1989-06-07June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
8
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 7, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke (arrived at 7:32 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins
and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and Chief of Planning, Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
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. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2 on the Consent Agenda,
and to accept the remaining items as information. (Mr. Way asked that Item
4.8 be discussed at a later meeting). Roll Was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins, and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, for the month of May, 1989, were
approved as presented.
Item 4.2. Street Sign Request for DunrQmin ROad (Route 1040) and Hydrau-
lic Road (Route 676) in Clearview Meadows Subdivision. Request was received
from a resident of Clearview Meadows requesting a street name sign at the
entrance to the subdivision. The following resolution was approved by the
vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received f~r street signs to identify
the following roads:
Dunromin Road (State Route 1040) at.~its intersection with
Hydraulic Road (State Route 676);
WHEREAS a c~tmzen has agreed to pur~hase these signs through the
Office of the County ExecutiVe and to co~form to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and TranSportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by t~e Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.3. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 9, May 16 and
May 23, 1989, were received as information.
Item 4.4. Letter dated May 18, 1989, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, transmitting a copy of the estimated
1989-90 Secondary System Construction Allocations, was received as informa-
tion. Albemarle County is listed for construction funds in the amount of
$2,568,961, and for $785,565 in funds for unpaved roads.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.5. Letter dated May 19, 1989, from Mr. James Derwin, Senior
Director Regulatory Strategy, CSX Transportation, replying to the Board's
letter of May 11, 1989. Mr. Derwin states that Amtrak contemplates rerouting
its passenger train, the Cardinal, off of the CSX Transportation line between
Orange and Charlottesville, and onto the shorter, more direct Norfolk Southern
line. Once the Amtrak train is rerouted, and after CSX has solved the rail
freight problems to the west of Charlottesville, CSX will be in a better
position to deal with the subject of the County's interest in the distribution
of railroad property should it become available as a consequence of abandon-
ment.
Item 4.6. Copy of letter dated May 15, 1989, from the Department of
Conservation and Historic Resources, addressed to Mr. F. Bradley Peyton, III,
stating its interest in the addition of Seven Oaks Farm to the Virginia
Landmarks Register and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places,
received as information.
Item 4.7. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for the month
of April, 1989 was received as information.
Item 4.8. Letter dated May 19, 1989, from Mr. Neal J. Barber, Director
of the Virginia Department of Housing and Com~nunity Development, addressed to
The Honorable Peter T. Way, noting that Albemarle County's application for
Virginia Con~nunity Development Block Grant funds for 1989-90 did not score
high enough to receive funding.
Item 4.9. Memorandum dated May 30, 1989, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, stating that the Albemarle~:Housing Improvement Program
Community Improvement Grant was scheduled at, its beginning to rehabilitate 57
units; 39 of these units were estimated to be owner-occupied, while 18 were to
be rental properties. AHIP recently requested the state to amend the mix to
48 owner-occupied units, with 10 being rentaI!properties; this amendment was
approved by the state.
Item 4.10. Letter dated May 25, 1989, ~rom Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commis-
sioner, Department of Transportation, transmi'tting a copy of the Tentative
Construction Allocations for FY 1989-90 for the Interstate, Primary and Urban
Highway Systems, as well as Public Transit, PiOrts and Airports, including an
update of the Six-Year Improvement Program through 1994-95, received as
information (copy.on file in the Clerk's Office).
Item 4.11. Letter dated May 25, 1989, f~om Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agno~, Jr., County Executive, con-
cerning lawsuit Clark et al. v. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia. Mr. St. John noted that the trialion the Plea of Laches has been
set for 9:30 A.M., Friday, August 18, 1989.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-89-28. Richard &iGeraldine Muller. To allow for
the transfer of four development rights. ProPerty, described as Tax Map 47,
Parcels 16 and 16A, located on the east side bf Rt. 20 approximately one-half
mile north of its intersection with Rt. 610. ?Rivanna District. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler noted that the Planning CommiSsion has not yet taken action on
this request. Motion was then offered by Mr.i"Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to defer this petition until July 5, 1989. R611 was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
10
Agenda Item No. 6. An Ordinance Regulating Smoking in Public Places and
Certain Places of Employment (continued from May 3, 1989).
Mr. Lindstrom said that during the interim, the Board received a letter
from a sponsor of the no-smoking legislation in which he suggests that this
may be the last chance the Board has to adopt this ordinance, because the
moratorium adopted by the General Assembly goes into effect July 1, 1989. He
thinks the Board should adopt the ordinance as proposed, with the addition of
sections k, 1 and m and the deletion of the limit of eight thousand square
feet on food stores.
Mr. Way said he feels the smoking ordinance adopted by the County should
be as similar as possible to the ordinance adopted by the City. He noted that
the County's ordinance restricts smoking in banks, a business not listed in
the City's ordinance, and shopping malls, which the City does not have. He
said he supports adding banks, savings and loans and shopping malls to the
County's ordinance, but he does have a problem with including all retail
stores, particularly small country stores and groceries. Other than this one
reservation, he said, he supports the ordinance.
Mr. Bowie said he shares Mr. Way's concern about prohibiting smoking in
small country stores.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board adopt the ordinance as drafted.
If the Board finds later that some sections of the ordinance are difficult to
enforce, then the Board can consider amending the ordinance.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John if the ordinance could be adopted tonight, but
not enforced for a while, to give the public ~ime to learn of the new regula-
tions. Mr. St. John said "yes", as long as ~he ordinance takes effect when
enacted. ~
Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor when the Health Department, which will be respon-
sible for enforcing the ordinance, recommends that the enforcement begin. Mr.
Agnor said "October 1"
Mr. Bain said he is also concerned aboutl restricting smoking in small
country stores, but he is willing to support the ordinance as it is written,
with the understanding that the ordinance may be amended later to make it less
restrictive if sections of the ordinance prove difficult to enforce.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the Ordinance could be amended later
to restrict smoking in more places. Mr. St. John said he does not know; he
does know that the ordinance could be amendedi later to make it less restric-
tive.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports the ordinanae as it is written, but she
thinks it is a sad commentary on society when ordinances must replace natural
consideration for others. She said she does not want to see the Board make
the ordinance less restrictive just because ehforcing some sections may be
more difficult than enforcing others.
Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Susan McLeod, Director of the Health Department,
had suggested two changes as follows: Section 16.1.3(h), combine (1) and (2)
into one sentence reading: "(1) that is a private work area in which two or
more employees are assigned to work for most Of their work day," Also,
Section 1§.1.5(c), add the word "lunchrooms" in two places.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
ordinance as amended tonight in Sections 16.1113(h) and 16.1.5(c), (ordinance
set out in full below) effective immediately, ~but with enforcement to begin on
October 1, 1989. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowie supported the motion with the
stipulation that the Board have an opportunit~ later to consider the effect of
the ordinance on small retail establishments.-Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Way.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below:)
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES
AND CERTAIN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia:
That the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia of 1975, as
amended, is hereby amended by adding a new chapter numbered 16.1 to
read as follows:
Sec. 16.1-1. Title.
This chapter may be cited as the "Smoking and Non-smoking Regula-
tions''.
Sec. 16.1-2. Declaration of Findings and Policy.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby finds and
declares that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is a serious
hazard to the public health, welfare, peace and safety and the quality
of life; that a substantial body of scientific and medical evidence
exists which documents this hazard including, but not limited to, the
1986 Report of the Surgeon General entitled "The Health Consequences
of Involuntary Smoking"; that both smokers and non-smokers have
individual rights which are important to preserve; and that it is the
object of this ordinance to help minimize the health hazards described
herein, particularly as they exist in certain public places and places
of employment, while simultaneously recognizing the sometimes com-
peting interests of smokers and non-smokers as well as the burdens
hereby imposed on persons in managementi!and control of the places
regulated.
Sec. 16.1-3. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
(a) "Bar or Lounge Area" shall mean an area or a room utilized
primarily for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption by
patrons on the premises and in which th~ sale of food is merely
incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Although a restaurant
may contain a bar, the term "bar" shall aot encompass an entire
restaurant or any dining area.
(b) "Child Care Facility" shall me.an any facility which is a
"Child Care Center" or a "Family Day Care Home" as defined by Section
63.1-195 of the Virginia Code of 1950, and any amendments thereto.
(c) "Food Store" shall mean any supermarket or grocery store
which is designed and arranged to display food products and which has
as its primary business purpose the sale of food products to consumers
for consumption off the pre~nises, and no~ for resale.
(d) "Health Care Facility" shall m~an any office or institution
providing individual care or treatment of diseases, whether physical,
mental or emotional, or other medical, physiological or psychological
conditions including, but not limited toi hospitals, clinics, nursing
homes, homes for the aging or chronicall~ ill, laboratories, offices
of any physician, dentist, chiropractor,~!Psychologist, psychiatrist,
physiologist, podiatrist, optometrist off, optician.
(e) "Person" shall mean any person~ firm, partnership, associa-
tion, corporation, company or organization of any kind.
(f) "Public Meeting" shall mean an~ meeting or assembly held in
a public building or building leased for~a public purpose which is
open to the public for the conduct of th~ affairs of, and the transac-
tion of business by, any legislative, ada~.inistrative or advisory body
or agency of the County of Albemarle, indluding boards, commissions,
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
authorities, councils, committees, subcommittees, and other subordi-
nate groups thereof, receiving or expending and supported in whole or
in part by public funds.
(g) "Public Place" shall mean an enclosed area available for use
by or accessible to the general public during the normal course of
business conducted by either pr~ivate or public entities.
(h) "Shared Work Area" sh~ll mean: Any enclosed area on the
premises of a place of employment (1) that is a private work area in
which two or more employees are assigned to work for most of their
work day, (2) where such employees must share common work spaces,
equipment or facilities, and (31) where each such employee is aware of
or readily available to observe the activities of others taking place
in his or her work area.
(i) "Smoking" or "to smok~" shall~mean the act of smoking or
carrying a lighted or smoldering cigar, cigarette or pipe of any kind
or lighting a cigar, cigarette or pipe 0f any kind.
(j) "Theater" shall mean any indoor facility or auditorium, open
to the public, which is primarily used for or designed for the purpose
of exhibiting any motion pictur , stage drama, musical recital, dance,
lecture or other similar perfor ~ance.
Sec. 16.1-4. Smokin~ prohibite in certain public places.
Except as otherwise provided herein, it shall be unlawful for any
person to smoke in any of the following public places:
(a) In an elevator, regardless of capacity, except in those
elevators in single family dwellings.
(b) In any health care facility, regardless of capacity but with
the exception of private patient rooms designed for only one patient.
(c) In any public meeting/attended by more than two (2) persons.
(d) In any theater, except smoking by performers as. part of the
production.
(e) In any art gallery, l%brary, museum, or similar cultural
facility, supported in whole or~in part .With public funds.
(f) In the County Office Building and any other public building
that is wholly or partially owned or leased by the County of
Albemarle, is located within and is a pa~t of the corporate limits of
the County, and is under the direct and exclusive management of the
County Executive' s office.
(g) In the designated no-smoking area of any restaurant that is
subject to the provisions of Section 16.1-6 of this chapter.
(h) In any elementary or secondary school, or child care facili-
ty, whether public or private.
(i) In any vehicles owned or leased by the County and used
regularly for public transportation including, but not limited to,
transit buses and school buses.
(j) In any food store.
(k) In any retail store.
(1) In any bank or savings and loan.
(m) In any enclosed shopping mall.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
13
Sec. 16.1-5. Regulation of smoking in certain private places of
employment.
(a) Any employer who owns and operates a business within the
county limits and who employs five or more employees shall have the
responsibility to provide, to the extent reasonably practicable,
smoke-free work areas for non-smoking employees who work in a shared
work area or space.
(b) Smoking is prohibited in the shared work areas of such an
employer unless each and every employee in a particular shared work
area consents in writing to such smoking.
(c) Nothing herein shall prevent an employer covered by this
section from establishing lawfully designated smoking areas outside of
shared work areas and in accord with Section 16.1-8 of this ordinance;
provided that restrooms and lunchrooms in buildings owned or managed
by such employers shall not be designated smoking areas unless sepa-
rate restrooms and lunchrooms are furnished for smokers and non-
smokers.
Sec. 16.1-6. Designated no-smoking areas in restaurants.
(a) Any restaurant having a seating capacity for seventy-five or
more persons shall have a designated no-smoking area comprised of at
least twenty percent of the seating capacity of such restaurant. The
designated no-smoking area shall be located in a separate room if one
is available in the restaurant or, if no separate room is available,
it shall be located in a compact and contiguous area as far removed
from areas where smoking is permitted, and closest to the best source
of ventilation, as is reasonably possible under applicable building
code and fire regulations. In determining whether the designated
twenty percent non-smoking area is of sufficient size to comply with
this ordinance, seats in any room or area which is closed for business
at the time of determination shall not be counted.
(b) In determining whether a restaurant is subject to the
provisions of paragraph (a), the following shall not be included:
(1) Seats in the bar or lounge area of a restaurant.
(2) Seats in any separate room of a restaurant which is
used exclusively for priv'ate functions.
(3) Seats located out-of-door~.
Sec. 16.1-7. Exceptions to this Chapter~
The prohibitions of this chapter shall not apply within the
following areas:
(a) Lawfully designated smoking areas which meet the conditions
set forth below in Section 16.1-8.
(b) An area of a theater commonly referred to as a lobby if
physically separated from the spectator area, but only if separate
lobbies are provided for smokers and non,smokers.
(c) Office or work areas which areinot shared work areas and
which are not entered by the public in t~e normal course of business
or use of the premises. ~
(d) Any tobacco shop or store primarily concerned with selling
tobacco and smoking implements.
(e) Areas within enclosed public buildings as defined in Section
16.1-4(h) which are being used as private dwelling units or are
occupied by tenants who are leasing spac9 from the County and are
tenants whose use of the subject space is free from express prohibi-
tions contained in other provisions of this ordinance.
(f) Courthouses owned or leased by ~ithe County.
(g) Those health care facilities o9 portions thereof which
engage primarily in the treatment of patients suffering from alcohol
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
14
and other chemical dependency or abuse, or psychiatric disorders or
illnesses when implementation of the smoking prohibitions contained in
this ordinance would, in the written opinion of attending physicians,
produce a significant risk of worsening a patient's mental health.
(h) Buildings owned or leased by the City of Charlottesville,
the Commonwealth of Virginia (including the University of Virginia),
and the federal government and its agencies.
Sec. 16.1-8. Designated smoking areas.
The owner or person in charge of any building, structure, space,
place or area in which smoking is prohibited may designate separate
rooms or areas in which smoking is permitted, provided that:
(a) Rooms or areas in which smoking is permitted and which are
so designated shall be separate to the extent reasonably practicable
from those rooms or areas entered by the public in the normal course
of use of the particular business or institution.
(b) In designated smoking areas, ventilation systems and exist-
ing physical barriers shall be used when reasonably practicable to
minimize the toxic effect of smoke in adjacent non-smoking areas.
(c) Such designated smoking areas shall not be so large in
number or area in any one building that the fundamental purposes of
this ordinance are defeated.
Sec. 16.1-9. Posting of signs.
(a) Any person who owns, manages, or otherwise controls any
building or area in which smoking is regulated by this chapter shall
post in an appropriate place in a clear, conspicuous, and sufficient
manner "Smoking Permitted" signs or "NO-Smoking" signs (or the
international "No-Smoking" symbol consisting of a pictorial represen-
tation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar
across it). Print on such signs shall b~ at least one inch in height
and the international symbol shall have~a circle of at least four
inches in diameter.
(b) Every restaurant regulated by this ordinance shall post at
or near its entrance a sign stating that!a non-smoking section is
available, and whether it is physically Separated by a wall from the
smoking section (i.e., "partitioned" or "non-partitioned").
(c) "No-Smoking" signs may, but are not required to, contain
language that violation of the no smoking prohibition is a class IV
misdemeanor and punishable by a fine up to $100.00.
(d) Small restaurants, which by reason of their more limited
seating capacity are not otherwise subject to this chapter, shall post
signs at or near their entrances that adequately inform the public of
what type of non-smoking or smoking policy is preferred and enforced
by management within the restaurant.
Sec. 16.1-10. Enforcement. -
(a) The provisions of this chapterlshall be enforced by the
Thomas Jefferson Health District, or anyi~other department or person
duly designated by the County Executive.
(b) Any citizen who desires to register a complaint under this
chapter may initiate enforcement with th~ Thomas Jefferson Health
District.
Sec. 16.1-11. Penalty.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter,
whether he or she manages or otherwise c6ntrols an area regulated by
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
15
this ordinance, or smokes in violation of the ordinance, shall be
deemed to be guilty of a class IV misdemeanor.
(b) Each day of violation of any provision of this chapter shall
constitute a separate offense.
Sec. 16.1-12. Severability.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this chapter is for any reason declared~to be unconstitutional or
invalid, such judicial decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this chapter.
m'm, Agenda Item No. 7. An ordinance to amend and reenact Article, V, County
Vehicle Licenses, Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of
Albemarle, increasing the cost of auto decals, etc. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said the amendment would change the cost of vehicle licenses
from $15 to $20 for vehicles weighing 4000 pounds or less and to $25 for
vehicles weighing over 4000 pounds. The fee for a motorcycle license would
change from $8 to $15 and the fee for non-motorized vehicles would increase
from $15 to $25. In the proposed amendment, the word "tax" is changed to
"fee". Mr. Agnor said the amendment would also change the date of prorating
sales from October 1 to October 16. He saidthe amendment would also revise
the language of the section dealing with duplicate decals to make it clear
that one and only one duplicate license plat or other indicia of license will
be issued.
The public hearing was opened. There being no member of the public
present to speak, the public hearing was clo~ed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
ordinance as advertised and set out in full ~elow. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
(The ordinance as adopted follows: ~
An Ordinance
To Amend and Reenact CHAPTER 12, MOTDRVEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,
of the Code of Al~b~marle
Article V, County VehiCle Licenses
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article V, County Vehicl~Licenses, Chapter 12, Motor
Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and
reenacted in certain sections as followsi:
Sec. 12-25. License fees--Amounts.
(a) On all motorized vehicles, except as otherwise specifically
provided in this_ article, there shall be!!an annual license fee based
on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be twenty dollars for vehicles
with gross vehicle weight of four thousand pounds or less and twenty-
five dollars for gross vehicle weights iA excess of four thousand
pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight sha~l be substituted for gross
vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for
the transportation of passengers.
(b) On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of
fifteen dollars; and an additional license fee of three dollars for
each side car for each motorcycle.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
16
(c) On every nonmotorized trailer, semitrailer or other type of
conveyance, except as provided in Sec. 12-25(d) and Sec. 12-25(f),
there shall be a license fee of twenty-five dollars.
(d) On every occasional use trailer, such as campers, utility,
boat and horse trailers with a load weight of one thousand five
hundred pounds or less and a width not greater than the width of the
motor vehicle to which it is attached at any time of operation and to
be attached to a passenger motor vehicle or truck with a gross vehicle
weight of less than five thousand pounds and used only for carrying
property belonging to the owner of such trailer, there shall be a
license fee of five dollars.
(e) In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semi-
trailer, each vehicle constituting a pa~t of such combination shall be
licensed as a separate vehicle.
(f) On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which
well-drilling machinery is attached or Other "Specialized mobile
equipment" as defined in Code of Virginia, Sec. 46.1-156(B), there
shall be an annual license fee of fifteen dollars.
Sec. 12-26. Same--Prorating. i
One-half of the annual license fee~prescribed by this article
shall be collected whenever any license is issued during the period
beginning on the sixteenth day of October in any year and ending on
the fifteenth day of January in the same license year, and one-third
of such fee shall be collected whenever any license is issued during
the period beginning on the sixteenth day of January in any license
year and ending on the last day of the same license year. In no case,
shall the amount of license fee collected be less than two dollars.
Sec. 12-27. Same--Refunds.
Any person holding a current regist~.ration certificate and license
under this article who disposes of the Vehicle, trailer or semitrailer
for which it was issued and does not put'chase another vehicle, trailer
or semitrailer may surrender the registration certificate and license
plate or other indicia of license to th~'~ director of finance, with a
statement that the vehicle, trailer or ~mitrailer for which the
license plate or other indicia of licens~e was issued has been sold or
destroyed, and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee
paid. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half
of the total cost of the registration ah~ license plate or other
indicia of license, if the application fbr such refund was made prior
to the sixteenth day of October of the chrrent license year, and the
registration and license plate or other ~ndicia of license is returned
or suitable proof of the destruction of ~he license plate or other
indicia of license is supplied. No refuhd shall be paid when app]~i-
cation is made after the fifteenth day o~ October of the current
license year. An amount of less than tw6 dollars shall not be refund-
ed nor applied to any other fee, tax or ~mount due the County of
Albemarle. ~
Sec. 12-32. Transfer of license plate, ~tc.
Any owner who sells or transfers a ~egistered motor vehicle,
trailer or semitrailer, previously registered under the provisions of
this article, may have the registration ~umber and license plate or
other indicia of license assigned to another vehicle of like design
and titled in such owner's name, upon ap~:.lication to the director of
finance on forms prescribed by the direc or of finance. The license
plate or other indicia of license must b, returned with the appli-
cation for transfer. The fee for transf~ r shall be two dollars.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Sec. 12-33. Duplicate license plate~ etc.
In the event that any license plate or other indicia of license
issued under this article, shall be lost, stolen, mutilated or other-
wise become illegible, the owner of the vehicle, trailer or semi-
trailer shall make immediate application on forms prescribed by the
director of finance and obtain a duplicate or substitute license plate
or other indicia of license. The fee for duplicate license plates or
other indicia of license shall be two dollars. An owner shall be
allowed to purchase one and only one duplicate license plate or other
indicia of license for a specific vehicle, trailer or semitrailer at
two dollars. Additional duplicates must be purchased at the appro-
priate fee for a new license.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other respects Article V of Chapter
12 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective with
the 1990/91 license year.
Agenda Item No. 8. An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 5-3, a part
of Chapter 5 entitled, "Buildings" of the Code of Albemarle, increasing
building permit fees. (Advertised in the Da£1y Progress on May 17 and May 24,
1989.)
Mr. Agnor said an attempt is made to recover one hundred percent of the
cost of the inspections. Based on the number' of permits issued last year, the
proposed increase should provide revenues of .~pproximately $8,500. He said
all fees are increased in the changes proposed, but the overall fee schedule
was made fairly uniform at $25.00 for each i~spection, with a few exceptions.
!
The Chairman opened the public hearing. There being no one from the
public present to speak for or against the o~dinance, the public hearing was
closed and the matter placed before the Board..
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded~ by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the
ordinance as advertised and as set out in fu~l below. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote.i:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~:~. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. '~i
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out below:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND;i, AND REENACT
SECTION 5- 3, PERMI? FEES,
CHAPTER 5, BUILD[INGS,
OF THE ALBEMARLE CO~.t~ CODE
BE IT ORD~ that Section 5-3 of the!:Code of Albemarle, a part of
Chapter 5 entitled "Buildings" is hereby amended and reenacted to read as fol-
lows:
Section 5-3. Permit Fees.
No permit to begin work for new construction or other building operation
shall be issued until the fees prescribed in this section have been paid. The
fees shall be fixed at the following rates, which may be amended by resolution
the board of supervisors as well as by amendment to this section:
Building Permits
a.
New Residential (including addition~)
Use Groups R-3 and R-4 (one and two~ifamily dwellings).
Calculate on gross finished floor a~ea.
Fee .......................... $0.14/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $75.00
(Note: For garages, decks and porches, use fee schedule for acc
structures. No additional fee for ~andings less than 10 sq ft).
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
18
be
Accessory Structures (residential)
Residential attached garages, detached garages, sheds, and decks and
porches 10 sq ft or larger.
Calculate on gross floor area.
Fee .......................... $0.10/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $25.00
Swimming Pools/Hot Tubs/Spas
Residential.
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Mobile Homes/Prefabricated Homes
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
New Commercial (including additions)
Use Groups A-i, A-2, A-3, A-4, B, F, M, H, I-l, I-2,
I-3, M, R-l, R-2, S-1 and S-2.
Calculate on gross floor area.
Fee .......................... $0.14/sq ft
for 0 - 5,000 sq ft
plus $0.08/sq ft for excess over 5,000 sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $75.00
New Commercial (including additions)
Use Group A-5.
Calculate on gross floor area.
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
for 0 20,000 sq ft
plus $0.01/s~ ft for excess over 20,000 sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $75.00
Swimming Pools
Commercial
Calculate on gross pool area.
Fee ......................... - . $0.05/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $50.00
Elevators/Escalators/Lifts
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Paint Spraying Booths
Fee ................ .......... $25.00 ea
Mobile Offices/Premanufactured Units
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Tents
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Alterations/Repairs
Ail Use Groups. No increase in gross square footage.
Fee .......................... $0.10/sq ft
Minimum fee ....................... $25.00
Electrical Permits
New Residential (including additions)
Use Groups R-3 and R-4 (one and two-family dwellings).
Fee ................ ' .......... $50.00 ea
Accessory Structures (residential)
Fee ........................... $25.00 ea
Mobile Homes/Prefabricated Homes
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
New Commercial (including additions)
Ail Use Groups, except R-3 and R-4.
Calculate on gross floor area.
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $50.00
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Swimming Pools/Hot Tubs/Spas
Bonding.
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Equipment wiring.
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Signs
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Temporary Service
Fee $25.00 ea
Early Service
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Fuel Dispensing Pumps
Fee .......................... $ 5.00 ea
Minimum fee ...................... $25.00
Alarm Systems
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $25.00
Alterations/Repairs
Ail Use Groups. No increase in gross square footage.
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $50.00
Plumbing Permits
New Residential (including additions)
Use Groups R-3 and R-4 (one and two-family dwellings).
Fee .......................... $50.00
Mobile Homes/Prefabricated Homes
Fee .......................... $25.00
New Commercial
All Use Groups, except R-3 and R-4.
Fee .......................... $5.00/fixture
Minimum fee ...................... $50.00
Water Lines
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Sewer Laterals
Fee .......................... $25.00 aa
Fire Suppression Systems
Fee .......................... $0.50/head
Minimum fee ....................... $25.00
Alterations/Repairs
Ail Use Groups. No increase in gross square footage.
Fee .......................... $ 5.00/fixtur
Minimum fee ....................... $25.00
Mechanical Permits
New Residential (including additions)
Use Groups R-3 and R-4 (one and two-family dwellings).
Fee ................ , .......... $50.00 ea
Mobile Homes/Prefabricated Homes
Fee ................ ~ .......... $25.00 ea
New Commercial
All Use Groups, except R-3 and R-4.
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $50.00
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
2O
d. Underground Tanks (including associated piping)
Fee .......................... $50.00 ea
e. Abovesround Tanks (including associated piping)
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
f. Gas/Oil Lines
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
g. Furnaces/Woodstoves
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
h. Range Hoods
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
i. Hood Suppression Systems
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
j. Alteration, Repairs
Ail Use Groups. No increase in gross square footage.
Fee .......................... $0.02/sq ft
Minimum fee ...................... $25.00
Amusement Ride Permits
a. Kiddie Rides
Fee .......................... $15.00 ea
b. Major Rides
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
c. Spectacular Rides
Fee .......................... $40.00 ea
Demolition Permits
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Miscellaneous
a. Other
Inspection permits for which no fee appears elsewhere in this schedul
will have the fee determined by the Building Official.
Minimum fee ...................... $25.00 ea
b. Reinspections
Any work which requires more than one reinspection will be charged fo'
return visits.
Fee .......................... $25.00/visit
c. Plan Amendments
New plans submitted requiring a complete review.
Fee .......................... $25.00 ea
Refunds
For permit applications withdrawn or voided after processing.
Refund ...................... 80% of original fee
Zoning Inspection Fees:
Laying of foundation of main and accessory structures
.......................... $10.00 per inspection
Laying of surface water drainage pipes and culverts
(as to size and location) ............. $10.00 per inspection
Laying of subsurface stone for parking or entrance
(checking proper depth final surfacing)
......................... $10.00 per inspection
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
21
Final site inspection before requesting a certificate
or temporary certificate of occupancy (forty-eight
hours prior notice is requested) ......... $10.00 per inspection
Agenda Item No. 9. An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 18, Subdivi-
sion of Land, Article IV, Platting, Subsection 18-43, Fees of the Code of
Albemarle, increasing subdivision fees. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 17 and May 24, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said these fees were last amended in 1984. Staff and administra
tive costs have increased by between thirty and thirty-five percent during that
time. Mr. Agnor then summarized the proposed changes.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Board on beha
of the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association. He said developers and builders wi
not bear the increased costs of subdividing property; instead, they will pass
these costs on to the people who buy the lots and the houses. He said raising
these fees will make it more difficult for people to buy moderately priced home;
in the County. He said the recommended increases are sizeable and he does not
believe that the cost of processing subdivision applications has increased that
much. He thinks that developers and builders are being asked to pay a greater
proportion of the costs of processing these applications than they were a few
years ago. He said he hopes the increase will be used to hire competent employ.
ees who can prepare reports outlining the pr0's and con's of complex develo
projects.
Mr. Wagner then stated that he did not remember seeing Agenda Item No. 17,
STA-89-02, on the agenda received by his company. He asked that the Board
action on this item.
Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said he supports waiving the fees for low- and moderate-income
housing projects.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if it is ~rue that builders and developers
being asked to pay more of the costs of processing subdivision applications.
Agnor said the earlier fees did not include the review of subdivisions by the
Engineering staff, while the fees proposed tonight include this cost.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lihdstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, t
adopt the ordinance as advertised and set out~i in full below. Roll was called
the motion carried by the following recorded Vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 18, Subdivision ~f Land, Article IV, Platting,
of the Code of Albemarle, Subsection 18-~3, Fees, is amended and
reenacted as follows:
Sec. 18-43. Fees.
(a) Preliminary plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the
time when the preliminary plat is filed..i Such fee shall be in the
form of cash or a check payable to the "~ounty of Albemarle, Vir-
ginia,'' the amount thereof to be determined in accordance with the
following schedule:
(1) Three lots or less - sixty-five dollars.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
22
(2) Four lots or more - two hundred sixty dollars plus one
dollar per lot.
(3) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a
preliminary plat for the same property has been f~led previously,
shall be subject to the same requirements.
(b) Final plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time the
final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash or a check
payable to the "County of Albemarle, Virginia," the amount thereof to
be determined in accordance with the following schedule:
(1) Commission approval: Three hundred ninety dollars,
plus one dollar per lot.
(2) Administrative approval, including family divisions:
thirty dollars.
(3) Exempt plat: Fifteen dollars.
(4) Condominium plat: Sixty-five dollars.
(5) In addition to the foregoing, in the case of any plat
on which is shown any road to be dedicated to public use, or any
private road, the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee equal to
the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such road. Such
fee shall be paid upon completion of all necessary inspections and
shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of such road for
the purposes of section 18-19.
(c) Waiver request of subdivision requirement: Sixty-five
dollars.
Agenda Item No. 10. An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 35, Fees,
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, increasing zoning fees. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 17 and May 24, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said this increase also reflects the costs associated with the
Engineering staff review and the recovery of~approximately fifty percent of
the costs of the work of the Planning and Zoning staffs.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the word "charged" be substituted for "taxed" in
the first sentence of the last paragraph. H~ said he thinks the format of
this section should also be changed to make ~t consistent with previously
changed sections. Mr. Agnor said that staffilcould restructure the ordinance
without changing its content.
The Chairman opened the public hearing.~ There being no members of the
public present to speak, Mr. Way closed the ~ublic hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
ordinance as advertised, with the change suggested by Mr. Bowie, and set out
in full below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 35, FEES
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 35, Fees, of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
23
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made
to the zoning administrator, the con~nission, or the board of
supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth
hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such appli-
cation.
a. For a special use permit~
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mobile home and home occupation - $25.00.
Rural area divisions - $165.00.
Commercial use - $165.00.
Industrial use - $165.00.
Private club/recreational facility - $165.00.
Mobile home park orlsubdivision - $165.00.
Public utilities - $130.00.
Ail other uses - $100.00.
For amendment to text ofizoning ordinance - $65.00.
t. For amendment to zojing map $165.00 plus
Si/acre.
For amendment to zonmng map for planned
developments - $520~:00 plus $1/acre.
do 1.
For requests for a variance to the board of zoning
appeals $65.00.
For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals
$25.00.
e. 1. For preliminary site development plan - $520.00.
For final site development plan (administrative)
$260.00.
For final site development plan (commission
review):
a) Prior to preliminary plan approval - $720.00.
b) After preliminary plan approval $300.00.
4. For site developmentlplan waiver - $130.00.
5. For site developmentl, plan amendment:
a)
Minor - alterations to parking, circulation,
building size, location $30.00.
b) Major ' ~
- commiSSIOn review - $130.00.
f. For relief from a condition of approval from commission
or landscape waiver by agent - $65.00.
In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice
required under Chapter 11, Title 15%1 of the Code shall be
charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall
exceed the applicable fee set forth!iin this section. Failure to
pay all applicable fees shall const{tute grounds for the denial
of any application. -!
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it would be appropriate to reconvene period-
ically the Land Use Regulations Committee and have its members review ordi-
nances and suggest ways that the administration of these ordinances can be
streamlined. ~
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 11. An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 4, General
Regulations, Section 4.15, Signs, Subsection 4.15.4.1, Sign Permits, increas-
ing the cost of sign permits. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 17 and
May 24, 1989.)
The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
ordinance as advertised and set out in full below. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
SECTION 4.15, r:SIGNS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, General Regulations, of the Zoning
Ordinance, Section 4.15, Signs, Subsection 4.15.4.1, Sign Permits, is
amended and reenacted to read as follows:
4.15.4 ADMINISTRATION OF SIGNS
4.15.4.1 SIGN PERMITS
No person shall erect or cause to be erected any sign,
except auction and temporary signs, in excess of five (5)
square feet in area unless and until a permit therefor shall
have been obtained from the zoning administrator. Such
permit shall be issued upon the payment of a fee in the
amount of twenty dollars ($20.~00) to cover the cost incident
to the issuance of such permit and upon a finding by the
zoning administrator that the proposed sign conforms to the
requirements of'this ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-89-20. John G. Hart. To allow a single-wide
mobile home on 11.4 acres, zoned RA. (Deferred from May 17, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as follows:
Petition: John G. Hart on behalf of Samuel P. (brother) and Kathe-
rine S. Hart petitions the Board of Supervisors in accordance with
Section 5.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the placement of a
single-wide mobile home on 11.4 acres.
Staff Com~nent: The mobile home is to be~located on a knoll near a
tree line as shown on the plat (on file). The mobile home will not be
visible from the state road. Two dwellings are visible both of which
are on property owned by John G. Hart who is making application on
behalf of his brother. One of these dwellings is a mobile home
administratively approved with SP-84-79. Currently there are six
mobile homes within a one mile radius of~this proposal.
One letter of objection has been received which states that "a mobile
home is out of character for this neighb6rhood".
The applicant has stated that the proposed mobile home is to be used
by Samuel P. and Katherine S. Hart as a ~emporary home during weekends
and vacations. Historically, mobile hom~s have been approved when
there is a need for permanent housing and not for temporary use.
Shouid the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends t~he following conditions.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
25
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (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 Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
Special Use Permit is issued for use by Samuel P. and Katherine
S. Hart only.
Mr. Keeler said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 2,
1989, unanimously recommended denial of this ~permit.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Samuel Hart said he is retired and there are many pre-fabricated
houses and mobile homes already along Route 620. This is his homeplace. His
brother cut off this acreage and he does not even have a right-of-way to the
property, just an easement to use the existing farm road. He said the trailer
will be screened by a grove of oak trees and will be seen by no one but his
brother, who also lives in a trailer. The old home place is not inhabitable
at this time. He said the County received one letter of opposition from a
landowner who is separated from the proposed site of the mobile home by almost
230 acres. He said he cannot understand why,~ under these circumstances, a
mobile home is objectionable. He said he does not expect to llve in this
mobile home permanently, but he likes to visit his brother and help with the
farmwork and needs a place to stay while he visits.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Samuel Hart if he owned the 11 acres upon which the
mobile home would be placed. Mr. Hart said '!Yes".
Mrs. Dot Marsh, an adjoining landowner, addressed the Board. She said
mobile homes become unsightly if they are not well maintained. She said
someone has cut all of the woods around her property, so she can see the
proposed site plainly. She has a log cabin on her property. She is concerned
about who will maintain this mobile home after Mr. Hart is gone. She asked
that a time limit be placed on the special use permit.
With no one else coming forward to speak; the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he understands the Plannin~ Commission's reluctance to
approve a mobile home for temporary or part-time residency. However, he said,
he thinks this application is unique: no one, can see the mobile home from
either the road or adjoining properties and no one but Mr. and Mrs. Samuel
Hart can use the mobile home.
Mr. Bowie said he can see nothing wrong at all with this request as an
individual case, but he is concerned that approving this request could set a
precedent for approving mobile homes for weekend retreats. He asked Mr. St.
John if the size of the property under discussion, the isolation of the mobile
home, and the fact that the lot was created in a family subdivision were
factors that could make approving this request less likely to set a precedent.
Mr. St. John said he thinks so, since this paCcel was part of a family
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
26
homeplace and the owner of the parcel and the mobile home is a member of this
family.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with the County's policies concerning
administration of mobile homes. He said the Board has adhered to basic
guidelines and has denied requests by people who wanted to put a mobile home
on their property to be used as a weekend home. He said he will not be able
to remember all the factors that distinguish this case from the rest. He said
he feels uneasy with the mobile home ordinance and he does not know how much
of this ordinance is related to land use. He said he does not remember an
instance in which the Board allowed a mobile home to be used for a weekend
retreat. He does not think the distinctions mentioned earlier will keep an
approval of this request from setting a precedent. He thinks approving this
request will be a significant deviation from the Board's policy concerning
mobile homes.
Since he has served on the Board, Mr. Bowie said, the Board has refused
several requests for mobile homes to be used for weekend retreats or vacation
homes. In none of these cases was the property in question a family
homeplace.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not sure this distinction is likely to be
persuasive if a future applicant wants to use a mobile home as a weekend
hunting lodge and takes his case to court, citing the Board's approval of this
request. He thinks the Board will have problems if it strays from its origi-
nal policy of allowing mobile homes only to full-time occupants, thus making
it possible for people to own homes who could not do so otherwise.
Mr. St. John agreed with the reservations stated by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr.
St. John said the County holds mobile homes in disfavor and allows them only
when they provide housing for County residents. Clearly, he said, this is not
such a case. However, he said, he thinks it~ican be argued that the applicant
is not requesting the mobile home for pure, ~ecreational use. He said the
applicant would not be willing to put a mobile home just anywhere with a good
view; Mr. Hart wants to have a mobile home on this property because it is a
part of his family's homeplace. Mr. St. John said the law in family divisions
recognizes the importance of family roots. He said the applicant's request
promotes the keeping of this property in the~family and he thinks this is a
distinction, and he thinks the Court would see it that way also.
Mr. Perkins said Mr. Hurt could build a ~shanty or drag in a travel
trailer so he thinks this request is unique. He thinks the Board should look
at each situation as the request is made.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports this request because this mobile home is
unobtrusive and the applicant is making the riequest in order to keep his
family together and maintain the family homep.ilace.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. COoke, to approve
SP-89-20 with the seven conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Bowie said he wants the record to sHbw that he thinks this request is
different from the average weekend retreat, ahd he will not support any future
requests for mobile homes to be used as weekehd or vacation homes.
Mr. Bain said this is a philosophical issue the Board has discussed for
years. He does see some difference in this r~quest and will support the
motion. ~
There was no further discussion. Roll w~s called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not sure he wouSd have supported this request if
he did not think the entire mobile home ordinance was "full of holes".
(Note: The conditions of approval are s~t out in full below.)
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
27
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
o
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty 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 Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening
to be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator.
Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
Special Use Permit is issued for use by Samuel P. and Katherine
S. Hart only.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-89-27. Joseph Terry. To allow for motor vehicle
rentals on property zoned C-l, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32,
Parcel 38A, is located on the west side of Rt. 29, approx. 300 feet north of
its intersection with Rt. 649. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The property iS presently improved with a
building which includes a small office area, an antique store and a
frame shop. Airport Plaza shops share a common entrance with this
property and are adjacent to the south. Airport Auto Sales is adja-
cent to the north; and Airport Road AutO Center and abandoned storage
buildings are adjacent to the west. A built lot within Airport Acres
subdivision is adjacent to the northwest.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to utilize surplus
parking area and office area for U-Haul truck and trailer rentals.
The applicant proposes a total of 31 spaaes to be available for trucks
and 12 for trailers, a total of 43 spaces combined. These truck
spaces are located on either side of the~building with trailer parking
in the rear. This allows the parking to serve the antique store and
frame shop to be along the Route 29 frontage, convenient to their
entrances.
The applicant anticipates most business Ko be University-related with
origins and destinations from areas to the north. During peak times,
Fall and Spring, surplus inventory will !be located on-site
temporarily. ~
History: On November 5, 1973, the Albemarle County Planning Commis-
sion approved the James H. Williams Sit~ Plan to convert an existing
dwelling and Harley Davidson motorcycle i~hop to two retail stores and
two offices. This plan showed closing t%o existing entrances, one for
this property and one for Airport Plaza, land construction of a central
joint entrance. These access improvements were not completed with
this plan. ~
On May 23, 1978, the Planning Commission approved the Joseph Terry
Revised Site Plan. In order to obtain a! certificate of occupancy for
the Daisy Shoe Center, Inc., this plan proposed completing the access
improvements of the Williams plan.
Staff Comment: 'Motor vehicle rental' as a use has caused concern in
the past due to overcrowding of sites which has resulted in traffic
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
28
congestion as well as visual clutter. In staff's opinion, the obtru-
sive aspects of this request will be addressed by conditions either in
place on-site or listed herein as conditions of special use permit
approval. Discussion of these two items are as follows:
Traffic: This use does not generate more traffic than typical retail
uses by right. Due to the nature of these rentals, in our review
staff has considered driver unfamiliarity with the vehicle and with
the area. It is our opinion that this site presently provides ade-
quate access for truck and trailer rentals.
The Virginia Department of Transportation comments are (on file).
Since these comments were written, it has been determined that a sight
easement is not warranted because sufficient right-of-way exists. In
regards to the recommendation for drainage improvements, staff cannot
support it because it is not directly necessitated by this request.
No additional impervious cover is proposed with this use.
The final item in the Virginia Department of Transportation comments
is related to turn lane improvements. Staff does not support this
recommendation based on the following:
This turn lane was installed in accordance with the Virginia
Department of Transportation permit issued in 1978. Other than
an increase in traffic volume on Route 29, Planning or Virginia
Department of Transportation staff'can find no change of circum-
stance or regulation which now renders this turn lane substan-
dard.
In recent years, the Virginia Department of Transportation
constructed a right turn lane from~the Route 29 southbound lane
onto Route 649, from this applicants entrance. In fact, a
portion of this right-turning traffic utilizes the turn lane into
the Terry site to slow for the turn. Extension of this lane for
the Terry entrance results in a total of three entrances in this
turn lane which also serves Route 649 (two entrances at Airport
Auto Sales and the one in this application). It is contrary to
sound engineering practice to allow entrances within turn lanes.
In that case, the second vehicle cannot anticipate the first
vehicles movements.
In conclusion, staff cannot support thei!requirement of access
improvements.
Visual Quality: Based on the proposed !!ocation of these rental
vehicles and the landscaping presently o~-site, there will be minimal
visual impact. The applicant has previ0~sly worked with the closest
residential owner, approximately 75 feet! distant, to install land-
scaping on that property. This landscapling however, does not meet the
present Zoning Ordinance requirements for screening. Staff intends to
review this with the site plan revision for parking reconfiguration.
Staff finds this request consistent withthe criteria of Section
31.2.4.1 for the issuance of a special use permit with appropriate
conditions. Therefore, staff recommendJ~ approval subject to the
following conditions:
Parking of vehicles in accordance W~th plan marked 'Special Use
Permit 89-27' signed 'A. M. Patterson, May 15, 1989';
Not more than 31 trucks and 12 trailers shall be located on site.
These numbers may not be exceeded f~or more than 15 consecutive
days in spring and fall, dates rel~ed to the University of
Virginia's schedule;
Administrative approval of parking ~area plan amendments, to
include review of landscaping."
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
29
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Con~nission, at its meeting on May 23, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval of SP-89-27, subject to the conditions in the
staff's report.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Terry was present in support of his
petition. There was no one from the public who wished to speak, so Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the provisions for landscaping and said he does
not want passers-by and the people who live across the highway to have to look
at a string of trucks and moving vans lined up along Route 29 North. Mr.
Keeler said a condition could be added to provide screening along Route 29
North. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the following wording: "Screening to be
provided along Route 29 North in compliance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the site
plan section of the Zoning Ordinance."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve
SP-89-27, subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion, and a fourth condition reading: "Screening to be provided along Route
29 North in compliance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the site plan section of the
Zoning Ordinance". There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
Parking of vehicles in accordance Kith plan marked "Special Use
Permit 89-27" signed "A. M. Patterson, May 15, 1989";
Not more than 31 trucks and 12 trailers shall be located on site.
These numbers may not be exceeded for more than 15 consecutive
days in spring and fall, dates related to the University of
Virginia's schedule;
Administrative approval of parking area plan amendments, to
include review of landscaping;
Screening to be provided along Route 29 North in compliance with
Section 32.7.9.8 of the site plan section of the Zoning Ordi-
nance.
Agenda Item No. 14. SP-89-29. Robert & Marilyn Brugh. To amend Condi-
tion #2 of SP-85-14 as it relates to the number of vehicles to be located on
the site. Property, described as Tax Map 61Z'; Section 3, Parcel 2, is located
on the east side of Rt. 29, approx. 600 feet inorth of its intersection with
Westfield Road. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: This property i~ developed with three build-
ings which house a number of commercial uses. McCoy's Waterbed
Showcase is presently located directly o~ Route 29. (The Zoning
Department assesses the adequacy of parkSng as uses change.) Pro-
perties adjacent to the north and east in Branchlands have been
designated for commercial usage and openl, space. The Branchlands Phase
2 Shopping Center proposal is adjacent t~ the north, and the wetland
area to the east. Property to the south.~is developed commercially.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes an additional motor
vehicle rental use, for Enterprise Leasing Company car leasing. They
request a total of 22 existing parking spaces to be devoted to this
use. The majority of leases are longer term (seven day average) than
with Avis and other retail rental agencies. They primarily serve
insurance companies. The applicant states 'the granting of this
special use permit will not create addit{onal traffic intensification
when compared to the high volume traffic~created by the many retail/
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
30
service uses granted by the property's current zoning of C-1. The
granting of motor vehicle rental at this location is not inconsistent
with the character of this property and the property adjoining it.'
Staff Comment: 'Motor vehicle rental' as a use has caused concern in
the past due to overcrowding of sites which has resulted in traffic
congestion as well as visual clutter. Because the present proposal
involves rental of passenger vehicles within existing parking areas,
in staff's opinion visual clutter is not an issue. This use does not
generate more traffic than typical general retail uses by-right. Due
to the typical leasing period and the fact that most customers are
familiar with the vehicle and the area, it is staff's opinion that
traffic congestion is not an issue.
Truck and trailer rental is presently in operation with 20 spaces for
U-Haul. This was permitted by approval of SP-85-14 Willis Estes on
May 1, 1985. As with U-Haul, four spaces will be utilized towards the
front of the site with the majority of inventory in the rear.
The Virginia Department of Transportation comments are (on file). It
is staff's opinion that transportation improvements would not be
directly necessitated by this proposed use. The Zoning Department has
determined parking to be adequate.
Staff opinion is that this request is c6nsistent with the criteria for
issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1). Staff recommends
approval subject to the following condi{ions:
Parking of vehicles in accordance With plan marked 'SP-89-29,
Robert D. and Marilyn C. Brugh' signed 'A. M. Patterson, May 9,
1989;'
Not more than twenty-two rental passenger vehicles shall be
located on site."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission,. at its meeting on May 16, 1989,
unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions in the staff
report.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Brugh addressed the Board and said
there are five businesses existing on the site at this time. The rest of the
building is vacant. This business would be on the front of the property and
he thinks it would be in character with the area and would generate less
traffic than the other retail uses in that bqilding. He asked that additional
parking be permitted in the rear of property, as was allowed under SP-85-14,
Mr. Willis Estes, dated May 1, 1985.
There was no one else from the public tQispeak, so the public hearing was
closed.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about the lack of screening along the
front. Mr. Keeler said the only space along ~he front of this property in
which screening could be planted is in the right-of-way owned by VDoT. Mr.
Lindstrom said the Board could require screening anyway. Mr. Bowie pointed
out that businesses on the surrounding proper.~ies were not screened from Route
29. Mr. Lindstrom said screening for these existing businesses can be re-
quired only when applications for changes com~ before the Board, as in this
case. He agreed that this property would be difficult to screen since there
was so little space available, but he is not §ute that is a good excuse.
Given the configuration of the site, he said,~he thinks the applicant may be
asking for more parking than can be accommodated upon the site. He noted that
there is already parking located in VDoT's ri~ht-of-way. Mr. Keeler said the
improvements planned for Route 29 would cause~Mr. Brugh to lose these parking
spaces anyway.
Mr. St. John said he thinks the public r~cord should reflect how it came
to be that SP-85-14 is tied to the applicant ~nd not the property. He said
there is nothing in the conditions to the per~it that would restrict that
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
31
permit to the applicant personally. Mr. St. John said he needs to review the
minutes of the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he interprets the staff report to mean that the Board
is being asked to approve a new use, not an extension of an existing special
use permit. He said there is no room for screening and setbacks from Route 29
North. If the Board approves this request, he said, there will never be any
room to meet theCounty's requirements. He feels this lot is being used to
its fullest, as if the County's ordinances on screening and setbacks did not
exist. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the Board just required Mr. Terry, the
previous applicant with an almost identical application, to screen his busi-
ness from Route 29 North.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this proposal seeks to use the parking spaces that
once belonged to an enterprise on this propeCty that has since gone out of
business. If another business were to try t~ move into the commercial space
left vacant by the previous enterprise, she Said, that business could find
itself without any parking spaces. Mr. Agnor said that a business license
would not be issued if that proved to be the.case.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if it would be illegal or inappropriate
for the Board to require that this entire property be screened from Route 29
North as part of the special permit process for this particular use. Before
he can answer this question, Mr. St. John said, he needs to know more about
the history of this property and the limits and nature of the other uses on
this property. Mrs. Cooke agreed and said she would like answers to some of
these questions before she acts on this request.
Mr. Brugh said he asked staff what uses could be placed on the property
and this is the result of that discussion.
Mr. St. John asked Mr. Brugh if deferring this request for several weeks
would adversely affect his business. Mr. Brugh said "yes". He said he has
already made this information available to the staff. He said he is only
asking for four parking spaces up front. He:thinks the appearance of the
building will be corrected in the near future.
Mr. Lindstrom said he sympathizes with ~he applicant's frustration, but
this information has not been available to t~e Board. He said the key issue
is where the parking spaces will be. Motion mas then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer ~P-89-29 to June 14, 1989, to
allow the County Attorney time to gather mor~ information on the history of
the zoning on the property. Roll was callediland the motion carried by the
following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messms. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:01P.M~i, and reconvened at 10:12 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: TO consider the Secondary Improve-
ment Highway Budget for Fiscal Year 1989-90, pursuant to Virginia Code Section
33.1-70.01. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Cilimberg addressed the Board and said there will be changes in the
allocations available for secondary road improvements, unpaved roads and
revenue sharing funds.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer for VDoT, addressed the
Board. Mr. Roosevelt said there will be $3,354,526 available for the
secondary road improvement budget, instead of the estimated $3,380,000. He
said the proposed list of secondary road improvements projects will have to be
changed to accommodate the $25,500 difference~between the estimate and actual
allocation available for these projects. Mr.'Roosevelt said only $293,000,
instead of the projected $500,000, will be available to the County in revenue
sharing funds. He said the Board must indicate which projects, once slated
for revenue sharing funds, will now be covered by funds from the secondary
improvements budget.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
32
Mr. Roosevelt said he has received a letter dated June 1, from Mr. J. G.
Ripley, Director of Planning and Progran~ning for VDoT. According to Mr.
Ripley, not all of the revenue sharing funds requested by localities during FY
1988-89 have been used. The remainder of these unused revenue sharing funds
will be made available to the six localities that requested the full amount of
revenue sharing funds for FY 1989-90. Mr. Roosevelt said the County could
request up to an additional $250,000 in revenue sharing funds and said the
Board should decide tonight whether to apply for these funds.
Mr. Roosevelt then began describing the projects on the secondary road
improvements plan. He also suggested changes in the plan to accommodate the
changes in the allocation and revenue sharing funds, as well as a new require-
ment by VDoT that localities allocate a minimum of $585,000 towards gravel
road improvements. He said the Board must increase the allocation on one of
its four gravel road projects by about $9000~ He said he recommends that the
allocation be increased from $227,000 to $236,000 for Project #14, the widen-
ing and hard surfacing of Route 627 from Route 708 to Route 727. He also
recommends reducing from $343,000 to $308,000 the allocation for Project #9,
widening Route 631, Fifth Street Extended, to four lanes in order to cover the
difference between the amount estimated to be allocated to the secondary roads
budget and the actual allocation.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the Board had selected the following six projects
to receive revenue sharing funds:
Route 631 at SPCA Road ($130,000);
Route 654 at Route 656 ($80,000);
the two bridges on Route 631 ($150,000)~
Route 631 at the entrance to Pen Park ($220,000);
Route 656, Georgetown Road ($120,000);
The bridge on Route 601 at Buck Mountain Creek ($300,000).
To meet the reduction in revenue sharing funds for FY 1989-90, Mr.
Roosevelt recommended that the County reques~ $210,000 from the revenue
sharing funds left over from FY 1988-89 to f~nd the improvements to Georgetown
Road and the bridge on Route 601 at Buck Mountain Creek. If the request for
these unused revenue sharing funds is not approved, Mr. Roosevelt recommended
that the Board reduce the allocation for widening Fifth Street Extended to
four lanes, from $343,000 to $-0-, in order ~o fund the Georgetown Road and
Route 601 projects. ~
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Mr. !Robert B. Sullivan addressed the
Board and said he owns and lives on 12 acres iWith a deeded right-of-way to the
three mile section of Route 708 that has nev~ been paved. He said only a
small percentage of the right-of-way remains !to be donated and he thinks the
County should condemn the property needed fo~ithe rest of the right-of-way.
He asked Mr. Roosevelt and each member of the~iBoard to travel down this
unpaved section of Route 708 sometime around 5:00 P.M. He said there is a lot
of fast-moving traffic and dust on this section of Route 708 at that time.
Mr. Way noted that the widening and hard~surfacing of this section of
Route 627 had been left in the secondary road'' improvements plan even though it
ran contrary to the Board's new policy of improving only those gravel roads
with the right-of-way needed for the improvements. Mr. Way said he has driven
down this section of road and he agrees with Mr. Sullivan that it is a bad
road. Mr. Roosevelt said this section of Route 708 was one of those roads
which the Board said should remain in the plan when the policy was adopted
last November. The Department has two miles bf right-of-way for this project,
but was not able to get a connection on eithe~ end to a paved road. The Board
indicated that this road should be improved agd the right-of-way deeds record-
ed. Mr. Roosevelt said he intends, when the Six Year Plan is reviewed later
this year, to add this section of Route 708 t~ the plan. Mr. Way said work
may not begin on this project for several years, but the project will be
included in the Six Year Secondary Road Plan and the road will be paved
eventually.
Mr. Sullivan asked how long condemnation i.iprOceedings would take. Mr. Way
said the County would not condemn property fob the right-of-way, but VDoT
would pave the section of the roadway for which rights-of-way have been
donated.~,~
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
33
Since no one else from the public wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Project #1, County Wide New Pipe, included adding
a bigger pipe on Route 610. Mr. Roosevelt said he is not yet certain whether
adding this pipe will be considered a maintenance project or a secondary road
improvement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is possible, when Route 610 is paved, that only
the well-traveled portion connecting Route 6'10 to Route 20 be improved,
leaving the rest of the road as it is. Mr. Roosevelt said this would be
possible, but the right-of-way has already been donated from the beginning to
the end of Route 610. Mr. Lindstrom said he owns property on this road and he
knows some property owners donated the right~of-way just to be good neighbors.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT would need a statement from the landowners and the
Board's support for paving only part of the road. Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks the affected landowners would prefer the entire road paved, but only
the first one and one-half miles, the heavily traveled section, widened.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept
the recommended budget tonight and to approve the budget with recommendations
1, 2 and 5 as set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Increase Project #14, Route 627, from $227,000 to $236,000 to meet
the minimum unpaved road fund requirements.
Reduce Project #9, Fifth Street Extended, from $343,000 to $308,526
to cover the shortfall.
Direct that all funding for Fifth Street Extended be further reduced
to fund Route 656 and Route 601 if full request for additional 88-89
Revenue Sharing Funds is not approved.
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1989-90 ADOPTED
PROJECT/DESCRIPTION
1. County Wide New Pipe
2. County Wide New Signs
3. County Wide Seed & Fertilize Completed Projects
4. County Wide Preliminary Engineering for New
Projects
5. County Wide Site Plan & Subdivision Review
6. County Wide New Additions
7. Route 627 Hatton Ferry
8. Route 671 Millington Bridge & Approaches
9. Route 631 5th Street Ext. Widen to iFour Lanes
10. Route 631 Rio Road Widen to Five Lanes with
Curb & Gutter
11. Route 601 Bridge & Approaches at B~¢k Mountain
Creek
12. Route 660 Bridge & Approaches at South Fork of
the Rivanna River
13. Route 693 from Route 635 to Route 695
Widen and Hard Surface ~
14. Route 627 from Route 708 to Route 7~7
Widen and I{ard Surface
15. Route 674 from Route 810 to Route 6~3
Widen and Hard Surface ~
16. Route 662 from Route 660 to 1 mile ~est
Widen and Hard Surface ~
17. Route 649 from Southern Railroad to Route 20
Apply Plant Mix
ALLOCATION
$ 20,000
10,000
25,000
30,000
15,000
80,000
10,000
100,000
308,526
160,000
460,000
500,000
300,000
236,000
150,000
100,000
105,000
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
18. Route 676 from Route 678 to 0.3 miles North of
Route 678 - Apply Plant Mix
19. Route 678 from 0.3 miles North of Route 250 to
Route 676 North - Apply Plant Mix
20. Route 743 Hydraulic Road - Widen to Four Lanes
with Curb & Gutter
21. Route 708 at Route 631 - Rebuild Intersection
22. Route 691 Park Road - Improve Connection to Rt. 240
23. Route 743 at Route 606 - Improve Intersection
24. Route 866 Greenbrier Drive - Construct Four Lanes
on New Location
25. Route 620 Bridge & Approaches at BUck Island
Creek
TOTAL
15,000
75,000
150,000
50,000
50,000
15,000
70,000
320,000
~3,354,526
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept
Recommendations 3 and 4 regarding Revenue Sharing, by adopting the following
resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrls. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, by letter of May 12, 1989,~ Mr. J. G. Ripley, Director of
Planning and Programming of the Virginia Department of Transportation,
has advised the Board of Supervisors that its request for $500,000 in
Revenue Sharing Funds for 1989-90 must be adjusted downward to
$293,400;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thati the County of Albemarle
proposes for the use of Revenue Sharing Funds the following subject
projects:
1. Route 631, intersection improvement at SPCA Road -
$130,000~
2. Route 654, turn lane at Georgetown Road $80,000;
3. Route 631, two bridge improvements south of Urban Area -
$150,000;
4. Route 631, at Pen Park entrance - $220,000; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia does hereby respectfull~ request matching Revenue
Sharing Funds remaining from the 1988-89.fiscal year allocations in
the amount of $210,000 to be allocated to the following projects:
5. Route 656, construct turn lanes:- $120,000; and
6. Route 601, bridge over Buck MoUhtain Creek - $300,000.
Agenda Item No. 16. An ordinance to ree~act Section 2-2.1 of the
Albemarle County Code entitled "Compensation Of board of supervisors" to
increase such compensation allowed by an inflation factor of not to exceed
five percent as allowed by Virginia Code Section 14.1-46.01:1(2). (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said the revised ordinance befdre the Board would increase the
salary of each Board member by two and one-half percent, from $7,955.38 to
$8,154. The maximum increase per year allowe~ by State Code is five percent.
In response to a question by Mr. Bowie, Mr. Agnor said a four percent would
give each Board member a salary of $8,273; fi~e percent, $8,352. Mr. Agnor
said Mr. Bowie had also asked the staff to calculate what the Board's salary
would be if it was not limited by State law a~d if the salary had followed the
Consumer Price Index since 1976. Under these i~circumstances, Mr. Agnor said,
the Board's salary would have increased from ~6,000 in 1976 to $12,468 in
1988.
Mr. Bowie said he asked for these figure~ because he has heard potential
candidates for the Board say they are unwilli~ to do the amount of work
required for so little money.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
35
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. There being no one present from the
public to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Way said he thinks the Board's salary should be increased by four
percent, which was the amount of the General Government employees' bonus pool.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could support an increase of four percent.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following ordinance setting the Board's salary. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full beloW.)
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION
Article I, of the Code of Albemarle
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of S~pervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2-2.1, of the Code of
Albemarle, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec~ 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Eight thousand two hundred seventy2three dollars and sixty cents
for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular
salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of twenty-five
dollars for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in
addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a
stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED, that this ordinance shall be effective on
and after July 1, 1989.
Mr. Perkins said the salaries of those ~ho serve on other boards and
commissions such as the School Board, should !be reviewed yearly to avoid the
need for big increases after several years.
Agenda Item No. 17. STA-89-02. To amen~ Section 18-36 Private Roads of
the Subdivision Ordinance to specify circumstances under which private roads
may be permitted in rural developments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Way said he had received a request tO postpone discussion on this
request to allow interested people to speak. He did open the public hearing,
but there was no one present to speak. The public hearing was closed, and
motion immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer this item until June 14,
1989. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. ZTA-89-03. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 6.0 Non-Conforming Lots to:provide for combination and/or
redivision of non-conforming lots. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Ther~ was no one present to speak, so
the public hearing was closed.
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
defer this item to June 14, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA-89-04. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to require a special use permit for uses not served by public water
for excessive consumption or for uses not served by public sewer for discharge
of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 23 and May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Ms. Angela Glon~n, of the League of Women Voters, addressed the Board.
She said the League supports this zoning text amendment and believes it to be
further evidence of the County's desire to protect groundwater.
Since no one else wished to speak, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and
placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
defer ZTA-89-04 to June 14, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. ZTA-87-05. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, Section 4.12 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements as to
design of parking areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and
May 30, 1989.)
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak, so
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
defer ZTA-89-05 to June 14, 1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Approval of MinuteS: July 6(N), July 13, July 20,
July 27, August 10, August 17, September 7, September 14 and September 21,
1988; March i(N), March 15(A), March 27, April 17, April 27 and May 4, 1989.
Mr. Bowie had read July 13, 1988, pages 15 to the end, and found one
typographical error.
Mr. Way had read March 1 and March 27, 1989, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Perkins had read September 14, 1988, March 27 and May 4, 1989, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to reappoint Ms. Cindy Pronevitz to the Jefferson-
June 7, 1989 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
37
Madison Regional Library Board of Trustees, for a full term which will expire
on June 30, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Virginia Department of Transportation is going to
make information on Route 29 North available to the public. There will be a
display in the County Office Building in the area in front of the Auditorium
on the Second Floor on Thursday, June 8 and Friday, June 9, 1989.
Mr. Way said he would confirm with the Chairman of the School Board
whether there would be the monthly joint meeting in June.
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Chairman