1988-07-13July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
421
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 13, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:04 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom
(arrived at 9:06 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins 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. Horne, Director of Planning and
Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve Items 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 on the Consent
Agenda, to request additional information on Item 4.3, and to accept the
remaining items as information. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request - Ivy Oaks Subdivision. Request dated
May 10, 1985, was received from Mr. Hunter Craig, Craig Builders, for street
name signs for Ivy Oaks Subdivision. The following resolution was adopted by
the vote shown above.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Gray Fox Trail (State Route 1645) at its intersection with
Owensville Road (State Route 676);
Gray Fox Trail (State Route 1645) at its intersection with Gray
Fox Trail (State Route 1646);
Old Oaks Circle (State Route 1647) at its intersection with
Owensville Road (State Route 676);
Willow Oak Circle (State Route 1648) at its intersection with
Owensville Road (State Route 676);iand
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to the standards set by
the Virginia Department of Highways and iTransportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street sigqp.
Item 4.2. Resolution to Guarantee Sidewalk Construction and Maintenance
at Hollymead School. It was noted that the Sphool Board has approved applying
for a Highway Department permit for a 22 foot long sidewalk at Hollymead
School within the right-of-way of Powell Cree~ Drive. A resolution is
required guaranteeing performance of the construction and future maintenance
of the sidewalk, ~in lieu of posting a bond. The following resolution was
adopted by the vote shown above.
422
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS, a concrete walkway is planned for installation at
Hollymead School within the right-of-way of Route 1521 and Route 1546;
and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation requires a
bond to guarantee the construction of the sidewalk and future mainte-
nance of same in lieu of posting bonds.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation the construction has been done according to plans and that the
cost of any rework will be done by the permitee or the County.
Item 4.3. Memorandum from County Executive dated J~ly 6, 1988, relating
to a new VSRS announcement re: Employee Retirement - 55~Years of Age/30
Years, and attached thereto is the following memorandum From the Director of
Personnel: 1
"Last year the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System changed the
combination of age and experience to qualify for full retirement from
60 years of age/30 years of service to 55 years of Age/30 years of
service. Employees who retired under the previous ~egulations, and
who were not 60 years of age with 30 years of servide, incurred a
percentage reduction on their monthly retirement amount.
VSRS has recently announced that retirees under the old regulation
could now return to work under a VSRS contributing employer. By doing
so, many of them could now qualify for retirement benefits. Essen-
tially these individuals would cancel their retirement, assume a full-
time permanent position, fulfill the amount of time inecessary to
qualify for full retirement, then retire again. Much interest is
being generated among retirees in requesting reemplqyment of their
former employers. The question becomes: what is t~e responsibility
of the employer to find work for these individuals ~nd what other
impact would such reemployment have? ~[!
In order to qualify for VSRS, an employee must be i~a permanent,
full-time employment status. This is defined by Co~ty policy as
working at least 40 hours per week in a position tha% is not tempo-
rary, i.e. not scheduled for less than three months.! I do not believe
that the County is in a position to create new positions for retirees
in these circumstances. To do so would leave the Co;~nty vulnerable to
having to adjust its employment policies whenever anI agency like VSRS
changes its regulations to affect a new group of retirees. The
County's voluntary early retirement policy requires ten years of
continuous service. Technically, then, reemployment! would have an
individual start their employment over, thus requiring another ten
years of service to qualify for early retirement. The County would,
then, recoup the savings from some former employees ~ho would cease
the collection of early retirement benefits through i~eempl0yment.
My recommendation is that the County handle requestSlfor reemployment
of retirees through the normal employment procedures~ If, through
application for a position, a retiree is chosen for imployment in the
County, they could then fulfill the requirements for~full retirement.
I do not recommend the creation of special employment situations for
these individuals. This position was recently reviewed with the
School Board and was endorsed by it." ii
Mr. Bowie said he disagrees with the County Executive's recommendation in
reference to the new VSRS announcement. He said he think~ there should be
some way to help employees who retired early and who could have, with a couple
more months of service, earned more retirement benefits. .~iHiring back these
retired people for a few months would also benefit the CoUnty, he said. The
County would gain an experienced, knowledgable employee for less than it would
have to pay for a new employee. ~.
Mr. Lindstrom requested that the staff provide further information on how
many retirees would be eligible, how many positions mighti:be available and the
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
423
costs involved for both General Government and the School system. Mrs. Cooke
said she supports rehiring these retirees temporarily but does not feel the
County should jeopardize losing qualified applicants just to keep someone for
a couple of months.
Item 4.4. Federal Grants-In-Aid - Regional Library: approve expenditure
of grant funds. It was noted that the Library system has been awarded a
federal grant in the amount of $12,265 for FY 88-89. This was planned for
during adoption of the budget, but written approval is required before expen-
diture of the funds. The Board authorized expenditure of the $12,265 federal
grant for FY 88-89 by the above recorded vote.
Item 4.5. Letter dated June 29, 1988, from Mrs. I. R. Lane, Jr. relating
to request for a traffic signal at Greenbrier Drive/Rio Road, and response
dated July 1, 1988, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer was
received.
Mr. Roosevelt's letter stated that the Highway Department has made a
number of traffic signal studies at the intersection. The studies take into
consideration many different factors. Normally traffic signals are not
warranted at any location based on the accident record but on the volumes of
main street and side street traffic. None of the factors studied at this
location.meets the warrants for a traffic signal. During the construction of
the widening of Rio Road, he plans to review~further the location and if the
intersection meets the warrants, he will authorize a traffic signal at such
time.
Item 4.6. Supts. Memos No. 90 and 145,~i!from Mr. S. John Davis, Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction, dated April 20, 1988, and July 6, 1988, respec-
tively entitled "Proposed 1989-90 Annual School Report" were received on file
in the Clerk's Office.
Item 4.7. A copy of Planning Commission Minutes for June 28, 1988, was
received as information.
Item 4.8. Quarterly and Semi-Annual Crime Statistics from the Chief of
Police in a memorandum dated July 8, 1988, were received as information.
Item 4.9. Letter dated June 22, 1988, from Division of Historic Land-
marks adding Clifton to the Virginia Landmarks Register, received as informa-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: April 3 (Afternoon), May 22
(afternoon), July 17 (afternoon), 1985; March 9 (afternoon), 1986; Novem-
ber 18, 1987; March 23, 1988.
Mr. Way read the minutes of May 22 (afternoon), 1985, and made the
following corrections: Page 1, third paragraph from bottom, third sentence
should read: "In addition, employees would t0se retirement, life insurance,
and social security benefits, which are currently a function of salary and
which increase when merit raises are currently achieved." Page 3, last
paragraph, second sentence should read: "If a person works for the County, he
will get an increase."
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of March 23; 1988, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of March 19 (afternoon), 1986, and found them
to be in order.
Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr~ Bain, to approve the minutes as
read. There was no further discussion. Rolliwas called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
424
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Public Hearing: Secondary Improve-
ments Budget - FY 88-89. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28 and
July 5, 1988).
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt if this particular budget included the
controversial improvement on the Millington Bridge (Route 671 at the Moormans
River). Mr. Roosevelt responded that there is no money in this budget for the
Millington Bridge because it is a separate issue.
At this time, Mr. Way opened the Public Hearing and. asked if anyone was
present who wished to speak. Since there was no discussion from the public,
Mr. Way closed the Public Hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt
the following Secondary Improvements Budget for FY 88-89. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None
SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1988-89
ROUTE LOCATION
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
LOCATION
County Wide
Install Pipe in Entrances
(Construction)
$ 12,000
County Wide
New Signs and Signals
(Construction)
$ 13,000
County Wide
Seed and Fertilize Completed
Project (Construction)i
$ 6,000
County Wide
County Wide
County Wide
625 At James River
Preliminary Engineering
On New Projects
Review of Subdivision and
Site Plans (Preliminary
Engineering)
New Additions to the System
(Construction) ~
Operate Hatton Ferry
$ 30,000
$ 9,530
$ 80,000
$ 10,000
631
631
601
660
678
From: Route 1103
To: 1.0 Miles
South of Route 780
From: Route 650
To: 0.3 Miles East
Of Route 29
At Buck Mountain
Creek
At South Fork of
the Rivanna River
From: Route 250
To: Route 678
0631-002-224, C501
Construct Four Lane Divided
Roadway on New Alignment
(Right of Way & Constr~ction)
0631-002-128, C503
Widen to Five Lanes With
Curb & Gutter (Construction)
0601-002-225, C501, B6~3
Bridge and Approaches 9n
New Location
0660-002-187, C501, B6~4
Bridge and Approaches ~n
New Location (Right of ~Way &
Construction)
0678-002-223, C501
Reconstruct on New Location
(Construction)
$ 900,000
$ 340,000
$ 100,000
$ 300,000
$ 86,000
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
727 From: Route 627
To: Route 795
777 From: Orange C.L.
To: Dead End
693 From: Route 635
To: Route 695
785
627
674
662'
682
601
676
810
649
795
620
743
631
0727-002-184, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
0777-002-P27, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
0693-002-P26, NS01
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
From: 0.2 Miles North
Route 649
To: 1.40 M N
Route 649
0785-002-203, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
From: 0.5 Miles South
Route 727
To: Route 708
0627-002.229, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Construction)
From: Route 810
To: 0.25 M W
Route 673
0674-002-231, N501
Grade, Drain, Stabilize and
New Surface Treatment
(Preliminary Engineering &
Construction)
From: 0.2 Miles West
Route 660
To: 1.0 M W
Route 660
0662-002-230, N501
Grade, Drain~ Stabilize and
New SurfaCe Treatment
(Preliminary Engineering)
From: Route 250 New Projeqt
To: 1.7 Miles South Grade, Drain, Stabilize
Route 787 (Preliminary Engineering)
From: Route 678 Apply Plaht Mix to Surface
To: Route 653 Treated Rdad (Construction)
From: Route 660 Apply Pla~t Mix to Surface
To: Route 601 Treated R~ad (Construction)
From: Route 614 Apply Pla~t.~ Mix to Surface
To: 0.9 Miles North Treated Rdad (Construction)
Route 810
From: Route 830
To: Route 819
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
From: Route 734
To: Route 620
From: Route 795
To: Route 618
Apply Plant Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
Apply Plan~ Mix to Surface
Treated Road (Construction)
From: Route 657
To: Route 631
0743-002-1i53, C502
Widen to Four Lane
Curb & Gutter
(Preliminary Engineering)
From: Route 743
To: Route 29
0631-002-185, C501
Widen to Fbur Lane
Curb & Gutter
(Preliminary Engineering)
425
$ 122,000
$ 380,000
$ 218,000
$ 10,000
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
$ 17,000
$ 10,000
50,000
$ 60,000
$ 36,000
$ 70,000
$ 102,900
$ 200,000
$ 20,000
$ 195,000
426
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
743
601
743
743
At 606 Intersection
At 205 Intersection
At 1315 Intersection
At 663 Intersection
Improve Sight Distance
(Preliminary Engineering)
Improve Intersection
(Preliminary Engineering)
Construct Right Turn :Lane
(Construction)
Improve Intersection
(Preliminary Engineering)
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
656 0.1 Miles South
of Route 743
866 From: Route 1455
Greenbrier To: Route 743
Drive
691 From: Route 691
Park Road' To: Route 240
Improve Drainage
(Preliminary Engineering &
Construction)
Construct Four Lane
Roadway on New Location
(Preliminary Engineering)
Construct Two Lane
Roadway on New Location
(Preliminary Engineering)
TOTAL
$ 25,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
$3,522,430
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Secondary Roadi:Six-Year Plan -
1988-94 (County Attorney opinion re: Scenic Rivers Act.)!i
Mr. St. John summarized his letter dated June 16, 1988 (on file) which
indicated that the Highway Commissioner makes the ultimate decision on highway
projects under Code Section 33.1-70.01 and that he does not believe that
decision is subject to Court review. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. St. John then
discussed the recourse a private citizen may take. Mr. Forbes Reback
addressed the Board and asked that whatever action is appropriate be taken to
keep the Route 671 (Millington Bridge project) out of the'Six-Year Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a difficult situation because there are more
important issues to discuss with the Commissioner, such a~ Route 29 North, but
he feels the matter should be appealed if for no other reason than that the
County should not have "to just sit back and take whatever is handed out".
The Board then discussed the implications of appealing th~ Highway Depart-
ment's decision to the Commissioner and what steps are necessary to appeal.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he thinks that it is important to explore
these Highway Department standards. He is concerned that!iif the standards are
explored after the item has been approved and put into thai budget by the
Board, there will not be the same access to the Commission available. He
thinks that good arguments can be made to the fact that t~e alignment approach
that would be built under the standards would not be any more safe, and
possibly less safe, than the current alignment with the i~provement of the
bridge itself. He said that making an appeal of the inclusion of that item in
the Six Year Plan would not hold up the plan, but will al~0w the Board to
bring to the Commission's attention the problem with this particular project
and that standards, in general, are sometimes applied without much room for
flexibility. This seems like a reasonable way to proceed,~ but his concern is
with the Board's credibility with the Commission.
Mr. Bain said the Commissioner may think the Board is
ficant issues to the Commission. He does not see it this
thinks that an appeal would give the Board a chance to art
project was deleted. He thinks that it would be remiss of
voted to put the project back into the plan without appeal
Commissioner.
appealing insigni-
Pay, however, and he
.culate why this
this Board if it
.ng to the
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
427
Mr. Lindstrom commented that it might be more detrimental to the Board's
credibility and seriousness of purpose if it did not take the issue to the
Commission.
Mr. Bowie commented that the original problems with this project were the
approaches, the amount of land and the destruction of the scenery, as opposed
to a replacement of an unsafe bridge. He said he opposed the project and
feels that the issue should be appealed so that it can be resolved.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to
appeal the Highway Department's inclusion of the Route 671 (replacement of the
Moormans River Bridge at Millington) project in the Secondary Road Six-Year
Plan and asked that the staff provide a preliminary statement on what it
thinks would be appropriate to include in the appeal.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain,. Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:00 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: Sugar Hollow Reservoir, Request
from Rivanna Authority to close access after!dark.
(Mr. St. John returned at 10:04 A.M.)
Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum, saying that the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and adjacent property owners are having problems with night-
time trespassers on the Reservoir property. :The property has been posted and
signed, and violators have been arrested, but the problem has not abated. He
stated that the Authority has requested the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion to gate the roadway at the entrance to the Reservoir property in order to
be able to close the property off after dark. If a gate is put at the en-
trance to the Reservoir, State policy requires that the section of the road
beyond the gate be abandoned from the State s~ystem, which would transfer the
responsibility for maintaining that roadway to the Rivanna Authority. Mr.
Agnor added that there is a gate on the property before the entrance to the
Shenandoah National Park. That gate is locked, however, and there are ten
permit holders who have keys issued by the National Park Service for access
through that gate. The White Hall Hunt Club holds one key to the gate, which
involves a lot of people. He said that the Park Service concurs with closing
the gate to the Reservoir after dark if the Bark Service could have access
through that gate for themselves and their permit holders. He said that the
Highway Department has indicated that it wouId take from $4,000 to $6,000 in
annual cost to maintain the roadway beyond the property line, and the Rivanna
Authority has concluded that the security problems warrant the assumption of
that cost. The roadway would be kept open during daylight hours for recrea-
tional purposes, but at dark, the gate would ibe closed to the public. The
staf recommends that the Board schedule a PuS~ic Hearing to consider the
abandonment of that roadway. He said that Mr{ Francis Fife, Chairman of the
Rlvanna Authorlty, and Mr. George WillIams, ExecutIve are present to answer
questions.
Mr. Fife said that the Authority is concerned about the property from the
standpoint of the safety of the people who lille and work there. He added that
the Authority has worked on the problem for s~me time with the County Police
Department, but the gate seems to be the only! solution to the problem.
Mr. Williams then pointed out the Reservoir area on a map. He showed the
Board where the Park Service gate is located And the location of the proposed
new gate. He said that the purpose of the gate would be for security dealing
with the protection of water quality and for the protection of the neighbor-
hood and the caretaker.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she does not see this as a controversial issue,
because a gate definitely needs to be installed at the Sugar Hollow Reservoir.
428
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mr. Perkins stated that there is some controversy. He said that people
are concerned about the hours, and who will be responsible for opening the
gate early in the morning. He mentioned that these are trout fishing waters,
and trout fisherman like to go fishing early. He mentioned, too, that the
question has also been raised, by the people who have property around the
area, about the proper maintenance of the road. He said that the property
owners wonder, for instance, if the road is washed out by a flood, as it has
been sometimes in the past, will the Rivanna Authority be willing to put the
road back in proper shape.
Mr. Williams stated that the Authority is committed to maintaining the
road at least to the degree that it is currently maintained. He said the
Authority will have the same problem as the Highway Department as far as
getting snow plows to that area. He said that removal of snow will not be a
top priority, but it will be done.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing for September 7 on
the closing of Route 614. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie commented that he does not think it is fair to close the park
to everybody because the people who are causing the trouble cannot be con-
trolled. He said that there was a similar problem elsewhere in the County,
and neither a gate nor the Sheriff's deputies could stop ~the intruders. He
said that if someone wants to get into the property, he or she will find a
She park' s regula-
way. He added that there will have to be enforcement of i,
tions even with the gate. He noted, though, that this is different than a
public park, so he will support the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow!ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstromi Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Report: Alignment of Meadow Creek
Parkway North of the River.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:15 A.M. and retdrned at 10:20 A.M.)
Mr. Horne reported that the Board members have a memdrandum that he sent
to Mr. Agnor on June 23, 1988, that summarized the actions taken by the
Planning Commission at its June 21st meeting. Attached to the memorandum is a
staff report on the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment and a feasibility study as
well as two consultants' reports. At the June 21st meeting, the Commission
considered various recommendations for alignments of the ~eadow Creek Parkway
north of Rio Road to the Hollymead growth area, not only {he portion of the
parkway between Rio Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna River, but also the
alignment north of the River. Mr. Horne asked the member~ of the Board to
refer to the alignment maps in their packets and said thei~Commission is
recommending Alignment A (the Comprehensive Plan alignment) between Rio Road
and the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Alignment B n~rth of the Rivanna
River to Proffit Road and Route 29. He said that the Boa~d.?~ has seen a compar-
ison between the Comprehensive Plan alignment and the CAT~ alignment south of
the river. He added that at the meeting when the comparig,'onTM was made, the
Board deferred action until it could see an analysis of the entire roadway.
Mr. Horne then showed maps of the two alignments discussed~'..
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes an interchange~would be needed at Proffitt
Road. Mr. Home responded that this is a possibility, bu~~ a lot depends on
the design of the roadway and how it will be used in conjunction with other
improvements. He said Mr. Lindstrom had brought up a ver~ good point. He
pointed out that'this interchange would not be in the cos~i analysis, but the
other intersection that he discussed is included.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that something besides an intDrchange could
possibly be done that would make traffic move smoothly ont~ the Meadow Creek
Parkway. Mr. Home said it might be best to build substantial, graded inter-
sections such as the ones at Hydraulic and Rio Roads as long as it is under-
stood that an actual interchange might have to be installe~, as traffic
increases.
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
429
Mrs. Cooke asked if heavy duty trucks could be eliminated on a parkway.
Mr. Home responded that designs in some states are referred to as parkways
and limit traffic to automobiles. He does not know if truck traffic can be
eliminated from this roadway, because the road will be maintained by the
State.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the road will be State-maintained throughout the
County and the City. Mr. Lindstrom replied that the road will be State-
maintained only to the City limits. Mr. Bowie stated that if the City pro-
hibits trucks from using its portion of the roadway, the County would have to
get permission from the Highway Department to put up similar signs. If
permission is not granted, however, he thinks something would have to be
placed at the northern end of the roadway advising truck drivers that they
cannot drive through the City Limits.
Mr. Home said the staff believes that prohibiting trucks would reduce
noise. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that a traffic count has revealed that out
of 50,000 vehicle trips, only 782 of these trips were made by trucks.
Mr. Home then spoke to the Board about whether an interchange is needed
at the intersection of Rio Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said this is
a serious problem. It appears to the staff that, given the volumes of traffic
on these two roadways and their design, that an interchange is needed. He
said the design is complex, but it is not addressed in the report. He said
the staff has requested assistance from VDoT,.'~who has been unable to help
because of the many uncertainties that have keen raised. He said that in-
stalling an interchange there would significantly affect the proposed entrance
to the Dunlora subdivision, which has final Plats pending before the Planning
Commission. He added that the staff does not~ have the in-house capability to
draft such a design, and he thinks that it would entail a substantial amount
of time and funding to create a design for an~interchange that would at least
suffice to identify the amount of land that would have to be acquired. He
pointed out that if the subdivision is allowed to go to record, or if certain
portions are constructed, and at a later dat~ an interchange is needed, it
will be very difficult to do.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he does not.~see how the roadway can function
properly without an interchange at Rio Road. He thinks that it is important
for the Board to get this information and for the land to be acquired as soon
as possible.
Mrs. Cooke wondered what the impact of the roadway would be on the
residences that are within the vicinity of the Southern Railroad bridge
crossing Free State Road. Mr. Horne responded that there will be a substan-
tial impact on the residences along Free State Road. He said it does not
appear to the consultant or the staff that thgre is a lot of difference
between the two general alignments. However, ithe alignment can be moved a
limited amount if it would substantially benefit some residences. He said
that this is not an engineering design; the r~adway can be moved slightly
depending on how much can be spent on additional fill or cut in order to
protect existing residences.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what is proposed at ~he Free State Road location.
Mr. Home answered that the roadway would probably go over the Free State
Road. Mr. Lindstrom stated that if the roadway was put under Free State Road,
it would minimize the impact on the existing ~ouses. He said, however, this
that Mr. ~indstrom s suggestion could be
would be costly. Mr. Horne replied ~ '
looked at in detail when an actual design is ~one. As this area develops, it
will become urbanized, and there will be a completely different pattern of
roadways, he said. Alternate access through ~ther roadways could then be
provided to Free State Road. ~
(At 10:38 A.M., the Chairman called a reqess. The meeting reconvened at
10:51 A.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom then discussed the development of the land behind Holly
Memorial Gardens and the Forest Lakes area. He said that instead of using
Alignment B as a controlled-access route, a r~adway similar to the one in
Hollymead could be used or Alignment A could ~e built to go in that direction
430
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
and become a residential collector street. He suggested that this would
funnel traffic into Meadow Creek Parkway proper.
Mr. Home said there are a lot of options as to what can be done in
relation to the developed residential areas. He said that under Alignment A,
it is assumed that a major residential collector roadway will go into Powell
Creek Drive and Powell Creek Drive will become an internal residential street.
He went on to say that the proposal indicates a limited access facility from a
point at the dam, south, but it would have to turn into some sort of con-
trolled access facility as opposed to a higher speed interchange.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how traffic in Hollymead would ~each this limited
access roadway. Mr. Horne answered that the CATS alignment shows a very short
connector road. It would be an intersection that would serve the developed
area of the Hollymead Subdivision from the area south of the lake. He said,
though, that there are a number of ways that this could be done.
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Meadow Creek Parkway is going to be an alter-
nate for some of the traffic from Route 29 heading to the downtown area, he is
pleased to see a recommendation for a limited access facility. He is con-
cerned, however, because he thinks there should be ways to connect the major
residential areas along the Parkway, including Carrsbrook, Westmoreland,
Woodbrook, Hollymead and the areas that are being develoPed north of
Hollymead, to allow them some access at specific points to get on this road.
Mrs. Cooke pointed out that there is easy access from the Carrsbrook area
to the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Horne commented that when Rio Road is redeveloped as a five-lane
facility, it will handle a tremendous amount of traffic.
Mr. Way suggested that the Board vote on these issues in the order in
which they are presented, i
Mr. Bain said that he would like to know how the plamning Commission
feels about the issues. Mr. Horne said the Commission members agreed with the
staff that the roadway should be a limited access with a lower design speed,
and its primary function should be to move large amounts ~f automobile com-
muter traffic out of the Hollymead and future Hollymead g~owth area, as well
as some limited amount of automobile traffic that will be!~'on Route 29. When
Route 29 is improved, the roadway will not be needed as m~ch as it is now.
Therefore, the Commission felt that the most important fu~ction of the roadway
would be to carrY automobile commuter traffic, either from the growth of
Hollymead or the northern areas of the County as well as ~raffic from northern
counties. Mr. Horne said the Commission disagreed, however, with the staff's
conviction that Alignment A would handle this traffic better than Alignment B.
Mr. Horne then explained the Commission's position with t~e use of the maps.
Mr. Bain said he believes traffic will come off of Rqute 29 more readily
to use Alignment A. Mr. Horne replied that if interchanges, intersections or
turning movements are involved, it will be a complex maneUVer for someone who
is interested only in going to the growth area. If a smo~ither transition is
approved, the staff is concerned that traffic will come f~om north of the
growth area and some of the industrial areas, and this might funnel inappro-
priate traffic through the heart of a residential area. ~
If this problem is to be avoided, Mr. Lindstrom said,i a spur could be
constructed that would connect with Proffit Road, without ~n interchange, and
without a facility on Route 29 to encourage people to use ~his roadway.
However, if someone is commuting to the City along Proffi~iRoad, then he or
she could use this roadway. He said the spur would run thorough the northern
residential area and would be a residential collector roadway which would
collect the traffic from Forest Lakes and the surrounding.
this would save some money. He then suggested that Alignm
another spur that would access Hollymead and the northern
beyond Hollymead but that would not have a formal connecti
Proffit Road.
Mr. Horne suggested that if this is the alignment the
road to take, the land could be acquired for an interchang
·rea. He noted that
~nt A be run with
~esidential areas
~n to Route 29 or
Board wishes the
~, but it would not
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
431
have to be built immediately. Then the traffic could be analyzed and at some
point an interchange added. He reminded the Board that this recommendation is
in the consultant's report.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that there is a void in the information concerning
traffic patterns. If a western bypass is constructed, there will still be a
lot of traffic left on Route 29. He said it has been assumed that the Meadow
Creek Parkway design will divert a substantial amount of traffic from that
section of Route 29 as well as the bypass. However, no amount of traffic has
been stipulated. Mr. Home agreed and said that the Board needs to resolve
what it wants analyzed. He said the staff is not talking about the same type
of facility as the Transportation Committee suggested.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is hard to know what the traffic model will show
when it is completed. He thinks the design that the staff and the Planning
Commission is considering is compatible withi~what the City wants Meadow Creek
Parkway to do. The City does not want commercial, industrial, or "through"
traffic on the Meadow Creek Parkway. He thinks that the planning staff and
Commission are saying the same thing because.they want the roadway to be a
residential collector street that will facilState commuters.
Mr. Horne emphasized that this design is the same design that was sent
for an Environmental Impact Study by VDOT for the section of the road south of
Rio Road. It is a limited-access roadway deSigned for a speed limit of 20
miles an hour, not a high speed expressway or freeway. It is a four- lane,
divided highway, and it will handle a lot of traffic, but it has a lot of
curvature and vertical and horizontal alignment changes to make it compatible
with residential, automobile traffic. He added that it is important that the
issue be resolved concerning what type of roadway this will be because the
decision cannot be delayed much longer. He ~aid he knows the Board does not
have access to some important information on!!.this project this morning.
Mr. Lindstrom said designing the roadway the way the staff and Commission
have described it will add to the pressure f~r another facility, whether it be
an expressway or a bypass, to handle the commercial and industrial traffic. He
does not think that this is an acceptable alternative for the traffic on the
Route 250 Bypass and McIntire Road.
Mr. Home told the Board that the Commis~sion recommends that the 'Board
choose Alignment B with a controlled-access ~acility north of the Lake,
assuming that Proffit Road will be used and ~n interchange will be installed
at some point in the future. Mr. Home noted that if an alignment is chosen
over one that connects farther north, it ptad!es more pressure on the Board to
maintain the limited access and development ~ction that feeds directly onto
Route 29. He then pointed out the location df the proposed limited access
facility on the map. He said that it would ~e located approximately 800 to
1000 feet north of Route 643.
Mrs. Cooke asked which design is propos~:d to take care of residential
traffic and truck traffic. Mr. Horne replie~i that neither design is proposed
to take care of truck traffic. They are bot~i designed strictly for residen-
tial traffic. ~
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he still would'suggest that a combination plan
be considered which would run a spur up to Proffit Road. This would allow for
traffic to be collected in northern residential areas, but would not encourage
commuter traffic that was coming down Route 29. The other spur that was
suggested to go behind Hollymead School would.~not have to be built because
Hollymead traffic would have another connection.
Mr. Home agreed that this is a viable o~tion. He noted that the State
will not accept a public road built across the dam in Hollymead. He said the
connection to the parkway would have to be ma4e south of the dam. Mr. Home
also noted that if certain connections are ma~e, the only portion of the
roadway that would be missing would be the portion of the already existing
Powell Creek Drive. If this portion was included, the roadway could go all of
the way to Proffit Road. If a formalized con~ection is not made on Proffit
Road, the roadway would handle the Hollymead ~rowth area traffic and some
limited amount of Proffit Road traffic.
432
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowie stated that when the final choice is made in some future year,
there would be three options available with this plan.
Mr. Lindstrom wondered if the Board should consider the residential areas
beyond Proffit Road. He said he cannot visualize where the road would go if
it went beyond Proffit Road. Mr. Horne replied that there is not much in that
area now, but a lot of people would like to develop there. Mr. Bain commented
that if the road went beyond Proffit Road, the traffic would then be pulled
through the residential area.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the worst thing the Board could do would be
to under-design the potential of the road. Mr. Horne agreed that it is beSt
to have as many options open as possible. However, he iterated that the Board
needs to come to some reasonably firm idea of what to build through the growth
area. He said it is a major complication to everyone, as that area is devel-
oped, if it is not known what is intended to be built in terms of design. He
added that the County will have to start to finance incremental sections of
the roadway, also.
Mr. Bain commented that Forest Lakes has 120 foot dedication rights. Mr.
Home said Forest Lakes is volunteering 120 feet, which is adequate for their
roadway. He said that there is a complication: the roadway, according to
VDOT, cannot be built as a residential street all the wa~ to the parkway. Mr.
Horne said the roadway will have to be built beyond the developer's require-
ments, but below the standards for the parkway. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is necessary to have a vote for the
record as to what the nature of the road will be. He then made a motion that
the Meadow Creek Parkway be designed as a residential collector road with
limited access. He said he considers the route and wher~ the road will
terminate as a separate decision.
Mr. Bain stated that he has no problem with Mr. Lin~strom's suggestion,
as long as some distinction can be made in the Hollymead~area.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the staff is processing final plats from north
of the Hollymead Dam that do not contemplate limited access.
At this point, Mr. Lindstrom changed his motion so ~hat it would not
include a reference to a limited access.
Mr. St. John voiced his concern that the road may n~t qualify for VDoT's
funding if there are limitations as to how the road will ibe used. Mr. Home
said the VDOT will not fund this road. Mr. St. John commented that YDoT had
indicated that it might reconsider the issue at some futqre time.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he would withdraw his mot{on. He said the
concensus of the Board is clear, but he does not know if khe types of vehicles
that will use the roadway can be controlled. He said he ~elieves the Board's
desire is to design the roadway as a residential collector road.
Mr. Bain wondered if Mr. Lindstrom's motion could bet tied into what the
Board has already done with the Meadow Creek Parkway sout~ from Rio Road. He
said it could be based on the VDoT's design and could be ~ residential collec-
tor street. He stated that this should not preclude the Board from receiving
funds from the VDoT, if the approval for the northern section is tied in with
what has been approved south of Rio Road. ii
Mr. Home pointed out that the design the consultant, s report shows north
of Rio Road is identical to the design characteristics th~At were done south of
Rio Road by VDoT.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the Board needs to make~ia decision, but he
does not think that any assistance for construction of th~ road should be
precluded. He believes that it will alleviate a substantial amount of pres-
sure from Route 29, no matter what type of road it is.
Mrs. Cooke reminded the Board that Mr. Horne has specifically asked for
direction, and she thinks that the Board needs to do what he has asked it to
do.
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
433
Mr. Perkins remarked that the road under the railroad bridge is not
recommended because of the flood plain aspect. He asked if there is any
possibility that by raising the level of the storage capacity of the Rivanna
Reservoir, the level of flooding might be reflected and this change might be
incorporated. This would eliminate an expensive portion of the roadway that
deals with the railroad bridge. Mr. Horne responded that the bridge construc-
tion needs a lot of design work. He said thaH he has always assumed that the
staff will consider this option. Mr. Perkins stated that storage and control
of the stream would have to be considered.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, that the
Meadow Creek Parkway be designed as a residential collector road. There was
no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom next stated that he would like to suggest that the road
follow the Comprehensive Plan alignment south of the river and that it follow
Alignment A north of the river. He also asked that the Board consider short-
ening the connector road by going across the!Hollymead Dam and on to Proffit
Road. He pointed out that he would like to ihave the lower standard, residen-
tial collector road extend along one of the two alignments.
Mr. Home said that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is almost identical to
what is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Ghat roadway. He said that this
alignment is shown in the plan but there is ~also a major connection shown at
Route 643.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that using the Comprehensive Plan alignment would
avoid environmental and residential problems~
Mr. Bowie suggested that two motions might make it clearer for Board
members to understand. He said he would like to see cost comparisons. He
pointed out that if Alignment A is approved,~the roadway would have to go
across Hollymead Dam. He wonders what will be involved with maintaining the
dam, and what the comparative costs would bei.if the roadway went another way.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
alignment south of the River which is shown in the County's existing Compre-
hensive Plan, and to adopt Alignment A north of the River. There was no
further discussion. 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.
Mr. Lindstrom then brought up the question of whether the northern
connector road from Alignment A toward the P~offit Road would go over the dam
or to the east of the dam. Mr. Home said the dam is suitable for a two-lane
roadway and no more than that.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the consultant, staff and Commission all propose a
four-lane road. Mr. Home replied, "yes." Me pointed out on the map where
the road is proposed to be a four-lane, undivided roadway. He said, though,
that if the road is moved farther north, less and less traffic will be gener-
ated in the growth area, particularly if the connection is deleted. Because
of this, the roadway may potentially become a two- or three-lane roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom said the alignment the Board has approved would be limited
access. He said the question about access would be on the northern spur road.
Mr. Horne said the consultant's report ~nd the staff recommend that the
access be controlled. Individual residential connections would not be
allowed, but there would be at-grade, residential street connections that
would be relatively widely separated, at lea~t 600 feet apart. He reminded
the Board that there will not be multiple connections to heavily congest the
434
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
roadway. He mentioned again that the road is not designed for high speeds,
but it will be able to handle a lot of volume. It will take people out of the
growth area to the point where they can get to a roadway with a higher speed.
Mr. Bain mentioned the controlled access roadway located in the area of
Forest Lakes, and said he would like to eliminate as many traffic lights there
as possible. Mr. Lindstrom suggested identifying the residential communities
and having one access point per community.
Mr. Bowie said he thought there already was more than one access point
per community. Mr. Horne said this is true with Forest Lakes, but different
standards could be applied at other communities. He said that with this
design there is a connection at Powell Creek Drive, and he thinks that it is
anticipated that there would be one other connection to serve some of the
southern growth areas.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he thinks that there should be a Board
resolution that specifically states where the intersections will be located.
Mr. Way said that something needs to be decided about the spur road.
Mr. Horne replied that he thinks the Board should consider a connection
to Proffit Road that goes over the Hollymead Dam, another connection that
avoids that dam, and cost comparisons between the two. ~e pointed out that
the costs would be relatively minimal if the road that goes over the dam is
used, because the roadway is already there.
Mr. Bain said the eastern spur could bring all the ~raffic coming from
Powell Creek Drive onto the Parkway and he thinks that this alternative is
more sensible. He also believes that this will cut off more potential inter-
sections.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by M~. Lindstrom, that the
section of roadway north of Alignment A be a controlled access roadway, and
that the staff prepare a cost comparison of Alignment A ~d Alignment B.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and th~ motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a description of these !actions of the Board
be sent to the Charlottesville City Council, the County P~lanning Commission
and the University representatives. He then asked Mr. H~rne to come to the
Joint Transportation Committee Meeting tomorrow and describe what has happened
at this meeting. Mr. Lindstrom also suggested that these same people be
notified of the public hearing date when one is set by th'e Board.
Mr. Home said he needs to consult with some people !~s to how the inter-
change can be designed. He mentioned that he will need some engineering
expertise that will be reasonably sophisticated and will ~e coordinated with
VDoT. Mr. Home said he also needs authorization from the Board for funds to
be used in the design needed for the interchange at Rio Rbad. He said he did
not know exactly how much money would be needed for the d~sign of the inter-
change. Mr. Agnor suggested that the staff bring back to.~ the Board an esti-
mate of how much funding-is actually needed. ~.~
Mr. Bowie commented that he will support whatever isl~ needed to take care
of these matters pertaining to the Meadow Creek Parkway. . However, he does not
support transferring any money at this time, since this i~ just the second
week of the fiscal year. ~
Mr. Horne said the report indicates what future actions are required by
the Board. He said that since the Board has chosen an alternate route over
the one adopted in the Comprehensive Plan, he recommends that a public hearing
be held separately from the re-adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. This would
formally include the new alternate alignment in the Comprehensive Plan. After
the Public Hearing is conducted, and if the Board chooses~~ to adopt the align-
ment, the next item that needs to be considered is some level of design
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
435
funding to start setting the alignment more accurately. Mr. Horne informed
the Board that there are some crucial points near the Dunlora Subdivision that
need to be handled first. He went on to say that there are other places where
the alignment needs to be set and the rights-of-way need to be acquired, or
the people need to be informed precisely where the rights-of-way are to be
located.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what is in the Capital Improvements Programs for
these items. Mr. Horne responded that there is nothing relating to these
items in the capital budget. He added that the design funding will be rela-
tively expensive on this project.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have a discussion on designs. Mr.
Home replied that the total design of the roadway needs to be decided,
including the connections. Once this has been accomplished, Mr. Home and his
staff can come back to the Board with a report of critical components that
need to be designed. He pointed out that if important issues are not settled
soon, he is concerned that the Board may be foreclosed from making appropriate
designs.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the proposed right-of-way design for the Meadow
Creek Parkway is 120 feet. Mr. Horne answered, "yes." Mr. Lindstrom stated
that it seems to him that when a road is being designed, the right-of-way is
the most critical thing. He said that if a road is designed for a divided
roadway with four lanes of traffic, a few years from now, there might be more
traffic there than can be conveniently handled. If the design uses all of the
right-of-way, there will be nothing left. He noted that Route 29 had excess
rights-of-way, and that is the reason options are available there. He said,
as an example, if the County acquired an additional 80 feet of right-of-way,
it could amount to an additional $500,000. If the additional rights-of-way
are not needed until 25 years from now, the cost would be considerably more.
A 160-foot right-of-way would cost approximately half that amount. He pointed
out that $250,000 for the whole length of th~ road is a minor portion of the
total costs. Acquiring more right-of-way would allow expansion in the future
and the road can be designed wi~h trees and ~atural vegetation. With the whole
project estimated to cost between $17 millio~ and $19 million, he said, an
extra quarter of a million dollars will crea~e a lot of potential for the
future.
Mr. Perkins asked if there are setback ~equirements on this road. Mr.
Home answered that there are requirements for structural setbacks. He said
that if it is felt that additional rights-of'way will be needed in the future,
it would be best to acquire them now.
Mr. Lindstrom then said that if extra flights-of-way are acquired now,
they should be put in the middle of the road. By doing this, people would
know exactly where the road will be, and there would never be the problem of
encroaching on their property with a setback and making their houses closer to
the facility.
Mr. Bain agreed that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is sensible. He said it
might be good to acquire 160 feet for the rig~ts-of-way, but he feels that to
acquire 200 feet would be too much.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was impressed with the work the Department did on
the bridge at Bailey's Cur~ (Route 20 North).
Mr. Way said he had received several complaints from citizens concerning
high grass at "The Oaks" on Route 719 and asked if the VDoT would do something
about it. ~
Agenda Item No. 8. Low-Income Housing Progress Report on Staff Assess-
ment of County-Sponsored Project.
436
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Mr. Horne presented a Planning Staff report and sua~narized the following
three short term options related to the provision of adequate housing for low
and moderate income families: pursuit of additional vouchers for the existing
VHDA Section 8 Rental Subsidy Program; pursuit of funding from Virginia
Housing Development Authority to establish a Rental Rehabilitation Program;
and participation in a pilot public/private sector program such as the Trust
Fund for Housing Investment.
Mr. Bain commended the staff for an excellent report in terms of outlin-
ing the issues and the problems. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Bain
concerning the report, but would like to focus on a County project like the
project in Nelson County at Shipman and attempt to work with the Blue Ridge
Home Builders. He also thinks there may need to be someone on the County
Staff who addresses only housing issues. That person would coordinate the
project using both private and public funds.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the report is excellent and gives the Board
direction. He does not know, however, if another task force is needed, but
this can be considered at a later time. He said he has met with members of
the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, and they have suggested including a
certain number of low-income houses in a large developmeht. He thinks that
the idea should be pursued.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there have been enough general studies on
the problem of low-income housing. He would like to have specific information
on the funding, and the mix of private and public support, of the Shipman
project.
Mr. Way said he would support a task force to look at suggestions and
make recommendations.
Mr. Bowie said he would like information on a pilot project. He said the
County already funds every one of the agencies listed in the report. He said
that the funding aspect would have to be considered if he is to support a task
force. ~
Mr. Bain said he would like to see the matter movedi~quickly. He sug-
gested that six to nine months would be a reasonable tim~ for a task force to
draft its priorities. He said he is also willing to support the hiring of a
separate coordinator, if necessary. He would like to hear the staff's com-
ments as to whether or not there is time for someone to ~e hired who would be
in charge of such a project.
Mr. Tucker replied that the staffing of the task force would probably be
difficult to handle with existing staff. After completio'n of the Comprehen-
sive Plan update, work could begin on the project and at!:a future time a task
force could be appointed, realizing that extra staff wil~ibe needed at that
time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that a task force, will be put into
motion, and the pilot project will be lost. He does not ~ave strong feelings
about a task force, but he does feel strongly about this ~pecific type of
project. He suggested setting a deadline to consider a task force after the
Comprehensive Plan review is over. .
Mr. Bowie moved that the staff get further information on how to start a
project similar to the one in Shipman, either a stick-built or a modular home
subdivision, and to define the duties for a task force. Mrs. Cooke seconded
the motion. Mr. Bain asked that the staff determine the number of people who
could be helped by this type of housing project.
Mr. Francis Fife, representing the Charlottesville Housing Foundation,
said that CHF is available to provide assistance to the C~unty if it so
· i
desires. Also,' concerning fundmng, the county should look at all sources,
federal, state, local and the private sectors. Mr. Bowieliincluded those
statements in his motion. There was no further discussiog. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: li
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstromt Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ?
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
437
Agenda Item No. 12. Rural Historic District, discussion of.
Received as information was a memorandum dated July 8, 1988, from Mr.
John T. P. Home addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor Jr., entitled "Rural Historic
District - Keswick Area"; letter addressed to Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr., from Ms.
Kat Imhoff, Director of Planning Services, Piedmont Environment Council, dated
June 1, 1988; petitions signed by approximately 98 residents of the Mont-
pellet-Monticello corridor in the Southwest ~ountain Region requesting that
the area be declared a Rural Historic DistriCt by the Commonwealth of Vir-
ginia; and a map entitled "Southwest Mountains Area Resource Preservation
Study - Piedmont Environmental Study."
Mr. Home said his staff has looked at the general characteristics of the
Keswick area, and has seen the boundary map Of the area that is being proposed
as a rural historic district. The staff has also looked at the general
provisions of this type of rural historic district and feel that this is a
logical first step toward some type of historic preservation activity in the
County. Even if the Board chooses not to do other things locally, these
districts can be beneficial in terms of raising public awareness of the
historic nature of an area. He said the staff believes this is a beneficial
activity for Piedmont Environmental Council to be undertaking and is support-
ive of it.
Ms. Katherine Imhoff, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council,
said the CoUncil is seeking support from the Board for the concept of having a
Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. This request for support is well
in advance of a formal nomination and is needed in order for the Division of
Historic Landmarks to put the district on its 1988 work program. She said
this process will take a year or two. She m~ntioned that one of the things
required to obtain a rural historic district designation is to show that 50
percent of the buildings are buildings that are older than 50 years. During
the course of the next year, she said, the Division of Historic Landmarks will
survey the buildings that were not covered by the study and decide where the
boundaries of the district should be. She then pointed out an orange line
which demarcates a proposed change in the CoUnty's Comprehensive Plan's
Neighborhood Three. If zoning changes, the Bivision of Historic Landmarks
would probably re-adjust the boundaries of t~e rural historic district. She
said she hopes that the Franklin House, which lies in this area, can be kept
in the rural historic district, because it is a very significant and contrib-
uting building to the area.
Ms. Imhoff read a letter from the Division of Historic Landmarks which
stated that because of a financial "crunch," ithe Division will not proceed
with the nomination unless Albemarle County s~pports listing the area on the
state and national registers. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that a rural historic
designation does not impose any land use contlrols nor does it restrict the
property owners' use of the property in any way. It provides some tax bene-
fits for owners of historic homes, but its most important tool is that of
recognizing a cultural resource. She noted that the Barbour/Madison historic
district surrounds the Montpelier area, and it is the largest historic dis-
trict in the state. She said that this proposed district would be a natural
extension and would help link the two estates~, of Monticello and Montpelier.
Mr. Lindstrom said this district will pr~otect the corridors and the
environments around Monticello, but in between are the Southwest Mountains,
which do not contain many historical homes. ~s. Imhoff pointed out that a
historic district seeks to preserve not only ~uildings, but historic land-
scapes as 'well. '1
Mr. Way asked if there would be a proble~ for the County to build low-
income housing or a road in a rural historic ~istrict, or to extend utilities
there. Ms. Imhoff replied that the designati~n would not affect local
projects such as a local housing project or ailproject being done by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, unless the~iCounty had its own historic
district overlay. ~
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that it seems to him that as long as the district
is in a rural area as shown on the ComprehensSve Plan, and if it is a rural
438
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
area that is not likely to change, he cannot imagine a project that would be
contrary to the district. He said that this brings into question, however,
the area on the southwest corner of the County where the Planning Commission
is recommending an expansion of the urban area.
Ms. Imhoff explained that the Board would have an opportunity to look at
the boundary lines during the process of obtaining rural historic district
designation because there would be a number of public hearings required. She
added that this action today will indicate to the State that the County is
interested in discussing whether there should be a rural historic district in
the area. She pointed out that this.would in no way obligate the Board to
approve a district or limit boundary changes. She said that she was aware
that the Board was considering changes in Neighborhood Three. She also wanted
the Board to know that there could be a change in the boundary with the
possible deletion of Key West from the district.
Mr. Home mentioned that the designated village of Stony Point lies in
this district. Ms. Imhoff responded that this village had been discussed with
Historic Landmarks and, as long as it has a village designation, it will fit
the rural historic district concept. She informed the Board that Mr. Bobby
Coles was present earlier to represent the Southwest Mountain Alliance, but he
was unable to stay. Mr. Coles wanted it to be known that! the Alliance sup-
ports this request. She said that Ms. Judy Vermillion wanted to speak to the
Board.
Ms. Vermillion said that she lives at Franklin and supports the rural
historic district concept as long as this district will not put any restric-
tions on the County as far as land use is concerned. Sh~i does have a problem
with the boundaries, however, and thinks that they need ~urther study. She
did not know until today that her area would be eliminated because the zoning
designation in her area is being changed in the revised Comprehensive Plan.
She requested that this area not be rezoned so that it can be a part of the
rural historic district. !~
Mr. Bowie said he would like to see this idea go forward. He then
offered motion to endorse the concept of a Rural Histori~ District and asked
the staff to look at the boundaries and monitor the section presented at the
meeting. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Way said he would support
the concept, but has a lot of questions. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel. At 12:56 P.M.,
motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to~adjoun into execu-
tive session for the stated purpose. Roll was called and~the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom!~ Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:02 P.M. with Mr. Perkins
being absent for the remainder of the meeting. ~
Agenda Item No. 15. Dog Leash Law, Request to include Key West/Cedar
Hill subdivisions.
Mr. Agnor said the Board has received copies of petitions from the
residents of Key West and Cedar Hill Subdivisions requesting that those
subdivisions be added to the areas where dogs are prohibited from running at
large. He said that the petitioners represent 123 of 189~occupied residences.
Of the remaining 66 households, there were 36 recorded as%being opposed, 13
with no opinion and two with a mixed opinion. Fifteen were unable to be
contacted.
Mr. Bowie said he would give his comments at the pubiic hearing and then
offered motion to set this matter for public hearing on S~ptember 7, 1988, at
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
7:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain.
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
4 3'9
Roll was called and the
Agenda Item No. 16. Sheriff's Department-Additional Bailiff, Request to
Appeal Decision of State Compensation Board.
Mr. Agnor said the State Compensation Board was recently requested to
authorize an additional position in the County Sheriff's Department to serve
as bailiff in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. City Council joined
in the request. The Compensation Board advised this week that the position
was not funded. The staff recommends that the County request the City to join
in an appeal of this decision.
Sheriff Hawkins addressed the Board and asked that the Board join him in
his appeal of this decision by the Compensation Board. The Sheriff then gave
the Board members copies of two letters that were sent by Judge Ralph Zehler
to Mr. Cole Hendrix ten years ago stating.the need for a new bailiff. He said
that the second letter indicated that "there"may be some funding in 1979 to
remedy the situation". Sheriff Hawkins said, however, that nothing ever
happened as a result of these two letters, bdt he thinks they may help now.
He said that the statistics shown in the letters written by Judge Zehler have
increased over the past ten years, and he feels that there is an even bigger
need now. He said the Chairman of the Compensation Board has also encouraged
him to appeal the decision. He went on to say that he has discussed these
letters with Judge Zehler, and Judge Zehler has informed him that in most of
the jurisdictions where he works, there are between four and five officers
assigned to the juvenile court system. He pdinted out that these are individ-
ual jurisdictions, and this is a joint opera~ion with the City of
Charlottesville. He feels that the Compensation Board should take all of this
into consideration when it addresses this apDeal process.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the
County Executive's recommendation to appeal the decision of the State Compen-
sation Board and to request that the City of!Charlottesville join in partici-
pating in the appeal. .~
There was no further discussion. Roll ~as called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact
Chapter 5 "Buildings" of the Code of Albemarle, Section 5-3, providing for a
fee for inspecting amusement rides, as provided in Section 600.6.1 of the
Virginia Statewide Building Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
June 28 and July 5, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor summarized the reason for adoPtion of the ordinance (see
minutes of June 8, 1988). The public hearin§ was opened. With no one present
to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was. offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following ordinance.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMENDAND REENACT
CHAPTER 5, "BUILDINGS" OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE,
SECTION 5-3, PROVIDING FOR A FEE
FOR INSPECTING AMUSEMENT RIDES,
AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 600.6.1 OF THE
VIRGINIA STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE
440
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 5-3 of the Code of Albemarle be, and it is hereby,
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5-3 Permit fees.
(d) Mechanical permits.
(18) Amusement rides.
Kiddie ride ...... $ 15.00
Major ride ....... $ 24.00
Spectacular ride. $ 45.00
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 9. Police Reserve: Ordinance and Operating Procedures.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a draft of an ordinance creating the
auxiliary police unit which was approved last year, but ~etitling this unit as
the "Community Service Officers" unit. Staff has recommended this change to
disassociate this unit from auxiliary police officers whO, under State law,
carry weapons and have powers of arrest, neither of which was authorized by
the Board. He also presented a draft of the Operating Procedures for the
program, and said that a public hearing should be scheduled on the ordinance
on August 10.
It was agreed that the word "medical" in the last s~ntence of the ordi-
nance would be changed to "workmen's compensation". It ~as suggested that
near the end of the operating procedures, the fourth sentence beginning
"However, any complaint" and ending "guidelines" be deleted, as well as the
paragraph which follows those words. It was also suggested that language
pertaining to training be clarified to state that the in,service training
required is part of the 240 hours of service.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain to set the ordinance for public
hearing on August 10, 1988, with the changes suggested. ~The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstro~!, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 11. Revocation of SP-77-83 and SP-83-5 (David Lee
Spradlin), discussion of.
Received for the record were: a letter dated July 51 1988, from Mr.
Charles W. Burgess, Jr., Zoning Administrator, addressed to the Board of
Supervisors; a copy of a letter dated June 15, 1988, from'the County Attorney,
addressed to Messrs. Burgess, Tucker and Agnor. Handed out at this meeting
was a memorandum dated July 13, 1988, from Mr. Charles W.~ Burgess, Jr., to the
Board of Supervisors, with attachments.
Mr. Burgess said a Special Use Permit was approved in 1978 for the
operation of a public garage by Mr. Spradlin. Over the past six years the
Zoning Department has sent Mr. Spradlin, the owner and operator of this public
garage, three notices. Mr. Spradlin has been served twice with warrants and
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
441
has appeared on two occasions in the General District Court for operating a
junk yard and, on two occasions, he has been convicted and fined. After the
last conviction this past June, there is still a minimum of 200 inoperable
vehicles on the property. He said there was a stipulation that this use was
not for an automobile graveyard as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board also approved a Special Use Permit for a mobile home to be used
for an office on this same property. Mr. Burgess said that this Special Use
Permit stipulated that the existing wooded area was to remain in its natural
state, but some of the vehicles are now located in the wooded area. Mr.
Burgess stated that he, Mr. Thacker, the inspector, and Mr. St. John are here
before the Board to discuss the possibilities of having a Public Hearing to
have a revocation of these Special Use Permits.
Mr. St. John con~ented that in 1984 the Board held a hearing to consider
whether to revoke these same permits. Mr. Spradlin and his attorney came,
made certain assurances and convinced the Board not to revoke them. Mr.
Burgess said at.that time, and on a previous occasion before the General
District Court, Mr. Spradlin cleaned the property by removing all'of the
inoperable vehicles. He added that on the last occasion there was in excess
of 500 vehicles on Mr. Spradlin's property, by his own admission to Mr.
Thacker.
Mr. Burgess added that Mr. Spradlin accumulated over 500 vehicles in a
three year period. He said that Mr. Spradlin had a crusher on the property
when he appeared in court this past winter. He then asked for a continuance
with the General District Court which would allow him four months to crush the
vehicles. Mr. Burgess went on to say that the crusher did a portion of the
vehicles, but did not complete the task.
Mr. Bowie then stated that the notification of the Board's action dated
April 25, 1983, clearly states that no more ~han two inoperable vehicles shall
be located on the property at any time. He asked if this stipulation has ever
been changed. Mr. Burgess replied, "no."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board had to~,~.do anything other than revoke the
permits. Mr. St. John answered that the Boated needs to set a public hearing
first. Notice will have to be served to Mr.~i!Spradlin, and the public hearing
will be advertised.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconde~ by Mr. Bowie, to advertise for a
public hearing on August 10, 1988, the revoc~tign of the noted special use
with notice of this public hearing ~eing given to Mr. Spradlin by the
permits,
Attorney. Roll was called and the mo~ion-- carried by the following
County
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None. ~..
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 13. Development Code Booklet, discussion of.
In response to a request made at the June 8, 1988, meeting, Mr. Agnor
said the staff has obtained cost estimates from vendors for printing a docu-
ment which contains the County's land development ordinances, along with a
comprehensive, general word index for the document. The staff feels the
estimate of $1,400 to $1,500 for the index is~reasonable, and recommends that
this cost be authorized, with the funds comi~
Account. However, the staff feels the printi
continue to pursue other methods of having th
Mr. Bowie said that he has no problem wi
He reminded the Board, however, that this is
; from the Board's Contingency
~g costs are excessive, and will
document printed.
proceeding with the project.
.nly the second week of the
fiscal year, and he does not want to use the iontingency Account unless it is
really necessary. He believes that $1,500 c~ be found somewhere else to
continue with the project.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to authorize the
staff to proceed with the development of a col'~rehensive general word index
442
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
for the County's development ordinances. There was no discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 18. Blood Borne Infectious Diseases, Personnel Policy.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a draft of the above noted policy. He
said this policy establishes a procedure for the attendance and work of
employees infected with viruses such as Hepatitis B or AIDS (Acquired
Deficiency Syndrome). It is intended to be used if and when needed, rather
than waiting and developing the policy as a reaction should such a situation
arise. County and School employees have recently attended informational
meetings on AIDS. The School Board has adopted a similar policy.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following policy. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PERSONNEL POLICY-
BLOOD BORNE INFECTIOUS CONDITIONS
The County Executive shall determine on a case-by-case basis the
attendance of employees known to be infected with a~blood borne virus
which may be transmitted by body fluids, such as the viruses causing
AIDS and hepatitis B. The County Executive shall seek a recommenda-
tion from an advisory committee to assist him in making his determina-
tion. The committee shall be composed of a physician from the public
health department and such other individuals as deemed appropriate by
the County Executive. The employee may be excludedi~from work pending
the County Executive's decision. The privacy right~ of the employee
involved shall be respected. The number of personnel who are made
aware of the employee's condition shall be minimizedl but shall not
serve to jeopardize the safety*of the employee or o~her persons within
the work environment. The County Executive shall ad~pt regulations
setting forth the procedures to be followed to effec% this policy.
Additionally, recognizing that there will be employees infected with
such viruses who have not been identified medically,i~all employees
shall be instructed in routine precautions which sh~l be followed to
minimize the exposure of any person to potentially infectious body
fluids. '~
The following procedure will be utilized in determining the attendance
at work of any employee known to be infected with a blood borne virus
which may be transmitted by body fluids, such as the!viruses causing
AIDS and hepatitis B. Each such determination will be made on a
case-by-case basis. This procedure will not apply t~ persons suffer-
ing from common childhood conditions such as measlesi~ chicken pox,
impetigo, strep throat, scarlet fever, head lice, etc.
The County Executive will establish a review committee
composed of the Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health
District or a public health physician designated by the
Director, the employee's treating physician, and the Direc-
tor of Personnel. After reviewing all pertinent information
regarding the employee and consulting with~the employee and
such other individuals as the review committee shall deem
necessary, the review committee shall makeia recommendation
to the County Executive regarding the employee's attendance
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
443
at work. The review committee may make such further recom-
mendations as it deems appropriate.
Decisions regarding employment and working conditions of
employees with blood borne infectious conditions should be
based upon the employees' work assignments, whether they are
physically able to complete assigned work and whether they
are likely to expose other workers to open skin lesions,
mucous membranes or other body secretions. In each case,
risks and benefits to both the infected employee and to
others in the workplace should be weighed.
The review committee shall confer within fourteen (14)
calendar days of being established and shall make its
recommendation to the County Executive as soon thereafter as
practical. The County Executive will notify the employee of
his decision within five (5) Working days after receiving
the review committee's recommendation. The employee may
appeal the County Executive's decision to the Board of
Supervisors. The request for~such appeal must be submitted
to the County Executive in writing within ten (10) calendar
days of the date of the County Executive's decision. Fail-
ure to request an appeal within the specified time will
constitute a waiver of the right to an appeal to the Board
of Supervisors.
The employee's status will be~re-evaluated based upon a plan
for periodic review which the ireview committee has formu-
lated.
The employees may be excluded from work for a period not to
exceed twenty (20) working days pending the County Execu-
tive's decision. Sick leave benefits may be used during
this period. If the decision is that the employee did not
have to be absent from work, all sick leave benefits used
during the twenty (20) day period will be returned to the
employee.
All parties involved shall respect the individual's right to
privacy. The number of personnel who are informed of the
employee's condition shall be kept at the minimum needed to
assure proper care of the employee and to appropriately
handle situations in which there is a potential for virus
transmission (e.g., bleeding injury).
If the employee is unable to return to work, application for
retirement disability through the retirement system and
social security will be pursued.
8. The Director of Personnel shall assure that a training
program will be provided for all employees which will
include routine precautions to be followed in minimizing
exposure to potentially infectious body fluids.
9. The County Executive shall be designated as the contact
person for all inquiries related to an employee who has a
blood borne infectious disease.i
Agenda Item No. 19. Virginia Commission !of the Arts Grant, Appropriation
of the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the V~rginia Discovery Museum.
Mr. Agnor said the County had applied for a grant from the Virginia
Commission of the Arts in the amount of $4,500 earlier in the year on behalf
of the Virginia Discovery Museun and the Piedmont Council of the Arts. The
Grant was approved and an appropriation is needed before the funds can be
disbursed.
444
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following appropriation resolution. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded, $2,250 to the Virginia Discovery Museun, and
$2,250 to the Piedmont Council of the Arts; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 20. Claim Against the Dog Tax Fund.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Mrs. Anne W. Coles of
Keswick for one sheep killed by dogs on March 12, 1988. Mrs. Coles requested
$120.00 for this claim. The Animal Control Officer recommended $75.00. Mr.
Agnor suggested a compromise price of $80.00.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to pay Mrs.
Coles $80.00 for this claim. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded ~vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstrOm, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to reappoint
Mr. Donald J. Wagner as a member of the Albemarle County~Service Authority
Board of Directors to a term which will expire on April 16, 1990, to represen~
the Charlottesville District. (Note: This is the last term which is amended
in order to make the terms of all members expire with thee term of the Board
member making the appointment.) There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded yore:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Co~oke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to reappoint
Mrs. Kathleen Martin Kennedy as a member of the Communit~ Services Board of
Directors for a term which will expire on June 30, 1991. !i Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstroM, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
Agenda Item No. 10. United Parcel Service Site on Lamb's Road, discus-
sion of rezoning.
Mr. Home summarized his memorandum to Mr. Agnor, dated June 8, 1988,
which describes the problem surrounding the rezoning of the United Parcel
Service site on Lambs Road. At the time of the approval of the special permil
for the relocation of United Parcel Service from the site on Lambs Road to a
site on Route 250 East, the Board of Supervisors asked the County Attorney an~
Planning staff to investigate the possibility of downzoning the existing site
on Lambs Road which is zoned LI, Light Industry. This has been discussed wit]
Mr. St. John and he has stated that a piece-meal downzoni~g of an individual
parcel must show that there has either been a change in circumstance, or that
July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
445
the original zoning was in error. The staff cannot assert either circum-
stance.
If the property is downzoned, it will still enjoy a nonconforming status
as a preexisting use for a trucking terminal, but not as to all other uses in
the present zoning district. Therefore, staff does not recommend action by
the Board to begin downzoning proceedings on this parcel.
Mr. Bain asked if the abandonment of the property by the current occupant
would constitute a change in circumstance. Mr. St. John replied that he
believes that this would be a weak argument.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he believes there was a mistake
involved, but that was something that was discussed in 1980, and people were
not ready to make this zoning decision at that time. Mr. St. John said that
if the Board was going to rezone this property, it would have had a stronger
position in 1980 because it would have been part of the comprehensive rezoning
of the entire County.
Mr. Lindstrom said "nonconforming use" has been redefined to recognize
any use no matter how ill-fitting it may be for the site. He said he hoped
things of this nature could be dealt with in another comprehensive zoning
review. Mr. Horne stated that his staff will be bringing to the Board in the
next few months some changes in the nonconforming section of the ordinance,
and the clause that Mr. Lindstrom mentioned Will be discussed.
Mr. St. John said that one rationale for the nonconforming section of the
ordinance is that the Board is making some uses nonconforming by downzoning.
He warned the Board that the more property t~at is downzoned and the more
nonconformities that are created, the more ~tizens will pressure the Board to
give them some kind of protection. ~
Mr. Way said that without a motion to the contrary, the staff's recommen-
dation would stand. There was no motion.
Agenda Item No. 21. Legislative Requests for VACo, discussion of.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to pass to
VACo the Board's support of the proposed amendment to Section 15.1-18.2
relating to service districts. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Home stated that last year there was a Joint House Resolution 125
that established a committee to analyze all ~f the proposals on off-site road
improvements, conditional zoning, and impact~fee legislation. This is an
expansion of local government powers to moved'more of the cost associated with
servicing development to the development itself. Mr. Home said that this
committee will be meeting in Charlottesville lin November for a Public Hearing.
The American Planning Association in Virgini~ is tracking this legislation and
is going to be making recommendations to the icommlttee. He thinks that the
Board should watch this legislation, and, onde it is known what this committee
is working toward, a statement could be made iby the County at the committee's
November meeting. He said that all of the i~sues that the committee will be
studying will be helpful to the County from ~ land management point of view,
and he thinks that the committee should be e~couraged to work on this legisla-
tion. ~
Mr. Agnor remarked that last year the Bomrd had asked VACO to support
impact fees, and he encouraged the Board to ask VACO to support any of this
legislation that would be helpful to the County.
Mr. Home added that the three specific things that VACO should be asked
to support are: impact fees, expansion of the conditional zoning legislation
446 July 13, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
and the ability to require off-site road improvements. He said that there are
bills that specifically reference these three items.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.
In reference to legislative proposals, Mr. Way said that for the past
several years, this Board has sent its opinions concerning legislation per-
taining to elected school boards to its representative in the General Assem-
bly. He suggested that these thoughts be forwarded to the Virginia Associa-
tion of Counties. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
None.
Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way asked if Board members had any other legislative matters. Mr.
Bowie commented that he does not understand the law stating that a student
must stay in school until he or she is 18. He thinks that the Board of
Supervisors should take a stand on this Bill even if the School Board does
not.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Bowie noted that when he moved to approve the minutes of May 22 and
March 19 this morning he meant the approval to be for the afternoon meetings
as noted on the agenda. ~
Mr. Agnor handed to the Board members the final copy of the spread sheet
for the Capital Improvements Program public hearing on July 27, 1988.
Mr. Agnor noted that for the School Board meeting on next Tuesday two
items to be discussed will be the Career Ladder Program and the educational
portion of the Capital Improvements Program; also a disciission of the Crozet
Elementary Replacement School.
Agenda Item No. 24. At 3:20 P~M., with no further ~usiness to come
before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to adjourn this meeting until July 19, 1988, at 4:00 P.M~ for a joint meeting
with the Albemarle County School Board. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following ~ecorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Perkins.