1988-04-13April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
3_15
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on April 13, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., F. R. Bowie and Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, (arrived at 9:09 A.M.),
Walter F. Perkins, (arrived at 9:28 A.M.), and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item~o. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve items 4.1, 4.2 and 4.2a and to accept the
remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Lindstrom and Perkins.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request- Thurston Subdivision. Request having
been received from Mr. and Mrs. Calvin Tyree for a street name sign to iden-
tify Thurston Drive for emergency purposes, and the Tyree's having agreed to
pay the cost of such sign, the following resolution was adopted by the Vote
shown above.
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road in Thurston Subdivision:
Thurston Drive (State Route 1235) at its intersection with State
Route 810;
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested
to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign.
Item 4.2. Resolution to abandon the old Route 9009 and take in the new
Route 9009 roadway at Broadus Wood Elementary~School.
The following memo was received from Mr. N. A. Overstreet, Division
Superintendent, dated March 30, 1988:
"In 1985 after the Broadus Wood Elementary School renovation occurred,
the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to make changes in
Route 9009 for the purpose of state maintenance of the road. One
section of the road was added to the secondary system and a section
was abandoned. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
has requested that this action by the Board of Supervisors be taken
it~_6
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
again with two changes. They request that (1) a resolution be approved
by the School Board to request that this action occur and (2) that the
Section of the Virginia Code cited in the resolution be changed from
33.1-155 to 33.1-68.
At their meeting on March 14, 1988, the School Board approved a
resolution requesting action by the Board of SuperVisors in this
matter. I have enclosed a copy of the resolution approved by the Board
of Supervisors in 1985."
The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above.
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
due to relocation and construction of Route 9009; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, that the following section, as outlined in
green on the attached site plan, be added to the Secondary System
pursuant to Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the
centerline of the loop circulation road and the edge of
pavement of Route 663, thence in a northwesterly direction
803.32 feet to station 8+03.32, the end of the loop circula-
tion road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section as
indicated in red be abandoned:
Beginning at station 0+00, a point common with the edge
of pavement of Route 663 and the centerline of the school's
circulation road, thence in a northwesterly direction
approximately 540 feet to station 5+40, the ehd of the loop
circulation road.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia pepartment of
Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30-foot
unobstructed right of way along the requested addition, as outlined
on the attached site plan.
Item 4.2a. Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the mont~ of April, 1987. This
item was approved as presented. ~
Item 4.3. The County Executive's Monthly FinanciJl Reports for January
and February, 1988, were received in accordance with V~rginia Code Section
15.1-602. ~
Item 4.4. Superintendent's Memorandum No. 8, dated March 30, 1988, re:
Guidelines for Receipt of State 1989-90 Teacher Salary~Incentive Payments, was
received as information.
Item 4.5. Letter dated March 11, 1988, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resi-
dent Highway Engineer, re: Accidents at the intersection of Routes 606, 649
at the Airport, and other intersections, was received as information.
Item 4.6. Copy of the Virginia Statewide Fire Pr.~vention Code, 1987
Edition, received and on file.
Item 4.7. Report on Audit for the Years Ended Ju~e 30, 1987 and 1986,
for Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court, from the Auditor of Public
Accounts, received and on file.
3
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
117
Item 4.8. Copy of Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 1986-87
Annual Report, received and on file.
Item 4.9. Copy of Columbia Gas System 1987 Annual Report, received and
on file.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: April 15 (N) and October 14,
1987.
Mr. Way had read the minutes for October 14, 1987, page 8 to the end and
found them to be in the order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the
minutes of October 14 as presented. Roll was called and the motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Lindstrom and Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 6a.
Plain Dealing Farm Road.
March 22, 1988.)
Highway Matters: Public Hearing: Abandonment -
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 15 and
(Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:09 A.M.)
(Note: The requests and all facts related thereto are set out in full in
the minutes of February 10, 1988.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak
to this road abandonment. Mr. Lindsay Barnes, the attorney for the applicant,
was not present. Since no one wished to address the abandonment, Mr. Way
closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the '
following resolution approving the abandonment. Roll was called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
WHEREAS, the Board was requested by a citizen to abandon a
section of an old road not in the State Highway or Secondary System;
and
WHEREAS, the Board, on February 10, 1988, ordered that this
matter be advertised for public hearing in accordance with Virginia
Code Section 33.1-157; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on April 13, 1988, the
Board finding that the said section of road serves no public purpose;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that an "old road" right-of-way known as
"Old Charlottesville Road" (and shown on the attached exhibits) be
abandoned to public use as per the following descriptions:
Beginning at Station 0+00 a point common with the centerline of
"Old Charlottesville Road" and the edge of surface of State Route
713, thence in a northwesterly direction approximately 3950 feet
to Station 39+50 the end of the abandoned section and the
property line between Plain Dealing Farm and Greenmont Farms;
Beginning at Station 0+00 a point common with the centerline of
"Old Charlottesville Road" and the property line between
Greenmont Farm and Plain Dealing Farm, thence in a northwesterly
118
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
direction approximately 7000 feet to Station 70+00 a point common
with the property line of Greenmont Farm and Parcel 30A, Tax Map
112 (Eusterville Farm);
Beginning at Station 0+00 a point common with the centerline of
"Old Charlottesville Road" and the edge of pavement of State
Route 712, thence in a northeasterly direction approximately 2050
feet to Station 20+50 a point common with the east-west "Old
Charlottesville Road" Station 56+50 and the end of this roadway.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: VDoT Revenue Sharing Program. Mr.
Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated April 6, 1988:
"The Virginia Department of Transportation, through Section 33.1-75.1
of the Code of Virginia, provides localities the opportunity to
participate annually in a Revenue Sharing Program for roadway improve-
ment. The State will match up to $500,000 per local~ity for roadway
construction/improvement. You will recall that we initiated the
realignment of Route 678 through this program.
Staff has reviewed the current roadway needs of the County and recom-
mends that Peyton Drive be requested for improvement under this
revenue sharing program. While Mr. Roosevelt has indicated verbally
that this roadway is ineligible, staff recommends that the Board
request VDoT's reconsideration of this roadway for fUnding. Peyton
Drive is a major urban collector, carrying high volumes of traffic,
including school buses and Charlottesville Transit buses, but remains
in a very bad state of disrepair. Adequate right-of,way exists for
improvement and the estimated total cost of the roadway is $210,000.
Staff recommends that you take advantage of this opportunity to meet
road improvement needs on an accelerated basis by supporting the
improvement of Peyton Drive and other road improvements in our six-
year secondary roads plan, up to the maximum of $5001~000. The other
road improvements can be determined at a later date.!~i~ Notice of your
decision regarding the use of this program must be submitted to VDoT
by April 15. Staff recommends that you authorize the County Executive
to prepare the necessary plan for improvement as required by VDoT
guidelines. If VDoT approves the application and plan, County funds
would need to be allocated from the Capital Fund or the fund balance
of the General Fund." ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board must identify the p~ojects in order to
receive the money. Mr. Agnor said "no", but the projects!~must be eligible for
state funding. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the VDoT now considered Peyton Drive
eligible for state funding. Mr. Agnor said Peyton Drive day be considered
eligible for the same reason as Meadow Creek Parkway: because both roads may
reduce the need for state funding on other roadways. Mr. iHorne said the staff
has prepared a statement on the impact of closing Peyton Drive on other
roadways. Mr. Agnor said a formal request to reconsider {he eligibility of
Peyton Drive for state funding has not been forwarded to ~he VDoT. If the
Board decided to apply for the revenue sharing funds, Mr. !Agnor said, the
request for reconsideration could be sent with the application.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs.! Cooke, to authorize
the County Executive to prepare the necessary plan to request from VDoT the
maximum of $500,000 from the Revenue Sharing Program for ~oadway improvement
and that VDoT reconsider eligibility of Peyton Drive as aA addendum to the
Six-Year Secondary Highway Improvement Plan. Roll was ca~led and the motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr Perkins
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
119
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Landscaping within Highway
Right-of-way - Route 29 North.
Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum, dated March 9, 1988,
addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive:
"There is a section of Route 29 North between the existing Real Estate
III office building and the Federal Express building at the river
which will be developed with the construction of a parallel frontage
road to provide common access to a number of properties and develop-
ments. On January 5, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a site
plan for an auto sales facility for Brady Bushey Ford on a 1.267 acre
parcel in this area. A routine requirement of site plan approval is
the installation of street trees along the frontage of commercial
developments. Due to the increased right-of-way for the frontage road
and the particular design of this project, it is not possible to
install the street trees behind the frontage road on the site of the
automobile sales facility. It would be ~possible, however, to install
these trees in the grass median between !the through lanes of Route 29
North and the frontage road. This area~is within the public right-
of-way and installation of these trees can only be done with the
issuance of a permit by the VDoT. The private developer would be
unable to obtain such a permit, but the County government could obtain
such a permit from VDoT. A condition of approval by the Planning
Commission was that the applicant install such trees if the Board of
Supervisors agreed to take out the permit with VDoT for their instal-
lation. It is the intent of the Commission that the applicant provide
the necessary agreements to ensure thatlthere is no public cost for
maintenance of the trees in the future and that that cost be borne by
the developer.
There is a several hundred foot section Of Route 29 North that is
subject to this frontage road installation which could benefit from
the installation of the street trees. If~satisfactory arrangements can
be made with VDoT and the private develQpers, it would appear that a
public purpose could be served by the i~tallation of the trees. The
staff would recommend that the Board of Supervisors authorize staff to
proceed with the necessary measures to Obtain the permit from VDoT and
require the installation of these trees,'!subject to approval by the
County Attorney of maintenance agreements guaranteeing maintenance of
the trees by the private developer."
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if'~this part of Route 29 North were
expanded to eight lanes. There would probably not be enough space left
between Route 29 North and the frontage road for landscaping, Mr. Horne
answered. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned the Board may lose the opportu-
nity to have landscaping along Route 29 North,if something happens to the
right-of-way. Mrs. Cooke said this was her concern, too.
(Note: Mr. Perkins arrived at 9:28 A.M.)
If Route 29 North is expanded to eight lanes, Mr. Bain said, the service
road may not be necessary and the landscaping~could go there instead. He said
the Board should try to obtain the permit from the VDoT and then place a
condition upon the developer that landscapinglmust be placed on the property
once occupied by the service road.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board c~nsider waiving some of the
parking requirements in order to allow the developer more room for landscaping
on the property. Mr. Horne said this could b~ handled by the Planning Commis-
sion as an amendment to the site plan. Mrs. dOoke said she favors having as
much of the landscaping on the property as possible, rather than putting the
landscaping in the highway right-of-way.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, sec6nded by Mrs. Cooke, to authOrize
the staff to proceed with the necessary measures to obtain a permit from VDoT
for installation of landscaping within the highway right-of-way in the section
of U. S. Route 29 North between the existing Real Estate III office building
and the Federal Express building at the river. If necessary at a later date,
]-20 April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
the staff may waive parking requirements to .accommodate landscaping. Roll was
called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr: Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MesSrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Appeal-University Village Prelimi-
nary Site Plan. This matter was brought to the Board by:the following letter,
addressed to Mr. John T. P. Horne from Mr. Richard H. Milnor, Attorney, dated
February 23, 1988:
"As you know, our law firm represents the interests of Rosalie k.
McGavock who owns property adjacent to the proposed University
Village Project.
The purpose of this letter is to note to you as agent, pursuant to
section 32.3.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, our clients
appeal to the Board of Supervisors pursuant ~o section 32.3.10 and
32.4.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance from ghe action of
the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 16, 1988, where the
above preliminary site plan was approved.
On behalf of our client we demand review by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of the revised preliminary site plan which, in
our opinion and in the opinion of the Department of~Planning, consti-
tutes a danger to safety. It also represents a departure from sound
engineering design. The site plan shows a right-of,Way used by our
client and three other property owners exiting into the turn and
deceleration lane of the proposed separate entrance to the University
Village project. There are only 25 feet between theiedge of the
right-of-way and the edge of the proposed entrance. This represents
a serious safety hazard to all vehicular traffic in an area with a
road already classified as intolerable.
We are notifying the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervi-
sors of this appeal by copy of this letter. ~
We look forward to receiving notification of the hearing date."
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
121
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Proposal: To locate 45 dwelling units in one mid-rise condominium
building on a 33-acre site. This site developed to its ultimate
capacity would include 260 dwelling units (230 condominium units and
30 townhomes).
Location: The property is located on the Old Ivy Road (Route 601)
adjacent to and north of Huntington Village Apartment Complex. Tax
Map 60, Parcel 53. Zoned R-10, with proffers. Jack Jouett Magis-
terial District.
Staff Comment: This proposal had been submitted subsequent to the
approval of ZMA-87-08 by the Board of Supervisors on October 7, 1987.
The initial phase for the development of this property was the Univer-
sity Village Marketing Center (To date, final approval of the Market-
ing Center has not been pursued).
The current proposal is to locate 45 dwelling units in one mid-rise
condominium building. The proposed road will become the primary
access for the entire developed community. One entrance is proposed
off State Route 601 to serve this development.
Access: Access to this development remains a problem.
Previously, the applicant submitted a s~te plan which proposed an
entrance to be located along the eastern property line of this devel-
opment (Plan A). This entrance would have encompassed a 20-foot wide,
partially paved road, which also serves University of Virginia prop-
erty, Ivy Gardens Apartments, and a single family dwelling. It was
the applicants' intent that the proposed Crestwood Drive serve as an
altered or realigned access to all properties presently using the
existing right-of-way. When the applicant failed to reach an agree-
ment as to access consolidation, the ap~iicant submitted a site plan
showing a separate entrance (Plan B). The entrance location as
indicated on "Plan A" is acceptable to the Virginia Department of
Transportation and staff, and is consid~.red the most desirable in
terms of providing safe and convenient ai~cess to these properties, and
minimizing conflict on the public streeDi.
The modified plan (Plan B) proposes to ~Ocate an entrance approxi-
mately sixty (60) feet west of the existing right-of-way. This places
the entrance of the existing right-of-way within the turn and taper
lane required for the University Village entrance. The applicant,
which is also a general partner of the Iwy Gardens Apartment Limited
Partnership, proposes to install signag~i which would restrict usage of
the right-of-way by Ivy Garden residents% Also, the applicant pro-
poses to construct travelways extending ~o Crestwood Drive from the
apartment complex, in an effort to encourage residents of the apart-
ments to use Crestwood Drive.
In the staff's opinion, the proffered Land Use Schematic drawing was
not intended to be completely inflexible~and there are some character-
istics of this proposal which are consistent with the intent of that
proffer. The Commission must make the finding that this proposal is
consistent with the proffers in order to~lapprove the site plan.
Staff is of the opinion that this proposal is in compliance with
ZMA-87-08, including all proffers. Staff recox~nends denial of this
proposal based on the safety issues which surround the location of the
proposed entrance. Staff will not support any increase in usage of
the existing right-of-way by properties ~hich presently use it.
Should the Planning Commission choose to iapprove this proposal, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
A Final Site Development Plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:,
a) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans;
122
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
Approval of an erosion control plan;
County Engineer approval of master drainage plan for parcels
24 and 53;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans;
Fire Official approval;
Signage located to restrict usage of the right-of-way by
residents of Ivy Garden Apartments and construction of
travelway to Crestwood Drive;
j) Planning staff approval of landscape plans.
A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following
condition has been met:
a) Final Fire Official approval.
3. The final site plan may be administratively app~oved."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission on February 1!6, 1988, unanimously
approved the plan, adding condition l(k) to the conditions of approval recom-
mended by the staff, stating "no access from University Village to the exist-
ing access right-of-way".
Mr. Home said there was a schematic land use map submitted with the
proffer when the current zoning was approved. When the proffer was submitted,
Mr. Horne said, both the staff and the developer assumed ithat there would be ~
joint entrancealong the eastern property line.
While the staff may believe that the site plan is consistent with the
proffers, Mr. Lindstrom said, he thinks the entrance roa~ would have been an
issue if the applicant had proposed then what he is now p%oposing under Plan
B. If the modified entrance had been shown in the proffer, Mr. Lindstrom
said, he is sure the staff would have expressed concern ahd the Board would
have had an opportunity, at the rezoning level, to deal with the problem. In
order to deal with this problem now, at the site plan level, he said, the
Board must prove that the proposedentrance causes a clea~ safety hazard. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is not sure that this site plan is consistent with the
proffer, because the proffer showed a joint entrance. Mr~ Horne said he
agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. If the Board finds that this kite plan is incon-
sistent with the proffer, Mr. Horne said, then the Board ~hould not approve
this site plan. {
Mr. Lindstrom asked what authority the Board and the~Planning Commission
held with respect to future development that would have td use the entrance
originally proposed. Mr. Horne said the Board could not ~equire a property
owner to give up a right-of-way. Mr. Home added that th~ VDoT would not
allow a commercial entrance at the intersection of the ro~d serving Ivy
Gardens Apartments and Old Ivy Road, if the Board approves the proposed
entrance 60 feet away from the existing right-of-way, as ~equested by the
applicant. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the University and the McGavdck properties were
zoned. Mr. Horne said they were zoned R-1 and were deslgmated for high
density residential usage in the Comprehensive Plan. If ~he Board approved
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
123
the site plan showing the modified entrance way, Mr. Lindstrom said, it would
be thwarting the Comprehensive Plan, because the VDoT would deny commercial
access to the adjoining properties. Mr. Bain pointed out that these owners
may find another way to access their properties. If they cannot, Mr. Horne
said, these parcels will not be developed as the Comprehensive Plan shows they
should be.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the appellant if he would
like to address the Board. Mr. John Zunka, attorney for Ms. Rosalie K.
McGavock, addressed the Board. He introducer Mr. Richard H. Milnor, an
attorney with Taylor and Zunka, Ltd., to elaborate upon the four basic reasons
for denying the plan: the plan violates sound engineering standards; the plan
fails to provide a safe access to a public highway; the plan fails to minimize
the traffic conflicts that would occur as a result of the two entrances; and,
the proffer fails to address County ordinances. Mr. Zunka said these problems
could be resolved if the applicant used the joint access presented in the
first site plan. Mr. Zunka also introduced Mr. Dexter Williams, a transporta-
tion engineer from Kellerco and the project manager for the City's downtown
traffic study. ~
Mr. Milnor showed two aerial photographs and pointed out the locations of
his client's property, the right-of-way, IvylGardens Apartments and Old Ivy
Road. He said his client asks that the Board deny the request because of the
problem with access. While the site plan shows a difference of 60 feet
between the right-of-way and the proposed entrance, he said, there is only 25
feet between the right curb as one leaves the right-of-way and the point at
which the curve begins to enter the proposed. Crestwood Drive. He said the
proposed Crestwood Drive would be dangerous for drivers using the right-
of-way, Old Ivy Road and Crestwood Drive itself. He said his client believed
the modified entrance represents a departure~ifrom sound engineering practices
and a danger to public safety and violates Section 32.1 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance. He said Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that site
plans show and have a safe access to reduce traffic congestion.
Mr. Milnor said his client also had a p~oblem with the procedure in this
case. Section 32.4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that ten days notice
be given prior to approval of the preliminary site plan. He said the letter
notifying his client was dated February 9, 1988, and the one notifying the
University of Virginia was dated February 12,~ 1988; the hearing was held
February 16, 1988. Technically, he said, th~ Planning Commission's approval
was not valid. ~
Mr. Milnor added that the proffer showedI that a joint right-of-way would
be used to access the property. The site pl~h, he said, constitutes a depar-
ture from, and a violation of, that proffer. Mr. Milnor then turned the
presentation over to Mr. Williams, who presented a slide show and explained
the ramifications of each recommendation.
Under Plan B, Mr. Williams said, Crestwood Drive and the right-of-way
would be so close together that drivers on one road would be competing with
drivers on the other as they sought to pull out onto Old Ivy Road. He said
the spacing from the back of the curb of the right-of-way to the back of the
curb of Crestwood Drive would measure 50 feet. He said 150 feet was the
minimum he could recommend for safety. Mr. Williams concluded by saying that
the Plan B Crestwood Drive alignment on the aPproved preliminary site plan
constitutes a departure from sound engineerin~g design and standards, and does
not minimize conflict and friction with vehicular traffic on Old Ivy Road.
The design does not provide the recognized minimum access spacing to reduce
the potential for collision and therefore does not provide an achievable
degree of safety for future traffic access in~ithe area.
Mr. Raymond Haas, Vice President for Administration of the University of
Virginia, addressed the Board. He said the U~iversity was not informed of the
Planning Commission's meeting in time to evaluate the issue and prepare a
presentation for the Commission. He said the.plan before the Board affects
what could be a potentially important right-of-way belonging to the Univer
sity. This right-of-way provides access to and from the University's large
land holding which lies behind the UniversityVillage site. Mr. Haas said the
University wants to use, preserve and, sometime in the future, improve this
right-of-way. If approving the University Village site plan would cause the
124
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
University to face a safety hazard, he said, then the University opposes the
Planning Commission's decision and requests that an alternate means be found
to provide access to the University Village project. Since the site plan
shows the right-of-way intersecting with the Old Ivy Road in the middle of a
deceleration lane, between 25 and 60 feet from the proposed new entrance to
the University Village property, Mr. Haas said, he feels sure that safety is
an issue.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the University had other existing accesses into
this property from Old Ivy Road. Mr. Haas said he thought not.
(Note: The Board recessed at 10:37 A.M. and reconvened at 10:49 A.M.)
Mr. Fred Landess addressed the Board and said he was here on behalf of
the applicant. He asked that the Board approve the site plan. He introduced
Mr. Thomas Wyant, the architect for the project; Mr. Michael R. Martin,
Director of Transportation Engineering for Patton, Harris, Rust and Associ-
ates; Mr. S. W. Heischman, partner in the University Village Limited Partner-
ship; and Mr. Pat Phelan, Director of the University Village. Mr. Landess
said the schematic came about when his client wished to amend the proffer to
allow buildings of six stories to be built, in order to Preserve more open
space. The Board asked his client to prepare a schematic showing where the
buildings and the open space would be. He said he and his client made it
clear that this schematic would not be a final site plan; the schematic would
address the open space issue and no more. He does not think the schematic
violates the proffer because the entrance was moved. The entrance, he said,
was not an issue when the schematic was prepared.
He said Mr. Heischman was a partner in both the University Village
Limited Partnership and the Ivy Gardens Partnership. The partnerships,
however, are separate entities and Mr. Heischman does nob have the power to
make one partnership do something for the other. ~i
Mr. Thomas Wyant addressed the Board. He said the ~niversity Village
would be a better planned community if the Board approve~ the modification
presented today. He said Wyant Architects worked closel~ with Mr. Martin on
the design of the entrance and asked him to present his ~eport to the Board.
Mr. Martin said Patton, Harris, Rust and Associates !~as been involved in
traffic engineering, site plan reviews and landscaping iq Virginia for over 3d
years. He said he is a registered professional engineer land has served on ths
Kyley Research Council doing safety research on accident~. In his study of
the modified entrance, he said, he concentrated on wheth~r.~ the entrance met
the safety standards of the VDoT. He said he did not compare the modified
entrance with the one shown on the schematic. ~
He said the University Village Limited Partnership bias agreed to provide
alternative access for residents of Ivy Gardens Apartments via the proposed
Crestwood Drive. He said the developer has also agreed tO provide supplemen-
tal access to the University land north of the University! Village property and
to Mrs. McGavock through a 20-foot easement that would be.~ diverted from the
existing drive easement to a driveway onto Crestwood Drive.
He said he studied the impact of traffic upon the existing roadway, based
upon a traffic count performed on February 3 and 5, 1988., He said he deter-
mined that 60 to 75 percent of the traffic was generated by the Ivy Gardens
Apartments. Mr. Martin said the owner of Ivy Gardens has offered to restrict
traffic onto this driveway by placing signs to encourage his leasees to use
the proposed Crestwood Drive. He said the traffic signs~iwould pro-
hibit traffic leaving the two entrances from Ivy Gardens from making left or
right turns onto the existing easement driveway from Ivy ~ardens. Signs would
also be placed on the Ivy Gardens property indicating tha~ traffic heading
north from Old Ivy Road would not be permitted to turn right into either Ivy
Gardens Apartment entrance. Even without these restricti6ns, Mr. Martin said,
most people would probably use Crestwood Drive, because i~ will be wider and
have better sight distance than the existing roadway. Wi~h the special turn
restrictions and lease limitations, the use of the curren~ roadway would be
reduced by 60 to 75 percent. '"
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
125
Mr. Martin said that the YDoT has reviewed the plan for Crestwood Drive
and states that it meets all existing VDoT entrance requirements for width and
sight distance. He said there are several examples in the County in which a
right-turn deceleration lane is close to an entrance. One example, he said,
is located on Georgetown Road at Biltmore Drive and Court Place at the new
Georgetown Court Duplex Apartments. A second example is on Route 250 West at
the University of Virginia's Birdwood Golf Course and Birdwood Pavillion
entrances. He said VDoT Assistant Highway Engineer, Mr. Jeff Echols, has not
received a request from either County or State police to remedy the entrances
at these locations. Both of these examples, Mr. Martin added, experience more
traffic, due to the intense commercial use of the areas, than is likely to be
generated by the University Village residential development.
Mr. Bowie asked why the existing entrance could not be blocked off,
instead of just using signs to discourage traffic. Mr. Martin said this could
be done, but then the residents of Ivy Gardens could not get access out to
Crestwood Drive.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is a dangerous entrance to Old Salem Apartments,
which is posted with signs in an attempt to direct residents to use the main
entrance, yet many residents still use the unsafe entrance. In the case of
Ivy Gardens Apartments, he said, as long as the existing access is open,
people will use it. Mr. Bowie said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom: there is no
proof that the residents will pay any attention to the signs. Mr. Martin said
he thinks residents will use the Crestwood Drive entrance because it will be a
much better road than the existing roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would be difficult to close the right-of-way since
it served several property owners. Mr. Bowie suggested that access to the
existing roadway be blocked only on the Ivy Gardens property.
Mr. Landess said cutting off the access!from Ivy Gardens to the existing
right-of-way would make it more difficult for emergency vehicles to reach some
of the apartment buildings. He said the conclusions of the expert testimony
seems to him to be that the entrance shown in Plan A is preferable to the
modified entrance shown in Plan B. He said he and his client agree with this
conclusion and have been trying to work out an agreement with the McGavocks
for the past year. He said the problem is that the McGavocks want a 50-foot
right-of-way and his client wants to grant them only a 20-foot right-of-way,
to insure there will not be another high-density development using Crestwood
Drive. That is why he and his client are proposing Plan B, Which, he said,
the experts have determined to be a safe and acceptable alternative to Plan A.
He said his client would like to modify Condition l(k) of the Planning
Commission's conditions for approval. He said his client sympathizes with the
intent of the condition, which is to limit the traffic entering Old Ivy Road
from the existing right-of-way. However, the language used makes it question-
able whether the access points could reach to!Crestwood Drive. He added that
the University Village would like to use a portion of the right-of-way further
back on the property. This would eliminate t%e grading necessary to build a
second service road. He said his client plan~ a nursing home near this
portion of the right-of-way and would like to.have this road available for
emergency vehicles rather than having them use the main entrance. He proposed
that the wording of the condition be changed to read: "no access from Univer-
sity Village to the existing right-of-way from the point where the McGavock
and University properties adjoin to Old Ivy R0ad".
With this wording, Mr. Bowie said, the a~plicant could have an access
further up the right-of-way and reach Old Ivy i!Road this way. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested that the condition be reworded to r~ad: "no ingress or egress
access from University Village along the existing access right-of-way to Old
Ivy Road". Mr. Landess said he could accept ~his rewording.
Mr. Landess then moved on to his closing {statements. He said he feels
the site plan is in accord with the proffer, Gounty site plan requirements and
VDoT requirements. He said the Planning Commission has approved this plan and
he sees no reason for the Board not to approv~ it.
Mr. Roger Milner addressed the Board and lsaid he must contradict some of
the expert testimony he has just heard. He said he knows there has been an
126
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
accident at the Birdwood location mentioned by Mr. Martin, because he was
involved in the accident. In December, 1987, he was approaching the Birdwood
Country Club entrance. Only about 25 feet away, he said, is the entrance to
the Birdwood Home, which was rented for a private social function on this
particular evening. Apparently, somebody ahead of him was confused about
which entrance to use and slammed on the brakes, causing a chain reaction that
eventually resulted in his hitting the car in front of him. He said he knows
the County police were notified of this accident, because they charged him.
After the accident, a police officer with the University force agreed with him
that this was a dangerous spot.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the University Village Partnership has made it
unnecessary for anyone to use the existing right-of-way.
Since no one else wished to speak to this issue, Mr'~ Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him the experts for both sides think Plan
A is better than Plan B, But Plan B will do. He said heiis inclined to
support the position taken by the Planning Commission, with the modification
he suggested for Condition l(k). He said his concern about the access has
been alleviated by the applicant's offer to grant accessialong Crestwood Driw
to residents of Ivy Gardens. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not believe it is
possible for the property behind the proposed University Village to be devel-
oped until the right-of-way is improved. He said he does not think it is the
duty of this Board to dictate to the property owners that they must come to a~
agreement about the right-of-way. He said the issue of public safety has been
proven strongly enough for him to testify in court in support of the appel-
lant's position. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to add a condition that a
20-foot right-of-way be granted to both the McGavock and the University
properties, since the applicant has agreed to do this. He also asked that Mr.
Heischman, as a general partner of Ivy Gardens, do his best to make sure that
the residents do not use the existing right-of-way for access to Old Ivy Road.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think shifting the driveway 25 feet is a majo~
deviation from the schematic presented to the Board. He isaid he agreed with
Mr. Lindstromthat there is not much potential for development on a 20-foot
right-of-way. He said he supports the decision by the Planning Commission
with the modification and additional condition suggested kY Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Messrs~ Bowie and Lindstrom. If there is
still an issue of the length of time given for notification, then perhaps the
Board should take this into account, he said. If the Board supports the
Planning Commission's decision, he said, the Commission can give the legal
notification and return the same decision. He said he tk~nks property value
is the central issue here and he understands the McGavock~ and the University
trying to improve the value of their property, But, he s~id, he thinks this
should be a private matter between private parties and the Board should not
take part in it. Given the constraints of the 20-foot right-of-way, he added,
he does not think there will be a clear and present dange~ to public safety
along Old Ivy Road.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.!Bowie, to approve
site plan subject to the conditions of the planning CommiSsion with modifica-
tion to condition number l(k) as follows: "No ingress or egress access from
University Village along the existing access road to Old ~vy Road" and added
condition number 1(1) "The adjoining properties to the notth and east, being
McGavock and University properties, have access over Cres~wood Drive from the
northernmost 20-foot access shown on the existing plan presented at the Board
of Supervisors meeting on April 13, 1988, initialled by J~hn T. P Home and
accepted by the applicant".
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to add a few words about whether the
site plan conformed to the proffer. After Mr. Landess's presentation, he
said, he realized that the roadways were not the'focus of!~the proffer and the
ensuing discussion. At this point, he said, he thinks itlwould be unfair to
deny the site plan by claiming it is incompatible with the proffer.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called an~ the motion carried
by the following recorded vote;
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meet£ng)
(Page 13)
127
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Note: Conditions of approval are set out in full below:
A Final Site Development Plan will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met;
County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans;
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvements and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit;
Approval of an erosion control plan;
County Engineer approval of master drainage plan for
parcels 24 and 53;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans;
Fire Official approval;
Signage located to restrict usage of the right-of-way by
residents of Ivy Garden Apartments and construction of
travelway to Crestwood Drive;
Planning staff approval of landscape plans;
No ingress or egress access from University Village along
the existing access right-of-way to Old Ivy Road;
The adjoining properties to the north and east, being
McGavock and University properties, have access over
Crestwood Drive from the northernmost 20 foot access shown
on the existing plan presented at the Board of Supervisors
meeting on April 13, 1988, initialled by John T. P. Horne
and accepted by the applicant.
A Certificate of Occupancy will no~ be issued until the
following
condition has been met:
a. Final Fire Official approval.
The final site plan may be administratively approved.)
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie said Mrs. Paula Brown, who lives on Route 784, called and asked
him if improvements to the roadway and bridge could qualify for the safety
improvements funding. Mr. Jeff Echols, Assistant Resident Engineer, said Mrs.
Brown lived on a gravel road, which is not eligible for safety improvements
funding.
Mr. Way said several citizens had called~ him about the lack signs for
Stagecoach Road. He asked Mr. Echols to look into this matter.
Mr. Way said he thought the Board should respond formally to the recom-
mendation of the City Planning Commission to close Sunset Avenue. He said he
thinks closing this road will be a complicated procedure and could cause many
problems for the County.
Mr. Horne said this portion of Sunset Avenue was in Area B, the area of
joint planning studies between the City, Univarsity and County. He said there
should be a report out within the next thirty:days from the Joint Committee
addressing the transportation problems in this area. Mr. Home said he
thought the committee was the appropriate channel for joint discussions of the
land use and the infrastructure in this area., He said he is surprised that
the Council would pre-empt the agreed upon jo%ut planning process.
128
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mr. Way said perhaps the Board could suggest to the Council that it delay
any decision on Sunset Avenue until the Joint Committee has finished its study
of the area. Mr. Lindstrom recommended that the Board frame this suggestion
in a resolution.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following resolution requesting City Council to the defer closing of Sunset
Avenue. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle=County appreciates
the concern the City Council has about the impact of County develop-
ment on Sunset Avenue; and
WHEREAS, this area of our community is a part of the joint
City/County/University agreement for long-range planning; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Park Avenue-Fontaine Avenue Study is
nearing completion and this study would be an appropriate context for
the Planning and Coordination Council to review the Sunset Avenue
concern;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board~of Supervisors of
Albemarle County hereby requests that City Council defer action on the
closing of Sunset Avenue until after review of the Planning and
Coordination Council's Jefferson Park Avenue-Fontaine Avenue Study.
Mr. Bowie said he received a letter from residents along Route 785
thanking Mr. Echols for his expertise and interest over the past years. Route
785, Mr. Bowie added, was included in the most recent Six Year Road Plan. He
thanked Mr. Echols.
Mr. Bain described the Annual VDoT Hearing meeting in Culpeper. Other
than Mr. George Allen's presentation, he said, there was little said about
County roads during this meeting.
Agenda Item NO. 6.1. Request from John H. Layne to Subdivide two to ten
acre lot within the Totier Creek Agricultural/Forestal District.
A letter dated March 4, 1988, was received from Mr. John H. Layne asking
that he be allowed to cut off a lot of two to ten acres (~o include a resi-
dence) from his property. He wrote that he wanted his farm to remain in the
district and this parcel to remain in the district, however, he has bought
another farm in this same area and is moving to that residence and he does not
need two houses.
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Mr. Layne is requesting the Board's approval to subdivide an existing
house on a two to ten acre lot within the Totier Cre~k Agricultur-
al/Forestal District. The property is described as Tax Map 130,
Parcel 5, part thereof. It is located on the west sade of Route 626
between Route 20 and Route 6 near Scottsville. :
Albemarle's Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinance ~states that
property may not be developed to a more intensive us~ without prior
approval of the Board of Supervmsors. The proposed ~ubdmvlsmon ~s
considered a more intensive use because it will create a lot of less
than 21 acres which is not intended for a family memI er.
If the Board chooses to deny this request, other alternatives the
applicant may pursue are:
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
129
Request withdrawal of two to ten acres from the agricultur-
al/forestal district. Such a request must meet withdrawal
criteria which the Board has previously established; or
Request that the Board review the entire Totier Creek District.
The Totier District was approved on June 29, 1983, for a period
of four to eight years. If the Board chooses to review the
district, any participant may withdraw property at that time by
right; or
3. Subdivide a minimum 21 acre parcel.
In the past, the Board has received only one other request to approve
a more intensive use within an agricultural/forestal district, which
was the county fair. It was denied, but will be reconsidered. The
Board has received and approved only one request for a withdrawal of
property from a district, that was 40 acres from Hatton District in
1984.
Staff sees no conflict between the purpose of the District and Mr.
Layne's request. Since the lot to be subdivided contains an existing
house, the land use will not change. The request will not interfere
with the continuance of agricultural activities in the area."
Mr. Way said he has spoken with Mr. Layne concerning this request. The
applicant has a large farm and plans to continue farming, so the land use will
not be changed.
Mr. Bain said he was concerned that a lot was being subdivided. He asked
Mr. St. John if this subdivision could present problems for the agricul-
tural/forestal district later on. Mr. St. John said there may not be many
situations exactly like this one, but the Board will be setting a precedent if
it approves this request.
Mr. Bain asked what would stop the applicant from subdividing the ten
acre lots into five acre lots. Mr. Home said the Board would have the chance
to. approve or deny any further subdivision f~r the same reason this matter is
before the Board today: because the Agricul~ural/Forestal District Ordinance
states that property may not be developed to a more intensive use without the
Board's approval. Any further subdivision, Mr. Home said, would represent a
more intense usage of the property.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not as concerned about this request as he might
be, because the house has been on this proper.ty for over one hundred years.
He said the Board is not creating more development rights. If this were a new
house, and the applicant was seeking to subdiVide the property on which it
stood, he said, then he might be concerned. Mr. Lindstrom said there would be
nothing to stop the applicant from building another house, returning to the
Board and saying "Let me subdivide this parcel because I don't live in this
house either". Mr. St. John warned that this application could be the begin-
ning of such requests.
Mr. St. John asked what Mr. Home would Mo if the applicant brought in a
plat showing ten acres surrounding the house and two development rights. Mr.
Horne said the staff would allow the applican~ to allocate the development
rights, but refer the request to the Board when the applicant returned to show
division lines.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board could approve this request but
disallow additional development rights if these are more than two acres. Mr.
Bain said this would be acceptable to him.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
the request to subdivide a two to ten acre lot, but if the division is more
than two acres there would be no additional d~velopment rights. Roll was
called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vose:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom (who made the
following statement before voting), Perkins, and Way.
130
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
NAYS: None.
For the record, Mr. Lindstrom added that the intent of the motion was
that this subdivision would use one of the applicant's development's rights.
If the applicant were to remove his property from the agricultural/forestal
district in the future, then the applicant would have one less development
right than he had when this was approved.
Agenda Item No. 6.2. ZTA-87-03. Lot Regulations (Deferred from April 6,
1988).
Mr. Horne said this amendment was intended to bring the Zoning Ordinance
into accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and affected the requirements
concerning the width of a lot and its road frontage. He added that this
amendment was originally presented to the Board with an amendment to the
Subdivision Ordinance, which was approved. He said the Board wished the
Planning Commission to study the zoning text amendment to see whether it would
allow more lots to be developed in the rural areas district.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission discussed the possible impact of
the amendment upon the rural areas and reached two conclUsions: the number of
lots affected by the amendment would be small; and, the advantages of the
improved lot design outweighed any potential damage to the rural areas. He
said the Planning Commission recommended that the Board approve ZTA-87-03 as
originally presented.
Mr. Bain asked if this would affect development on Wmaller tracts more
than larger tracts. Mr. Home said "yes", since a developer could be more
flexible when he built a road through a large tract of la'nd than a small one.
Mr. Horne said the staff also reworded the amendment to exclude the rural
areas. Mr. Bowie said he does not understand why the Board would want to
exclude the rural areas from the amendment. It seems to him, he said, that a
rural subdivision should hold as many houses as it can, to keep people from
building their houses somewhere else and using even more land in the rural
areas. If the Board excludes the rural areas from the amendment, he said,
more land in the rural areas will be used every time a house is built on a
cul-de-sac.
Mr. Bain said he was concerned that the amendment would allow more lots
to be developed in the rural areas. Mr. Bowie said excluding the rural areas
would not increase the amount of development, but would require more land to
be used for the development that did occur. This amendmeDt could make it
possible for two or three houses to be built around a cul'de-sac where only
one might be built now. If the rural areas are excluded from the amendment,
he said, then rural subdivision will be able to hold fewe~ houses. He said
these houses will have to be built somewhere.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support this amendment. He said the
number of lots by-right in the rural areas should be an absolute number. If
design standards change to allow even one more house to b~ built, then the
standards are allowing more development in the rural areaS. He said increas-
ing development in rural areas will lead to a greater demand for services,
such as hard-paved roads, which surburbanites seem to exp&ct when they move
out to the country. ~
Mr. Perkins said he does not understand Number 3 concerning the restric-
tion of residential subdivisions involving two lots, nor ~oes he understand
how the setback is to be measured. ~
Mr. Bowie asked if delaying action on this amendment i~for one week would
create problems for the staff. Mr. Home said "no". Mr. ~!Perkins asked if Mr.
}tome could present a diagram showing a cul-de-sac with tt{e lots allowed under
current zoning regulations and the lots that would be permitted Under the
proposed amendment. Mr. Horne agreed. "~.
Mr. Way asked that this item be put on next week's a~enda. There was no
vote. ~
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Agenda Item No. 11. This .item had been renumbered as 6.1.
131
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: To amend and reenact certain
sections within the County Code of Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress March 22, 1988 and March 29, 1988).
Mr. Agnor said the Michie Company had been employed to update the County
Code of laws. Since the work session on February 17, the staff has to rein-
vestigated its recox~endation to eliminate the Highway Safety Commission from
the Code. Although there is no longer any State legislation requiring this
Commission, he said, the staff recommends that the Highway Safety Commission
not be eliminated at this time. Mr. Agnor said the staff has also reexamined
its recommendation that other boards or commissions be added to the Equaliza-
tion of Pay section and finds none to be added.
Mr. Agnor said that on March 9, the Board directed the staff to include
with the advertisement for these amendments, the addition of a section adopt-
ing a Building Maintenance Code for rental structures. The newspaper inadver-
tently missed running the advertisement for that section, so it cannot be
heard until next week, April 20. Mr. Agnor said the Building Maintenance Code
is a different document from the State Building Code. Localities may enforce
the Building Maintenance Code in part, in whole or not at all. Mr. Agnor said
the staff recommended adding the Building Maintenance Code to the County Code
to be enforced by complaint only and for rental properties only. He repeated
that this would not be a part of today's public hearing.
Mr. Way then opened the public hearing.:
Mr.. Ed Whalen, a member of the Albemarle Housing Coalition, addressed the
Board. He asked that the Board delay action on Section 5.1, entitled "Vir-
ginia Uniform Statewide Building Code" and consider it instead along with the
Building Maintenance Code next week. In 1986, Mr. Whalen said, the State
amended its building laws to extend many of its requirements to existing
dwellings. He said section 5.1 of the County Code basically stated that the
state building code would govern county building practices. Mr. Whalen said
there is some disagreement over the effect these changes in the State Code
would have on the County. He said the Albemarle Housing Coalition supports a
Building Maintenance Code, but asked that the Board defer action today on
Section 5.1 of the County Code until after the public hearing on the Building
Maintenance Code next week.
Mr. St. John said he does not understand,what difference this procedure
would make. Perhaps he is acting over-cautioUsly, Mr. Whalen said, but he
thinks if would be better to consider the State building code as a whole,
rather than just piecemeal. ~
Since no one else wished to address the proposed changes to the County
Code of laws, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before
the Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following ordinance amending the COunty Code Of Laws as advertised with the
exception of Section 5.1 and to amend the last paragraph to read: "AND,
FURTHER, RESOLVED that with the exception of the changes listed for Chapter
11, Licenses, which changes shall be effective for the license years beginning
after May 1, 1988, this ordinance shall be effectibe on an after April 13,
1988". Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ~ REENACT
CERTAIN SECTIONS O~ THE
CODE OF ALBEMARAE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia-, that the Code of Albemarle be ~ended and reenacted
as
hereinafter set forth:
132
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1.6. General penalty~ continuing violations. In accordance with
Code of Va. Section 15.1-505 change the words "thirty days" to "twelve
months" and add the following proviso at the end of the first sen-
tence: "provided, that such penalties shall not exceed those penal-
ties provided by the Code of Virginia for like offenses."
SCHOOL BOARD
Sec. 2-1. Number, appointment~ etc.~ of members of school board.
Update to provide for four-year terms for all school board members in
accordance with Code of Va. Section 15.1-609.1.
PLANNING CO~4ISSION
Sec. 2-14 (a). Surveys and studies to be made in preparation of plan~
implementation of plan. Amend this paragraph to match Code of Va.
Section 15.1-447(1)(a) by adding the words "preservation of agricul-
tural and forestal land, production of food and fiber" following "use
of land" and "the need for housing" following "transportation facili-
ties''. As allowed by Code of Va. Section 15.1-447, provide the excep-
tion to the requirement that the local commission survey and study
production of food and fiber.
Sec. 2-16. Notice and hearing on plan~ recommendation by commission
to board of supervisors. Amend to match Code of Va,~ Section 15.1-448.
Sec. 2-18. Adoption or disapproval of plan by board of supervisors.
Amend to match Code of Va. Section 15.1-450.
Sec. 2-23. Legal status of plan. Amend to comply with Code of Va.
Section 15.1-456, however, keep subsection (d) which refers to county
ordinances rather than state statutes.
AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS
Sec. 2.1-3. Development of parcels to more intensive uses. Add
"other than a use resulting in more intensive agricultural orforestal
production" following "more intensive use" in the first paragraph in
accordance with the third sentence of subsection D Of Code of Va.
Section 15.1-1511 as amended in 1987.
Sec. 4-4. Definitions. Change "dog warden" to read~"animal warden"
in this section and throughout Chapter 4. Delete reference to Code of
Va. 29-184.2. Add "horses" to the definition of "liVestock" in
accordance with Code of Va. Section 3.1-796.66. Chahge the footnote
at the end of the section to refer to Code of Va. SeCtion 3.1-796.66.
Sec. 4-8. Duty of dog warden or other officer upon finding stolen,
etc., doR. In line 4, change "five days" to read "s~ven days," in
accordance with Code of Va. Section 3.1-796.127 and ~hange footnote to
refer to that section.
Sec. 4-9. Dogs killing or injuring livestock or poultry--Generally.
Amend to match Code of Va. Section 3.1-796.116 as amended in 1987 and
change footnote accordingly, i
Sec. 4-10. Killing unlicensed dogs. Amend to matchlCode of Va.
Section 3.1-796.119 as amended in 1987, and change fqotnote accord-
ingly. ~
Sec. 4-11. Disposal of dead dogs. Amend to match Cdde of Va. Section
3.1-796.121 as amended in 1987 and change footnote a~cordingly.
Sec. 4-23. Amount of license tax. In last paragrapH, add an exemp-
tion for "hearing dogs," as provided in Code of Virginia Section
'~I-I'8S uoT3ooS
'~A [o opoD go$~ o$ puotuV 's~oo~o pou~n$oa xo~ oo~ 'E'I-8 '~oS
'086E-I'8~ u°I~°oS '~A ~o opoD q~Im Xldmoo o~ (o) uoI~oosqns puourV
'I~6£-I'8~ pu~ 086£-I'~§ suo!~ooS 'WA to apoD pwaa o~ saouaaa$aa ~wI
a~s a~mpdn (w) uo!~oasqns uI 's~uamssassw snoauoaaM 'g'I-8 'oas
· sasua~o ~uanbasqns
ao~ aoumamapsTm I ss~ID ~ pu~ 'asuat~o ~saT~ aq~ ao~ aou~amapsTm
g ss~I9 ~ s~ Suaurqs!und ao~ ap!aoad o~ (~) uo!]oasqns puaum 'g~'6§8-~
ua!]oaS '~A ~o apo9 q~!a, aou~pxooo~ uI 'sa!~i~ua~ '£I-I'~ 'oas
'9I'6S8-~S uoT3oaS '~A ~o apoD oQ s~uampuaure Z86I aq~ 3oaI~aX o~ puaurV · uoT~oaasu~ fpa~Tnba~ ai~s ~o SliTq ~o saTdoo 'sp~ooa~ '£-I'§ 'oas
QseI a~alaff
'alq~aoao~uaun ~u!aq s~
'asuao!I u!~qo o~ aani!~~ ao~ ~I~Ua~ '££-7 'oas
'88I'96£-I'~ uo!~oaS 'WA ~o apoD o~ ~u~n.sand aouPa~aps!m ~ SSelO ~ o~
puamv -~g-~ pu~ g£-~ suo!~oas to uo!~io!A ao~ sa!~l~Ua~ 'g~-~ 'oas
· uo!~oos ~R~ o~ xalaa o~ a~ou~oo~
atu~qo pu~ I6'96Z-I'~ uoI~oa9 '~A ~o apo9 q%!m aou~paooo~ u! 00'15
o~ asuao!i a~o!idnp ~ ao~ aa~ puamV 'sa~o!idn(i-a~S .££_~ .oaS
· Kl~u!paooo~ a~ou~oo~ a~u~qo
pue g6'96Z-I'C uo!~oaS '~A ~o apoD ~o saoua~uas om~ ~seI go~e~ o~
puamV 'suo!~daoxa ~op iq uaom aq o~ ~ pue a~iioD--a~S 'g~-~ 'oas
· ilMu!paooo~ a~ou~oo~ aMu~qo pu~ '06~96£-I'~ uo!~oaS 'eA ~o
apoD ~o aoua~uas ~s~I aq~ qo~ o~ puaurV -s~ua~uoD--a~S '1£-~ 'oas
· Ki2u!paoooe a$ou~oo~
a~ueqo pue 'g6'96Z-I'[ uo!~aS 'eA ~o apoo q$!a aouepaoooe u! .'~op
qons iq u~o~ pu~,, PPV 'aelIOO o~ ~uauntoe~V--SMe~ asua~!~ '0C-~
'iI~u!paoo~
a~ou~oo~ a~u~qo pu~ '06'96Z-I'£ uo!~oaS 'eA ~o apoD ~o aoua~uas ~sa!$
qo~ o~ puatuV '~ pue ~d!aoa~ ~o ~s!suoo o~ asuao!~ 'SZ-~ 'oas
'zg'96Z-I'£
uo!~oaS p~aa o~ a~ou~oo~ o~ aouaaa~aa a~u~qo pu~ 'ZS'96Z-I'E
(61 a~)
(~u!~aaN ~Pff aPIn~aM) 8861 '.El I!adv
'9199[-I'8§ uoTQoaS 'aA [o apo9
oQ ]uensand ,,'~,ua~dOlaaap XQTunL,~OO pue ~uTsnoq [o ~uam]aedap aQeSs,,
peaa o~ ,,~u!snoq ~o aSThma a~eQs,, a~ueqD 'uo~eo~IddV 'L~-8 'oas
~uTK~aao a]w~s,, ~o uoT~TuT~ap aq~ puautV 'suoT~!uT~a~ '~-8 'oas
SRDIAM~ ~O SMI~IqIDV~
~ XDNVclI1DDO
· K]unoD aq~ pnea~ap o~ ~ua~UT aq~
apeu~ sea jua~a]~]SST0~ IeTaaJet~ aq~ ~! KJIeuad ]uaoaad 00I IeUO!]TPPe
ue ao~ ap!aoad o~ uo!~oasqns s!q] puame 8[~[-I'8§ UOT]OaS 'eA ~o apo9
q~!a aOUeTId~oo UI ,~uat~ssasse .'sa!~ieuad '.SUOT~eIO!A '(a)0~-8 'oas
· aaoqe L£-8 u°!~°aS aad se (e) uoTjoasqns u! aouaaa~aa
~eI a~e~s a~ueq9 '~86I uT papuaure se I~E[-I'8~ uoT~oaS 'aA ~o apo9
oQ m=o~uoo o~ puamV '~jTIeOOI auo ueq~ oaom uT pa%aaaI aSe~sa Iaaa
snonMI~uoo !a~e$sa iaaa passasse [o jaed [o uoTQeaedaS '8[-8 'oas
.'I'8§ aI~!I to gE aa~deqD
~o ~ aIO!~aV, peam o~ aouaaataa meI aje~s aq] a~ueqo (o) uo!$oasqns uI
'~86I u! papuame?se £[g[-I'8~ uo!~oa$ 'WA to apoD o~ maotuoo o~ puamw
'saxe] Moeq-IIO~ ~aje~sa Iaaa passasse to asn uT saMueqD '£[-8 'oas
-oasqns ~o aoua~u~s ~seI aq~ uI -a~e~sa Iaaa ~o uo!~enIeA '9[-8 'oas
-~saaot to ~uam~aedap. peaa o~ .~uamdolaAap o!mouooa pue uoT~eaaasuoo
~o ~uam~aedap ~q~ ~o ao~oaaIp,, ~,,saoTaaas aaumsuoo pue aan~inoia~e
to aauo!ss!mmoo,, peaa o~ .aoaammoo pu~ aan~Ino!a~e ~o aauo!ss!mmoo.
aMUeqD 'aauao Xjaadoad ~--~uamssasse xo~ suoT~mo!iddV '£[-8 'oas
.'0PE£-I'8§ uo!~oas, peaa
o] ,,EI'69L-8~ uo!~oas,, a~ueqo pue '0[g[-I'8§ uo!~oaS 'aA Ia apoD
-eaaoaa aoop~no to uo!ss!unnoo aq~ ]o ao~oaa!p. a~ueqo .'asn aoeds uado
o] pa]oAap aJe~sa Iaaa. ~o uo!j!uTIap aq] xapufl '0[g[-I'86 uo!~oaS
· wA ]o apoD uT osoq] qo]em o] .asn iean]ino!]aoq o] pa~oAap
iaaa,, pue .aSh ~saxo~ o~ pa~oAap a~e~sa Iaaa. ~o suoI~IuIIap
a~ueqD '0[g[-I'~§ uoI~oa$ 'aA Ia apoD qQIm aoue!Idmoo uT
aaumsuoo pue aan~inoTa~e ~o aauoissTmmoo, o~ .aoxaunnoo pue
~o aauo!ss!umtooj, a~ueqo 9 pue ~ sau!i uI 'suo!]TuTioff 'I[-8 'oas
'~DI~HOH '~1~q_flDIHgV HC~ S~%lM]~SSMSSV 'IVIDR~S
(OE a~e~)
(~u!~aaN fe~ aPInSoM) 886I 'El ITadv
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
135
Sec. 8-50. Demonstration of performance of system, and in Sec. 8-51.
Transmission of form to housing office~ certification of approval, and
in Sec. 8-53. Assessment. Change "state office of housing" as above.
FIP~ PROTKCTION
Sec. 9-2. Duty to extinguish fires built in open~ liability for
forest fires. In subsection (c) change "shall be guilty of a mis-
demeanor ... one hundred dollars" to read "shall be guilty of a Class
4 misdemeanor," to match Code of Va. Section 10-63.
Sec. 9-3. Throwing inflammatory objects from vehicles. In subsection
(b) change "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor ... or both such fine and
imprisonment" to read "shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor for
each separate offense," to match Code of Va. Section 10-64.1.
FIRE PREVENTION CODE
Sec. 9-4. Applicability of Statewide Fire Prevention Code. The
Statewide Fire Prevention, promulgated by the State Board of Housing
and Community Development, pursuant to Section 27-97 of the Code of
Virginia, shall control all matters in ~he county concerning the
protection of life and property from the hazards of fire or explosion;
provided, that pursuant to Section 27-9~ of the Code of Virginia, the
board of supervisors may adopt fire prevention regulations which are
more restrictive or more extensive in scope than the Virginia State-
wide Fire Prevention Code, provided such regulations do not affect the
matter of construction or materials to be used in the erection,
alteration, repair or use, of a building or structure. A copy of the
Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code~ishall be on file in the office
of the fire official.
Secs. 9-5 and 9-6. Delete.
Sec. 9-8. Fire protection systems. SuBsections (d) and (e) to be
changed to refer to the Virginia Statew~de Fire Prevention Code.
Sec. 9-10. Manufacture, sale~ discharge, etc.~ of certain fire works
prohibited. Amend to match Code of Va. JSection 59.1-142 as amended in
1986. ~
Sec. 9-12. Permits for public displays~-Required. Change "county
executive" to "fire official" in two places.
Sec. 9-13. Same-Application. Change "qounty executive", to "fire
official" in three places.
Sec. 9-14. Same-Investigation~ issuance or refusal. Change "county
executive" to "fire official" in two places.
Sec. 9-15. Same--Conditions. Change "dounty executive" to "fire
official" in two places. ~
Sec. 9-16. Same--Liability insurance or, bond required. Change
"county executive" to "fire official an~ licensed insurance company"
in two places.
BURNING OF BRUSH
Sec. 9-22(a). Limitation on hours of burning between March 1 and May
15. Amend to match 1986 amendment to Code of Va. Section 10-62(b) or
"4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight."
Sec. 9-23.1. Authority of county fire m~rshal. Change "fire marshal"
to "fire official" in title and text.
Sec. 9-23.3(a). Adoption of regulationsiiof state air pollution
control board. Reflect proper reference of the State Air Pollution
136
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Control Board regulations and list the Albemarle County Department of
Inspections as the specific county department to be~notified of
possible violations.
Sec. 9-24. Violations~ penalties. In accordance with Code of Va.
Section 10-62(d), change "shall be guilty ... for each offense" to
read "shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor for each separate
offense."
LICENSES
Sec. 11-12(c). Taxes--When payable~ penalties for nonpayment. Amend
penalty from two dollars to ten dollars.
Sec. 11-16(b)(3). Same--Certification of erroneous assessments~
refunds. Amend to reflect Code of Va. Section 58.1-3710 requiring
that refunds be prorated on a monthly basis when a licensee goes out
of business.
Sec. 11-23. Violations~ penalties. Amend penalties specified to
maximum amounts allowable in local ordinances pursuant to Code of Va.
Section 58.1-3916.1 as amended in 1986.
Sec. 11-38. Loan agencies. Delete reference to Code of Va. Section
6.1-249.
Sec. 11-40. Pawnbrokers. In second line change "58-840" to "54-840."
Sec. 11-57. Proration of Tax. Delete this section in its entirety.
Sec. 11-60. Itinerant Vendors. Amend language as provided in Code of
Va. Section 58.1-3717, but maintain current fee.
Sec. 11-62. Peddlers--Generally. Amend subsection i(d) to require a
flat fee of $500 for a peddler's license in accordance with Code of
Va. Section 58.1-3717.
Sec. 11-63. Same--Selling to licensed dealers or retailers. Amend
this section to reflect language found in Code of Va~ Sections
58.1-3718 through 3719, with a license rate of five ~ents per one
hundred dollars of purchases.
Sec. 11-66. Repair~ personal~ business and other services.
(a) Generally. In accordance with Code of Va.~Section
58.1-3706A.4., change "thirty cents" to read "thirty~six cents."
change "expected" to "excepted" (typographical error).
Also
(e) Enumerated. Eliminate "pawnbrokers."
"Photographers and photographic services,' = add notation
that Code of Va. Section 58.1-3727 limits the county!license tax on
photographers with no regularly established place of business in the
state.
MOTOR V~rICLES AND TRAFFIC
Sec. 12-1. Adoption of state law. Amend dates of "July 1, 1975" and
"October 1, 1975" with date of Supplement 23 which i~ to be "April 13,
1988." ~
Sec. I2-5(b). Authority of fire department official~ to direct
traffic~ etc. Delete last sentence of this subsectidn relative to
arrest powers of the fire chief, etc.
Sec. 12-7. Permits for parades and processions. Changes the words
"county executive" to "chief of police."
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
137
Sec. 12-8.1. Parking--Certain restricted areas. Amend to comply with
Code of Va. Section 46.1-181.4:1 as amended in 1987 and change foot-
note accordingly.
Sec. 12-9. Compliance with chapter; penalty for violation of chapter.
Amend penalty specified in subsection (b) to match Code of Va. Section
46.1-16.01.
OFFENSES--MISCRYJ.&NEOUS
Sec. 13~8(b). Drunkenness in public} profane swearing. Delete this
section.
Sec. 13-10. Going out of business sales--Permits required. Delete
this section.
Sec. 13-15. Obstructing ~ustice by threats or force. Amend to match
Code of Va. Section 18.2-460(a) as amended in 1984.
Sec. 13-20. Trees, shrubs, etc.--Unlawful destruction~ in~ury~ etc.
Pursuant to Code of Va. Section 18.2-140, add a proviso to the end of
the last sentence stating that subsequent approval of the owner,
agent, etc., shall be a bar to further prosecution or suit.
Sec. 13-21. Trespass--After having been forbidden to do so. Amend to
reflect 1982 and 1987 amendments to Code of Va. Section 18.2-119.
PARKS AND RECRFATION
Sec. 14-11(c). Same--Fees. Delete nex~ to last sentence reading:
"No fe-~s~a~ un~er~h-~s~gction shall ~e refunded." and replace with
the following words: "No fees paid for!daily park entry or season
passes shall be refunded."
PE~SONNK5
Sec. 15-2. Enumerated. "Monticello Ar~a community action organ-
ization'' is actually "Monticello Area community action agency." There
is no longer a soil erosion advisory board, please delete that name.
Sec. 15-3. Members excluded. The title "County welfare board" has
officially been changed to "Social Services board".
RADIOACTIVE MATERIAI~
Add Sec. 15.1-3.1. Hazardous Materials Coordinator. "Pursuant to
Section 44-146.38 of the Code of Virginia, the board of supervisors
shall appoint a hazardous materials coordinator for the county. In
appointing a hazardous materials coordinator, the board of supervisors
shall consider the requisite qualifications for hazardous materials
coordinators as established by the code ~of the State Department of
Emergency Services. Upon recommendation of the State Hazardous
Materials Emergency Response Council, the hazardous materials coordi-
nator shall coordinate the hazardous materials emergency response
program within the county.
SOLICITORS
Sec. 17-2. Registration required. In line 1, change word "sheriff"
to "chief of police."
SUBDMSION OF LAND
Sec. 18-2. Definitions.
Sec. 18-11. Dedications for public use.
Sec. 18-12. Public utility and drainage,easements.
Sec. 18-18. Generally.
Sec. 18-30. Location.
Sec. 18-36(e)(1) and (e)(4). Private roads.
Sec. 18-37. General standards of design;
138
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Subsections (c) Street angle, (f) Street grade,
(m) Access roads, and
(o) Entrance onto public roads.
Sec. 18-38. Classifications.
Sec. 18-39. Required minimum improvements of public streets.
Sec. 18-55. Contents.
Sec. 18-57(R). Exemption of certain divisions; qualifications.
Change "state highway commissiOn" to read "commonwealth transportation
board" pursuant to Code of Va. Section 33.1-1, and "state department
of highways" to read "state department of transportation" pursuant to
Code of Va. Section 2.1-1.1, as appropriate in the above mentioned
section. In the footnote to Section 18-39, delete the reference to
Code of Va. Section 15.1-446(c) which has been repealed.
Sec. 18-46. Decision by commission--Time limit. Amend to reflect the
last three paragraphs of Code of Va. Section 15.1-475 relative to
approval of preliminary plats by state agencies.
WATER AND S~
Sec. 19.1-t0(a). Penalties; legal remedies. Change "thirty days" to
"twelve months."
Sec. 19.1-11. Water cross-connections and backflow~prevention--Rules
adopted. Change date references of December 8, 1977, and May 7, 1974,
to read "current rules of the Albemarle County Service Authority and
in accordance with the most recently adopted regulations of the
Virginia department of health.
Sec. 19.1-1~2. Same-Violations; penalties. Change '~thirty days" to
"twelve months."
ZONI3qG
Change date "December 22, 1969" in the editor's note to read "Decem-
ber 10, 1980," and in the second sentence, change "c~unty planning
department" to "zoning administrator."
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that with the exception of the changes
listed for CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, which changes shall~'be effective for
the license years beginning after May 1, 1988, this Ordinance shall be
effective on and after April 13, 1988.
Agenda Item No. 13. This item had been renumbered as 6.2.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Property Acquisi-
tion. At 12:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,: seconded by Mr.
Bain, to adjourn into executive session for the stated purposes. Roll was
called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, ~erkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:43 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certificates of Appreciation. M~. Way said he now
has the pleasure of presenting certificates of appreciatio'h to several County
citizens who have served the County well over the past red'years.
Mr. Way presented the first certificate to Ms. SharomiHamner. Ms. Hamner
was first appointed to the Board of Equalization in 1979 and has served for
nine years, two of them as Chairman. During this time, thA Board of Equaliza-
tion reviewed approximately 118 appeals. Mr. Way said Ms.'Hamner was an asset
to the Board of Equalization and the County real estate staff and added that
it has been a pleasure to work with her. Mr. Lindstrom al~o thanked her for
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
139
serving as his appointee. Ms. Hamner thanked the Board for the certificate
and said she enjoyed serving on the Board of Equalization.
Mr. Way presented the next certificate to Mr. Thomas E. Bruce for his
service on the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Bruce has served on
the Board of Directors of the Service Authority since 1979. Mr. Way thanked
Mr. Bruce for the many hours of service he has given the County and added that
Mr. Bruce has always acted with the welfare Of the County at heart, as well as
the citizens of Scottsville. Mr. Bruce received his certificate and thanked
the Board.
Mr. Way presented the next certificate to Mr. Walter F. Perkins for his
four years of service to the County on the SChool Board. Mr. Way said he
appreciated all Mr. Perkins has done for thelCounty. Mr. Perkins thanked the
Board.
Mr. Way presented the next certificate to Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., for
his years of service to the County on the School Board. Mr. Way said he is
delighted to have Mr. Bain now serving on the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lindstrom said it was difficult to find qualified people to serve the
County. When citizens as qualified as the f~ur recipients of the certificates
leave their posts, he said, they are difficuit to replace. He also thanked
Ms. Hamner and Messrs. Bruce, Perkins and Bain.
Agenda Item No~ 16. Westover Hills Dog Leash Law. The following memo-
randum dated April 8, 1988, was received from the County Executive:
"You will recall that staff reported to you in February that Mrs.
Irene Norsen had forwarded a petition from the residents of Westover
Hills containing 16 signatures requesting your consideration of
imposing the 'dog leash law' to the subdivision. These 16 signatures
represented 11 households of the existing 29 in the subdivision.
Staff recommended that Mrs. Norsen be advised that she needed to
obtain signatures from four more househQlds to constitute a majority
of the existing residences.
Attached. is Mrs. Norsen's response describing her efforts to obtain
the additional signatures. Mrs. Norsen has requested time on the
April 13, agenda to present her letter and opinion on the matter."
(Note: Mr. Way left the room temporarily.)
Mrs. Norsen addressed the Board. She asked that the Board act in accor-
dance with the request made by the petitioners she represents. She said the
petitioners wish to enjoy the privacy of their property and walk safely on the
streets of their community. She said she andilike-minded neighbors should not
have to take each dog-owner to court just to be able to walk on the street or
their own property. The law, she said, should compel the dog-owners to be
responsible for their dogs.
In the absence of the Chairman, Mrs. Cooke asked Mrs. Norsen is she
brought a petition with her. Mrs. Norsen sai~ she has a petition on file.
Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Norsen sent a petition in February and has added the
signatures of two more households since presehting that petition. Mrs. Cooke
asked if the added signatures gave Mrs. Norseh themajority she needed for the
Board to consider the request. Mr. Agnor said the petition still did not
represent the majority of the households in Westover Hills.
Mr. Pat Murray addressed the Board and said he was a resident of Westover
Hills. He said many people in this subdivisidn opposed the leash law. He
said he checked with the County Dog Warden, who said there have been no cases
of dog bites in this subdivision, and believes there is no need for the leash
law in Westover Hills at this time.
140
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
(Note: Mr. Way returned at this time.)
Mr. Way said the Board will not consider this request unless it is
requested by a majority of households in Westover Hills. Mr. Lindstrom said
he believes Mrs. Norsen is asking that the Board reconsider its policy of
extending the leash law only if a majority of households request the exten-
sion. He said he is inclined to support the current procedure.
Unless dog-owners take the responsibility for the aCtions of their dogs,
Mrs. Cooke said, the dogs seem to have more rights than human beings do. She
said people think when they move out into a rural area, their dogs should run
free. She said she did this herself when she moved to the country, until she
realized letting her dog run free was not safe for her neighbors or her dog.
She said the complaints about dogs running wild will increase as subdivisions
proliferate in the rural areas. She said she does not think a dog-owner
should wait until someone is mauled before he or she realizes his or her
responsibility as a dog-owner.
Mr. Murray spoke again and said he agreed with Mrs. Cooke. He said his
dog was probably the only one in the whole subdivision that was kept in a pen.
Nevertheless, he said, he vehemently opposes the ordinande because he does not
feel his neighborhood needs a leash law, since there have been no vicious dog
incidents in the. past ten years.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Murray if his neighborhood has been as heavily
populated over the past ten years as it is right now. M=~. Murray said there
has not been much growth in his area. Mr. Agnor concurred.
Mrs. Norsen interjected and said a dog mauled a child around ten years
ago in Westover Hills. She said the dog was destroyed and the child underwent
rabies shots. She said she and her husband took Mr. Murray to court last July
over a vicious dog. She said she and her husband could not even sit on their
porch without the dog tearing over to their property. Because neither she nor
her husband had been bitten, she said, the judge could'not charge Mr. Murray
with owning a vicious dog, but Mr. Murray was told to keep the dog penned or
he might face a sentence of 60 days in jail the next time the judge saw him in
court. She said there are so many dogs running loose in her neighborhood, she
had to have a policeman escort her to the mailbox once. She said she thinks
the police have more important things to do than protect ~citizens from
ill-mannered dogs. She said the dogs have more right to her property than she
does. 3.
Mr. Norsen addressed the Board and said he had troubie with varicose
veins in his legs. He asked what was more important: th~ rights of humans or
the rights of dogs? He said he was raking leaves xn h~s yard once when a pack
of dogs threatened him. If he had not had the rake in hi~ hand, he said, he
would have been attacked. He said Mr. Murray does not ke~p his dog penned,
but releases it from time to time, and every time he doesi~ it runs on the
Norsens' property.
Mr. Murray said he hoped the Board would base its judgment on facts, not
suppositions. He said he has had both dog wardens out to!!inspect the pen he
keeps his dog in and to see the dog. He said two sheriff~ have also met his
dog and did not have a problem with it. Nobody else in t6e Westover Hills
subdivision has had a problem with his dog, Mr. Murray said.
Mr. Perkins commented that the issue of vicious dogs ~was an emotional
one. He said the problem with dogs running loose is County-wide, not just in
the growth areas. He said he does not think today is the ~day to solve this
problem, but he agrees with Mrs. Cooke that the Board will have to do some-
thing about it soon. He suggested that the Board conside~ holding a public
hearing on a County-wide leash law. He said he did not think hunting dogs
were the problem; it was the lonely dogs who were left evi~ry day while there
owners went off to work. These lonely dogs form packs, h~ said, and that is
when they become a problem. He said he thinks the Board ~hould address this
problem and asked Mr. St. John what the State enabled the iCounty to do about
this. He said he has always thought that no dog should b~ allowed to run free
during this time of year, when wildlife is bearing its young. He said he
thinks property owners should have the right to shoot any ~dog they see running
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
141
wild during this time. Perhaps if property owners exercise this right, Mr.
Perkins said, more dog owners would keep their dogs penned.
Mr. St. John said State legislation enabled the County to impose a leash
law on all or any part of the County during all or any part of the year. He
said this law was intended to protect the wildlife and perhaps farm animals
during lambing and calving season.
Mr. Way said he thought Mrs. Norsen was asking that the Board reconsider
her request and hold a public hearing on extending the leash law to Westover
Hills subdivision. If the Board were to reconsider her request, Mr. Way said,
it would be a change in policy.
Mrs. Cooke suggested that the Board hold either a public hearing or a
work session to consider revising the dog leash ordinance. Mr. Bowie said the
staff just spent considerable time and money studying whether the County
should revise its dog leash ordinance. If it becomes clear to him that most
of the people living in the rural areas want a dog leash law, he said, then he
thinks a public hearing should be held. He said he does not think the will of
the minority should prevail over the majority.
Mr. Lindstrom said enforcing a County-wide leash law would be a problem.
He said there would be 740 square miles for animal control officers to patrol
and he is not sure the Board is willing to invest the money to make a County-
wide leash law work. ~
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board needs to see how the leash law is
working in the urban areas before it thinks of extending the ordinance
throughout the entire County. If, after a year, no major problems arise
concerning the enforcement of the ordinance in the urban areas, he said, then
perhaps the Board should consider a County-wide leash law. He said he is not
prepared to support a County-wide leash law now, but he may do so after a
year.
Mr. Bowie said enforcement is improving ~since the County hired a third
animal control officer. He said he went home the other day and there was a
note on the door from an animal control officer, saying that his dog had been
checked for tags and license. He said this is the first time this has hap-
pened in the nine years he has lived in the COunty. Before he was on the
Board, his wife called the animal control officer about a stray dog on their
property and the officer came and picked up the dog, even though this subdivi-
sion has no leash law. He said he does not understand why more people do not
have stray dogs picked up.
Hearing no motion, Mr. Way said, he will assume that the Board wishes to
keep its policy for the present.
Agenda Item No. 17. Lickinghole Creek Impoundment, Consultant Engineer's
Report. The following memorandum was received from the County Executive dated
April 7, 1988:
"As we indicated to you earlier this year, staff requested a Consul-
tant Engineer to review an alternative design for the proposed
Lickinghole Creek Impoundment Dam. The purpose of the alternative
design analysis was to determine if a cohcrete overflow dam would
provide a savings in construction costs ~ver the previously designed
earthen dam with a side spillway.
The attached report (on file) without all of the numerous design
exhibits indicates that a substantial sa~ings (approximately $600,000)
can be realized utilizing the concrete overflow dam, changing the
project from $1.8 million to $1.2 million. Utilizing $300,000 of
available Federal funds, the local costs~of the project are approxi-
mately $900,000 which is 60 percent of the local cost estimate of $1.5
million for the earthen dam.
Staff would recommend based upon these n~w cost estimates, that the
City of Charlottesville be asked to recoqsider their earlier decision
not to participate in the funding of this project."
142
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Lickinghole Creek
Regional Sedimentation Basin Project
Comparison of Alternative Costs
Estimator
County Engineering
Dept/RWSA/Local
Date
July, 1987
Structure
Earthen Dam with Side Ogee
Weir Channel Emergency
Spillway
a
Cost/(cost)
$1,810,000
($1,510,000)
Gloeckner & Osborne April, 1988
Concrete Ogee Overflow Dam
$1,180,327
($ 880,327)
a)
Final local cost shown in parenthesis, when $300,000 in Federal
Grant funds are included.
Note:
Based on an estimated total project cost of $900,000 and on
a total developable acreage of 1,310 acres., an estimated
per acre developer's fee of $690 could be charged to
recover the local cost of the project.
(Developer contributions will, of course, require many
years to recover, and depending on actual growth in the
Crozet area, the estimated contributions may never be fully
realized). ~
Mr. Lindstrom moved to send this new information to City Council, but he
said he thought the County should move on.
Mr. Bowie said he supposed the City should be asked to reconsider its
decision not to fund the project, but he could dictate the City's answer right
now. Since the project is already in the Comprehensive Plan and the alterna-
tive design would be $600,000 less than is specified in the Plan, he said, he
thought the County should proceed with the project. ~
Mr. Bain said he would second the motion. He asked Mr. Agnor which would
last longer, a concrete dam or an earthen dam. Mr. Agnorisaid he thought that
a concrete dam would last longer. Mr. Bain said he always thought dirt was
cheaper than concrete, so why would a concrete dam be cheaper than an earthen
one? Mr. Agnor said the concrete dam would not require a~spillway because it
was more solidly built and a spillway was expensive because the County would
have to buy more land.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the County should act as quickly as possi-
ble so as not to lose federal funding. Mr. Agnor said th9 project had been
held in abeyance only for the question of local funding, iHe said the staff
could present the project within the next few weeks to th~ Board for any
action the Board might take, if necessary.
At this point, roll was called and the motion was carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18a. Appropriation: School Division - Job Training
Partnership Act. The following memorandum dated March 25~ 1988, from N.
Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent, to Guy Agnor, County Executive,
was received:
"At its meeting on March 14, 1988 the School Board approved an appli-
cation for federal funds through the Job Training Partnership Act
through the Piedmont Job Training Administration. T~ese funds will be
available in the near future and will remain available until June 30,
1988, :
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
143
The schools will use the funds to provide extra individual and small
group instruction during the school day to eligible students who are
expected to fail one or more subjects without intensive intervention.
Students may also receive a $3.00 per hour 'stipend' for after school
instruction and may be eligible for summer job training and employment
through the Piedmont Job Training Administration.
A budget for the project is enclosed."
Mr. Bowie asked whether the six teachers would be compensated for ten
weeks during the summer or the regular school term. Mr. David Papenfuse,
Assistant Superintendent, said it was during the regular term. Mr. Bowie
asked if teachers would have to be hired to provide the additional instruc-
tion. Mr. Papenfuse said the stipends would go to teachers already under
contract, but there would have to be six new teachers hired for ten weeks.
Mr. Papenfuse assured the Board that no teacher would be drawing two salaries.
Mrs. Cooke asked what kinds of jobs these students would be trained to
do. Mr. Papenfuse said he did not know.
As a member of the Policy Board of the Piedmont Private Industry Council,
Mr. Bowie said, he knows this type of training is considered appropriate to
prepare teen-agers for summer jobs. He said it bothers him that students will
be paid to stay after school and learn. When he was a child, Mr. Bowie said,
bad students were expected to stay after school and not paid to do so. He
said he still does not understand where the ~ix teachers will come from. He
said he supports the program in principle, but does not understand how it will
work.
Mrs. Cooke said she does not understand~what kind of training the stu-
dents will receive or why they are being paid to learn.
Mr. Papenfuse said he understood that the teachers were to provide
remedial education for eligible youth duringilthe day. After school, the
students would receive job training and woul~ be paid for their efforts. The
federal government is paying the students so~iRmployers who may not wish to
train these students will have an incentive ~ do so, Mr. Papenfuse said. He
said he would be glad to ask a School staff member to explain the details of
the program to the Board.
a Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution approving the request and have a staff member come at a
later date to explain the program. Roll was .called and the motion was carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke (who said she so voted reluctantly),
Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $46,500 be, and the same is, hereby appropriated from
the School Fund for the Federal Job Training Partnership Act; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1987-88 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $46,500 to Code
2-2007-33000-330007 entitled Federal Job Training Act; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Appropriation: Co~mmunity Development Block Grant
funds for AHIP's Rehabilitation Program. Req6est was received to appropriate
the 1987/1988 Community Development Block Grant for AHIP's housing rehabilita-
tion program which will be funded 100 percentlby the State grant.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, sec6nded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution approving the request. Roll was called and the motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
144
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $262,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the CDBG_AHIP Fund for funding of 87/88 Community Development Blcok
Grant for AHIP's housing rehabilitation program; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 18c. Appropriation: Rivanna Park. The following
memorandum was received from the County Executive dated April 7, 1988:
"At an earlier meeting in February, you authorized the appropriation
of funds from the CIP's Phase II of the Rivanna Park project to Phase
I of the project. In addition, you authorized the shifting of $50,000
from a carry-over balance of the Rivanna Park operating budget to
Phase I construction. Attached is the appropriation form which
provides for this action and staff recommends your approval. Inciden-
tally, the City plans to make their appropriation in June or July."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Coo~ke, to approve the
request by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Ailbemarle County,
Virginia, that $177,750 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Capital Improvement Program for Rivanna Park Cohstruction; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective ~his date.
Agenda Item No. 18d. Appropriation: 1987-88 Moderate Rehabilitation
Grant. The following memorandum was received from the CoUnty Executive dated
April 7, 1988:
"Attached is the appropriation for start-up cost exp~nses for operat-
ing the Moderate Rehabilitation Program this current fiscal year
(1987/88) as well as the assistance payments made du~ing the year.
Revenues for this program from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, off-set these expenditures. Staff recommends your
approval of this appropriation." ~
In the budget sent to the Board, Mr. Agnor said, the!ifirst item was
listed as a consultant's fee for $20,615.88, but it is really a contracted
service and the funds will be expended at an hourly rate.'~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the
request and to change the word "consultant" to "contract ~ervices" by adopting
the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $558,129.95 be, and the same hereby iq, appropriated
from the Mod Rehab Fund for funding of the 1987/88 Mq!derate Rehabili-
tation Grant Project; and ~
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective t~is date.
Agenda Item No. 18a. School Division Job Training Partnership Act.
(At this time the Board returned to discussion of this item.) Mr. Garland
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
145
Canter of the Schools staff presented himself and offered to answer any
questions Board members might have.
Mr. Bowie asked when the ten week period would start. Mr. Canter said it
begins immediately and will continue through the end of the school year and
into the summer.
Mrs. Cooke asked what type of job training would be provided. Mr. Canter
said this was not a job training program, even though the federal government
was funding it as one. This grant is intended to decrease the number of
drop-outs and pay teachers to work with students who have serious academic
problems. Mrs. Cooke asked why the students received three dollars per hour.
Mr. Canter said many of the students were poor and had to work after school.
By compensating them for their time, the School system hoped that more stu-
dents with problems would be willing to stay after school for remedial educa-
tion, instead of going straight to their jobs.
Mr. Bowie asked where the teachers would come from. Mr. Canter said six
new teachers would be hired in addition to the ten teachers selected who were
already under contract to the County.
Mr. Perkins asked how many students would be selected for the program.
Mr. Canter said the grant was based on 60 stUdents.
Agenda Item No. 18e. Revisions Constitutional Officers' Budget. The
following memorandum dated April 7, 1988, was received from the County Execu-
tive:
"The current budget (FY 1987-88) for the Clerk of Circuit Court,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff, was never adjusted to reflect the
final State Compensation Board approvals, especially the 4.56 percent
salary increases effective on 3anuary 1 1988. There were several
other items included also.
Clerk of Court Total Increase $25,335
The majority of the increased appropriation is for salary and fringes.
However, there is included $7000 for overtime. Ail of this is
included in allowable expenses by the State Compensation Board.
Sheriff
Total Increase $19,500
In addition ~to the January 4.56 percent salaries, plus fringes in-
crease, the accrued annual leave and sick leave at retirement of
Sheriff Bailey and Deputy Cook are included in the the numbers for
compensation. The accrued annual leave and sick leave costs are not
reimbursed by the State. The $1000 was for the uniforms for Sheriff
Hawkins that were not budgeted before.
Commonwealth Attorney Total Increase $13,520
Included in this request is an amount fo~ a fourth attorney which was
recently approved by the State Compensation Board, plus small amounts
for operation of the office due to the addition of the fourth attor-
ney.
Personnel Decrease $4,225
There was $15,000 for sick leave budgeted in the Personnel Budget of
which $4,225 is being transferred to the Sheriff's budget to cover the
accrued sick leave of Sheriff Bailey and Deputy Cook.
Revenue Adjustment
Total $58,905
Most of the revenues will come from the State of Virginia and fees.
However, the accrued annual leave payment plus fringes plus uniforms
and Dental Insurance are not reimbursabl9 and must come from the Fund
Balance.
146
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Staff recommends your approval of the $58,905 appropriation to avoid
over-expenditure of their respective budgets. Attached are the
Director of Finance's line item adjustments of the budget."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
request by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $58,905 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund as $25,335 for the Clerk of the Circuit Court;
$24,373 for the Sheriff; $13,420 for the Commonwealth's Attorney; and
a decrease of $4,225 in the Personnel Department budget; and
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 19a. Appointment: County Assessor. The following
memorandum dated April 7, 1988, was received from the County Executive:
"Based upon interviews conducted by the Director of~ Finance and Direc-
tor of~Personnel, staff recommends the promotion of ~Bruce Woodzell to
the position of County Assessor. Bruce graduated in 1973 from James
Madison University with a Bachelor of Science degre~ in Business
Administration. After working several years in pri~ate business, he
was hired as a buyer in the Purchasing Department in September 1979.
He was promoted to Division Manager of the Real Estate Assessment
office in March 1981. He had responsibility of manHging all of the
office personnel, plus maintenance of the records, i~e has automated
the real property tax records and developed a very ~fficient staff.
Bruce has performed well interacting with the p~bli~~ and trained his
staff to respond to questions from the public very ~ell. This is
evident by the small number of complaints handled b~. the Board of
Equalization in the last three reassessments.
The State Tax Commissioner has certified Bruce to b~ qualified for the
position of County Assessor by their standards, by successfully
completing five courses required by the State Department of Taxation
for this position. In addition, he has served on three state-wide
committees of the Virginia Association of Assessing .~0fficers. He will
serve on a panel at a three day seminar in July at C~he University of
Virginia on the subject of Land Use Taxation.
Respectfully, you are requested to appoint Bruce WoOdzell as the
County Assessor, effective April 15, 1988." ·
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. BoWie, to appoint Mr.
Bruce Woodzell as County Assessor effective as of April 15, 1988. 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.
Agenda No. 19b. Appointment: Social Services. No name was offered.
Agenda No. 19c. Appointment: Equalization Board. Motion was offered b
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to appoint Mrs. CRarlotte Humphris to
the Equalization Board for the calendar year 1988. Roll ~as called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
147
Agenda Item No. 20. Summer Vacation Schedule. The Clerk had forwarded a
memorandum noting that the Board occasionally cancells a meeting in the summer
in order to accommodate vacation schedules. If this idea is to be considered
for either July or August, action needs to be taken so that the Planning
Department can schedule around the cancellation.
Mr. Lindstrom said the advantage of canceling the first meeting of the
month would be to clear two weeks for vacation since the Board did not meet
during the fourth week.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to cancel
the regular meeting of August 3, 1988, for vacation. Roll was called and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Set public hearing on sale of well lot in Colthurst
Farms Subdivision. The following letter dated April 8, 1988, was received
from the County Executive:
"Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Morley have purchased a lot in Colthurst Farms
(parcel 14, block F, tax map 60-C) which is adjacent to a 20-foot
access strip (lot 14-A) to a well lot in that subdivision. The well
lot was sold in 1976. The access stripi.was not sold, and belongs to
the County.
Staff has determined the access strip is not needed by the Albemarle
or Rivanna Service Authorities for utility purposes, and that the
other property owner who abuts this access strip, the University Real
Estate Foundation, has no interest in a~quiring the property.
An offer of $4500 has been received from the Morleys, which is the
acreage value of property in that subdivision. Acreage value is
defined as the value of land that is not sufficient size to be a
building lot, but can be added as acreage to a building lot.
A draft ordinance authorizing the sale ~as been prepared and is
attached for your information. The ordinance can be considered after
an advertised public hearing. Staff recommends the hearing be sched-
uled for your regular meeting on May 4th.."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public
hearing for may 4, 1988, on an ordinance to authorize the sale of 0.375 acre
of County property identified on County Real Estate Tax map 60-C as parcel 14A
to Alfred C. and Kathryn A. Morley for $4500.~00 and to authorize the Chairman
to sign the deed of conveyance. Motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution: RequestlCompensation Board for Deputy
Sheriff in Juvenile and Domestic Relations Conrt. The following memo was
received from the County Executive dated April 8, 1988:
"The attached resolution has been requested by Sheriff Hawkins, and
City Sheriff Baird, to relieve the workload problem of courtroom
security at the City/County Juvenile and~Domestic Relations Court, and
the transportation of delinquent youths to and from the Juvenile
Detention Home in Staunton. Sheriff Hawkins requested an additional
deputy in his 88-89 budget request to the Compensation Board, and to
the County, for assignment to this work,'and to other work in his
department. The County staff recommended the position, if approved by
the Compensation Board. ~
148
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
The Compensation Board will hold hearings in April to consider the
constitutional officers' budgets. This resolution, and the attached
letter from Judge Shannon, will be presented at those hearings. Your
adoption of the resolution is requested. City Council has adopted a
similar one."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
resolution which follows. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts for
the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville are operated
in one courthouse financed jointly by the County and the City; and
WHEREAS, sheriffs in Virginia are required by statute to provide
courtroom security, transportation and civil process services for all
courts in their jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, since 1972, by informal agreement, the County Sheriff
has provided all transportation and bailiff services for the Juvenile
Court, with the City funding its share of the local cost; and
WHEREAS, the caseload of the Juvenile Court has grown tremen-
dously since 1972 and legislative changes have also,increased the
workload of the personnel providing such services to the Juvenile
Court; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County Sheriff Terry Hawkins has submitted a
budget request to the Compensation Board to cover the cost of an
additional deputy sheriff to be assigned to duties in the Juvenile
Court; and
WHEREAS, it will be efficient from both a cost and an adminis-
trative perspective for the Albemarle County Sheriff! to continue to
provide bailiff and transportation services to the Juvenile Court for
both County and City cases;
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) ]_Zl9
(Page 35)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that we do hereby support the request of
Sheriff Terry Hawkins to the Compensation Board for an additional
deputy to serve the Juvenile Court; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Compensation Board is respect-
fully requested to give full and serious consideration to providing
funding for another deputy sheriff when it meets this month with
Sheriff Hawkins to review his budget request.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Designation of Chief of Police to file
unexecuted criminal process reports with the Com~nonwealth's Attorney. The
following memorandum was received from the County Executive dated April 5,
1988:
"The attached resolution memorializes al.responsibility of the Chief of
Police which has been a function of that office since 1984, but which
was never recorded as an assigned respohSibility in the Board minutes.
The resolution designates the Chief of Police as the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer responsible for filing quarterly reports with the
Commonwealth's Attorney concerning unexecuted arrest warrants, sum-
mons, capias or other unexecuted criminal process in accordance with
the State Code, and based upon records in the Police Department."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
resolution which follows. Roll was called amd the motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mr~ Cooke, Mess=s. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, Section 19.2-76.1 of the Code of Virginia requires the
Chief Law Enforcement Officer of each county to file quarterly reports
with the Commonwealth's Attorney concerning unexecuted felony and
misdemeanor warrants, sun, nons, capias, and other unexecuted criminal
process; and
WHEREAS, said section of the Code ~f Virginia designates the
sheriff as the officer responsible for £iling such reports unless the
governing body designates otherwise by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police as the County's Chief Law Enforce-
ment Officer is the appropriate officer ~in the County of Albemarle to
submit such reports;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County hereby designates the Chief of Police as the Chief
Law Enforcement Officer responsible for filing the report required
under Section 19.2-76.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Agenda Item No. 10. Answers to citizensi' questions concerning Police
Department activities. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum to the
Board.
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County ExecUtive
April 7, 1988
Citizen Questions Concerning P61ice Department
150
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
The following are responses to questions asked of the Board by Mr.
Nimrod Clark concerning various Police Department matters:
1. Turn over of personnel - the Police Department has experienced a
recent turn over rate of 16.5 percent per year. This compares with
two other departments, which are considered high stress professions,
one being Social Services with the same 16.5 percent rate, and the
Emergency Dispatch Center with 17.6 percent rate. All County depart-
ments averaged 14 percent during the same period.
2. Officers on patrol - the Police Department currently has a
complement of 58 sworn officers, 45 of which are assigned to patrol
duties. In 1984, when the department was divided f~om the Sheriff's
Department, there were 41 sworn officers, with 31 assigned to patrol
work. Officers assigned to patrol has therefore been increased by 45
percent. ~
3. Female officers attending meetings in Alaska and Hawaii at County
expense - in 1985 Commander Sylvia Bailey attended the 23rd Annual
Conference of the International Association of Women Police in Anchor-
age, Alaska. She attended as a National Director of the Association
representing the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. Commander Bailey paid all of the expenses. The County
provided professional leave for her attendance because the conference
agenda included a number of training seminars appropriate for mid-
level police supervisors, and because the County encourages staff
members of all departments to participate in profesSional organiza-
tions and training seminars. ~
Also in 1985, Charlene Easter, Victim-Witness Coordinator, received a
State grant from the Division of Criminal Justice S~rvices to attend
the annual conference of the National Organization ~f Victim Assis-
tance in Hawaii to participate in developing a model program for the
State of Virginia. The State grant paid all expenses. The County
provided professional leave time.
4. State and local funds for law enforcement ~ Sheriff's depart-
ments receive State funds from the State Compensati~n Board. Police
departments receive State funds from the State Department of Planning
and Budget. For 1988-89, the Compensation Board advised, upon inquiry
by the State Sheriff's Association, that they would!provide to a
Sheriff's Department in Albemarle County with law en!forcement respon-
sibilities, an estimated amount of $986,964. This amount would be in
addition to an estimated $366,941 from the Compensat.~on Board for
court services of the Sheriff's Department. Estimat~ of funding for
the Police Department from the Department of Planning and Budget for
1988-89 is $751,725. Since court services are funde~ whether there is
a Police Department or not, the difference in State ~unding is between
the Compensation Board allocation of $986,964 and the Department of
Planning and Budget allocation of $751,725, a difference of $235,239.
The Compensation Board would provide funds for the salaries of 42
employees. To maintain the levels of services planned for 1988-89,
the County would pay a large portion of the fringe b~nefit costs of
these 42 employees, and the salary and fringe benefits costs of an
additional 36 employees, plus purchasing the vehicles, radios and
numerous other operating and equipment costs which tie State does not
fund. The total ratio of costs between the County a~d the State for a
combined law enforcement and sheriff's operation forii1988-89 would be
approximately 54.5 percent local funds ($1.6 million~ and 45.5 percent
State funds ($1.3 million). As you know, the increasing dependency
upon local funds to finance law enforcement operatio!s, the limited
policy-making authority that a governing body has on ia sheriff's
office, and the ratio of local funds to state funds ~eing greater than
50 percent, were the major reasons for the Board of Supervisors' vote
in 1983 to separate the law enforcement responsibility from the
sheriff's office, and to place that function under t~e authority of
the Board."
April 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
151
Mr. Lindstrom asked if all the deputies would be paid at the State
Compensation Board level or only those funded by the State Compensation Board
would be paid at this level and the deputies funded by the County would be
paid at different level. Mr. Agnor said no assumptions were made about
salaries. He said if the sheriff and police departments were combined again,
the salaries would be governed by the State standards and would, therefore,
increase.
If the level of staff stays the same, but both departments are combined
to form one Sheriff's Department, Mr. Lindstrom said, the funding from the
State would change, causing the County to receive an additional $235,000. He
said he is concerned that combining the two departments would force the County
to increase the salaries of the employees it funds to State salary levels. He
said this would cost the County money and should be considered against the
gain of $235,000. Mr. Agnor added that the State increased salaries on the
basis of an employee's length of time in service rather than level of perfor-
mance.
Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mr. Lindstrom said he read the minutes for April 15, 1987, from Item 11,
Page 11 to the end. He said he had a few questions he would like answered
before he recommended approval of the minutes.
Mr. Lindstrom said new lighting was recently approved for the athletic
fields of Albemarle High School. He said several citizens have complained
that the lights are too bright and are visible from all parts of the County.
He said he has noticed these lights on as early as 5:00 P.M. and on as late as
i1:00 P.M. He asked Mr. Agnor to check if the lights could be outfitted with
shields to direct the light to the athletic field and away from the surround-
ing countryside.
Mr. Way said Mr. Gay from the Dogwood P~rade Committee is waiting to hear
from members of the Board as to whether they will ride in the parade.
Miss Neher asked the Chairman if the Board had decided at what time it
would meet on April 28, 1988, to adopt the A~propriation Ordinance. She said
County residents have been calling to find out. It was decided that the Board
would meet at 4:00 P.M, April 28, 1988.
At 3:27 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs~ Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
return to executive session to continue a discussion of personnel matters.
Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 4:02 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the
Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.