with the press-
ing social problems of today. The refusal of the monies at this point in time
by the Board appears to be for the right reasons.. Lack of a planning direc-
tion, future funding concerns, poor communication among key persons eliminate
consideration of alternatives, school-based and others, for dealing with this
very real complex problem. A bonus of $30,000 for one year does not magically
make a successful program and it is far from free money. Token funds from the
federal government are not a bargain unless there is a well-conceived plan of
action and thought to future spending." Mr. Bowerman said a case in point is
the two housing rehabilitation projects that the Board addressed tonight. A
lot of thought went into those grant requests and he asked two weeks ago that
the Board receive some information with the grant application. When this
child care grant was presented to the Board threeweeks ago, the Board received
no information except a one page document. The Board then deferred action on
the item to the afternoon meeting with the School Board at which time no
additional information was forthcoming. In his opinion, it is incumbent upon
the School Board to formulate a policy and send that policy to the Board for
review and not have a request rejected on the basis of not enough information
to make a responsible judgment. This is a question of dealing with public
trust, responsibility and dealing with the expenditure of public funds. He
would encourage these students to take their plea to the School Board. It is
now the School Board's responsibility to give the issue adequate consideration
and public review, after which he will do everything in his power to uphold
the School Board's position. Mr. Bowerman said this has been a difficult
decision to make, but he strongly believes that the information he took was
responsible, and he is willing to live by that decision.
Mr. Perkins asked how many of the students present tonight currently
attend Murray High School. The response was that all eight of the students
present attend Murray. Someone who did not identify himself said this repre-
sented ten percent of the student body.
Mr. Perkins said the concern he has is that Albemarle County currently
h~ two child care training programs in its school system, one at Western
klb&marle High School and one at CA-TEC, although it is his understanding that
the program at Western is proposed to be cut out next year. He cannot
understand the logic of cutting out the program at,one school and adding it to
another school. Although this program is different from the ones currently
in force, he thinks the place for it is at CA-TEC Where facilities and aca-
demic courses are already available. He has concerns about putting everything
at Murray (or whatever the building will be called next year). He is also
concerned about looting the two regular high schools and putting everything
into the alternative education program.
Mr. Way said he would like to first echo some of what Mr. Bowerman said.
He appreciates these students coming before the Board, but he totally dis-
agrees with the idea of adding social programs to the schools. He is opposed
to the idea. Unlike Mr. Bowerman he does not care what the School Board's
policy is, he does not think that this kind of program should be in the public
schools. He has no problem with providing a child care program, but to
continue to put more and more social programs within the context of the
educational system is wrong. The education system is not the place for these
programs. He does not oppose such programs. He has constantly supported
child care programs that have been presented to the Board. He feels that the
schools have a job to educate the children and the,more it gets involved in
social programs, the less it does its real function.
Mrs. Humphris said she was glad that these students came to the Board
meeting tonight. Since February 14 when this matter first came to the Board,
she has been amazed by the lack of information on what took place at the
meeting. The facts of why the Board voted 4-2 did not surface in the com-
munity and, as a result, some people have become v~ry angry and very upset.
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
232
She has had many questions from people asking why she voted as she did. If
those people had been present on either February 14 or February 21 and heard
the lengthy discussion that took place, and the questions that were asked,
they could not have failed to understand why this Board took the action it
did. If she had voted in favor of accepting the grant on February 14, she
would not have been doing her job. The citizens of Albemarle expect her to do
her homework on the issues that come before her. She also expects the people
who bring such proposals to the Board to do their homework which simply was
not done in this case. The fact that the burden of this has fallen on indivi-
dual Board members is not really important. These Board members are not here
to punish anyone, point a finger or give a lesson. Because of this situation,
it is now apparent that there is a greater need than ever for the School Board
to do its job and to provide the Board with complete information when it has a
proposal before the Board. She hopes that this situation gets cleared up
through the proper channels which is through the School Board and that it is a
lesson that everyone can all learn from.
Mr. Bowie mentioned the 1990-91 budget work session schedule and he asked
that the Board members mark the dates on their calendars. There will be other
information on the budget forthcoming.
Mr. Bowie said the joint meeting scheduled with the School Board for
Monday has been cancelled due to a lack of items to discuss. The School Board
will be invited to attend the Board meeting on March 14 to discuss certain
school renovation projects. On March 14, the two Boards can then decide on
another date for the next joint meeting.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Dispqsition of Surplus Public
Property.
At 10:44 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain,
to adjourn into executive session for disposition of excess public property,
namely the Greenwood School, and legal matters relating to the case of Charles
Burgess, Zoning Administrator, against David Lee and Mary Jean Spradlin. 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. 14. Certify Executive Session.
At 11:11 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and motion was
offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following certifi-
cation of executive session. 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.
CERTIFICATION OF EXE6NfI'IVEM~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
March 7, 1990 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
(ii) onlysuch 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, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
233
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public
hearing for March 21 on the sale of the Greenwood School property. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. There being no,further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
CHAIRMAN