1988-03-09March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
656
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on March 9, 1988, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie and Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs.
Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 10:57 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom,
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
9:03 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. Lindstrom
and seconded by Mr. Bowie to accept the Consent Agenda as information. There
was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item No. 4.1. Letter dated March 1, 1988, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, concerning damage to Rey's Ford Bridge over Rivanna
River on Route 660; received as information.
"As you are aware an over weight limit load recently damaged the
Rey's Ford Bridge on Route 660. Although the immediate damage has
been repaired, our review of the damaged~member leads us to believe
deterioration is proceeding faster than expected. Because of this,
the Department is lowering the posted weight limit from six tons to
three tons immediately. This is sufficient to allow passage of cars,
pickups or vans only.
Because of the type of structure and type of deterioration involved,
it is not feasible to strengthen the existing structure. We are
proceeding with replacement plans pointing toward advertisement in
1989. In the meantime, I request your assistance in scheduling
traffic on this bridge and enforcing the~limit as your responsibility
and authority allow."
Item No. 4.2. Letter dated February 24, 1988, from Commissioner Ray D.
Pethtel concerning the extension of the Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 631 to
Route 649 with secondary road funds; received as information.
"Thank you for your letter concerning the possibility of extending
the Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 631 to Route 649 with secondary
road funds. As you are aware, the Department of Transportation has
long-standing policy limitations on the use of secondary funds for
the construction of roads on new locations. However, in recent years
there have been many pressures in growing counties to extend existing
roads along new locations to provide alternate routes for traffic.
For this reason, our policies have been under review for some months.
Your request has been given a preliminary review to determine if
there were factors which would permit the inclusion of this proposed
project in a Six-Year Plan. From this preliminary review, it appears
that the Meadow Creek Parkway extension from Route 631 to Route 649
657
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
contains many of the essential and distinctive characteristics which
could lead to its inclusion in a Six-Year Plan for secondary roads.
There are still a few questions which my staff would want to investi-
gate before agreeing to the inclusion of the project in a Six-Year
Plan.
Before proceeding further with the process of including this second
phase of the Meadow Creek Parkway in your Six Year Plan, I would
caution you that such a project may be so costly as to preclude other
needed secondary improvements in Albemarle County for a number of
years. I would recommend that you work with Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, and the Culpeper District staff, to establish a
budgetary estimate for the total cost of the project, then consider
that cost in viewof other secondary road priorities which may exist.
If the Board of Supervisors then wishes to proceed, our department
will try to accommodate its request.
I am sure you are aware that, pending the outcome of the consultant
study of U. S. Route 29, the development of the portion of the Meadow
Creek Parkway from the U.S. Route 250 bypass to Route 631 has been
placed on hold. The same hold would apply to expenditures on any
extension of the project."
Item No. 4.3. Letter dated February 24, 1988, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Captain G. M. Morris, State Police, concerning
need for advance warning signs concerning the railroad underpass on Route 240
in Crozet. Received as information.
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated February 22, 1988, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, to Mr. and Mrs. Chuck Bedall, Hollymead School PTO,
concerning Hollymead School and access to Route 29. Received as information.
Item No. 4.5. Copies of Planning Commission Minuteslfor February 16 and
February 23, 1988, were received as information.
Item No. 4.6. 1986 Sales Ratio Study, memorandum fr~mMr. Melvin A.
Breeden, Director of Finance, dated March 2, 1988; received as information.
"Attached is a copy of the preliminary 1986 Real Estate Assess-
ment/Sales Ratio Study prepared by the Virginia Department of Taxa-
tion. This study compares the appraisals this office conducted in
1983 and 1984, effective for tax years 1985 and 1986~ to actual
property sales in 1986.
As shown by the Albemarle County data summarized below, our overall
median ratio dropped from 95.5 in 1985 to 93.3 in 1986. This drop is
normal in our non-reassessment year and is due to inflation and
property value increases. Likewise, our coefficientof dispersion,
which measures how closely the individual ratios arearrayed around
the median ration, increased from 5.72 in 1985 to 6.2 in 1986. This
too is normal in a non-reassessment year.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3.)
Overall
Coefficient of Dispersion
Median Ratio
658
1986 1985
6.2 5.72
93.3 95.5
Med COD Resression Index # Sales
Single Family Urban 1986 93.7 9.7 1.02 333
1985 96.3 4.9 1.00 346
Single Family Sub. 1986 93.2
1985 94.3
6.6 1.01 234
7.1 1.01 278
Multi Family 1986 94.8 7.3 1.01 12
1985 97.8 5.2 1.01 15
Commercial 1986 91.8 13.9 .098 15
1985 95.6 12.6 1.08 6
Agri 20-100 1986 89.9 11.7 1.02 26
1985 98.5 8.1 1.00 23
Agri over 100 1986 84.3 18.9 1.00 4
1985 87.0 8.8 1.04 6
This study shows Albemarle County to be performing excellent apprais-
als in comparison to most Virginia localities and reflects the
quality of our appraisal staff."
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: April 15 (N), 1987. The
minutes had not been read.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Work Session: Update Six-Year
Secondary Highway Improvement Plan and 1988-89 Secondary Highway Budget.
Mr. Horne presented the following staff~report:
"INTRODUCTION
The six year road plan for secondary routes consists of a priority
list of improvement projects and a financial implementation plan.
Each year, the financial implementation plan must be reviewed and
approved by the Board of Supervisors an~ the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDoT). The County has generally reviewed the priori-
ty project list every two years.
In the last priority project list review (1986), staff developed, and
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved, a priority
list including many projects which would cost, in total, in excess of
available funds over the six year planning period. With such a
project list developed, subsequent financial plans could be prepared
and easily revised in response to available annual funding. This has
been particularly important during a period of increased state
funding for highway improvements.
During the review of the County's Comprehensive Plan currently under-
way, both the Transportation and Public Service Subcommittee and the
Planning Commission have endorsed a criteria-based rating system for
prioritizing all roads in the County roadway system (on file). Staff
has used this approach in categorizing and evaluating the project
lists included in this report. Potential projects listed within the
six categories were selected based on pr~-determined need, existing
conditions, functional purpose, traffic ~olumes and/or support of
County growth management policies. Priorities were based on compara-
tive evaluation within each category based on a number of criteria.
These categories and criteria are define~ in the next section.
The amount of federal and state funding available for road improve-
ment projects to localities is determined by statewide distribution
659
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
formulas. For the fiscal years 1988-1994, the following funds are
anticipated to be available to Albemarle County:
Six Year
Total
Federal Aid
Unpaved Road Fund Obligation
Other State Funding
Total funds
$ 1,664,000
4,462,528
13~308,192
$19,434,720
Dan Roosevelt has estimated an excess of $2,897,743 is currenCly
undesignated for the next six years. As Attachment 2 (on file)
indicates, Mr. Roosevelt has made recommendations which will lower
this excess to approximately $1,900,000. The priority lists included
in this report greatly exceed this amount.
PROJECT CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA
The staff and Commission have established the following criteria for
reviewing improvement projects under six road project categories
noted below. The criteria are not necessarily listed in order of
priority. A specific weighting system has not been used.
New Roads and Major Construction Projects - This category
includes both new roads or road segments that are proposed to be
constructed, and proposed improvements to existing roads which
would require major reconstruction efforts. Separate criteria
were established for new road projects and reconstruction
projects. These projects were combined into one list and
prioritized based on County growth policies and perceived need
for the improvement proposed. The list shown in Attachment 3
(on file) represents this combined list.
The criteria used to review these projects are:~
A. New Roads:
- Location within Growth Areas and prevailing land use.
- Functional classification of proposed ~oad.*
B. Major Reconstruction:
- Average Daily Traffic (ADT) on road.
- Inadequate geometrics relative to average County
conditions?**
Road located within growth area?
Functional classification of road.
*Functional Classification - The identification of a hierarchy of
roadway types based on flow of local and non-local ~ehicular trips,
land uses, etc. Describes the traffic movement and trip channeliza-
tion throughout the roadway system. Roads can be classified as
arterial (principal or minor collector (major or minor), or local
(through or internal).
**Geometrics Includes the visible elements of the:iroad. Geometrics
deal primarily with horizontal (curve) and vertical i(grade) alignment
as well as aspects of the road cross-section such as. pavement width,
crowning and related drainage (rural or urban cross~section design).
The new roads, shown in the Comprehensive Plan but not eligible in
the past for secondary funds, should be prioritized along with all
other projects and submitted with the Six Year Plan. They will also
need to be set aside as a group and specific justifications submitted
on each project. Should the Board place these roads in the Plan,
staff will develop the justification statements for §ubmission to
Virginia Department of Transportation.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
660
Bridge Replacement - This category contains those bridges and
approaches which are in need of replacement or major repair.
The major criteria for the review of these projects are the
Bridge Sufficiency and Deficiency Ratings provided by the
Virginia Department of Transportation. The sufficiency rating
weighs factors of structural adequacy, serviceability and public
need to determine a percent sufficiency of a particular bridge.
The deficiency rating weighs the maintenance needs, service
requirements and deviation from current standards for each
structure. The deficiency rating,~based on ~0~ as a totally
deficient structure, gives a good comparison for setting priori-
ties for improvement and was the primary factory used by staff
and the Commission.
Ratings have been calculated for railroad bridges this year at
the request of the County and were included in the review
process.
The criteria for review of these p~ojects are:
Virginia Department of Transportation sufficiency and
deficiency ratings.
Primary route for emergency vehicle access?
- School bus access?
- Average daily traffic.
Unpaved Road Pro~ects - This category prioritizes those unpaved
roads which are recommended for a hard surface treatment (pav-
ing) and improvement to VDoT standards.
The criteria used for review are:
- Inadequate geometrics relative to average county
conditions?
- Average daily traffic.
- Road surface condition (widCh).
- Shoulder condition (width).
- Road located within growth area?
- Road located within agricultural/forestal district?
- Road located within watershed protection area?
- Availability of right-of-way.
Considerable discussion occurs each time this improvement
category is prioritized and the Commission is requesting a
specific policy decision by the Board on this matter.
Current policy by the Board is tha~ unpaved roads will be placed
in the plan based on the following!three criteria:
1. Right-of-way Donation - First ipriority will be given to any
road where all necessary righ~.'-of-way has been donated by
the public, i
Growth Area Roads - If no roa~s are ready for inclusion in
the plan based on the above right-of-way criteria, VDoT
should look to pave roads within designated growth areas.
Average Daily Traffic - If no ~oadways are ready for
inclusion in the plan based on~ the above two criteria,
average daily traffic is to beI used and VDoT is to use the
traffic count lists as the priority list.
The Commission is proposing a change to this policy. The
Commission is proposing to use all factors listed in this report
to evaluate unpaved roads. In most cases the above three
criteria will be given very high weight in the analysis. Of
these three criteria, the Com~issio~ is proposing the following
relative priority:
661
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Growth Area - First Priority
Average Daily Traffic - Second Priority
Right-of-way Donation - Third Priority
The Commission fully supports the policy set by the Board of
Supervisors of not using secondary funds to purchase right-of-
way except in cases where there is a clear, demonstrable danger
to public safety. There was a brief discussion by the Com-
mission of the possible need to purchase right~of-way in growth
areas, if the road is considered necessary for growth to pro-
ceed. If the Board of Supervisors supports the Planning Commis-
sion recommendation above, they may need to consider growth area
roads as special exceptions to the acquisition policy. While
the Commission is aware that this places right-of-way in a very
crucial position in the progress of any given project, the
support of the growth areas, and average dailytraffic are
factors which more fully support the needs of the County resi-
dents in general. The priority list in this report was deve-
loped using the Commission's recommended policy.
The Cox~ission supports the Board of Supervisors' policy of only
allocating the minimum required funds to the category of im-
provements.
Hazard Elimination/Spot Improvements Prioritizes location
specific, spot improvements to improve the safety and overall
function of road. Sight distance improvements,~ construction of
turn lanes, intersection realignment are typical hazard elimina-
tion/spot improvement projects.
The criteria used for review are:
- Inadequate geometrics relative to average county
conditions?
- Average daily traffic along road segment.
- Existence of a hazardous road segment?
- Existence of hazardous intersection?
- Road located in a growth area?
- Functional classification of road. ~
At-Grade Railroad Crossing - Prioritizes projects to upgrade the
safety of at-grade railroad crossing through the installation of
flashing lights, gates or signage. The criteria used for review
are:
Average daily traffic on road segment ag crossing.
- Number of trains per day through crossing.
Existence of accident records for crossing?
Existing protection measures at crossing. (gates, lights,
signs)?
Functional classification of road.
The Commission is proposing to set the relative!priorities for
the improvement of these crossings only one time. This list
will not be reevaluated on a regular basis. The list includes
all at-grade crossings in the County.
6. Rural Additions - Roads not now in the Secondary System which
provide public service and, with improvements to meet current
standards, could be placed in the system. Some limitations
apply as to eligibility. The Board of Supervisors has allocated
a maximum of $80,000 per year. Funds for this category are
included in 'countywide' funds. The ~ Commission is recommending
that relative priorities for rural additions he,set by the VDoT
and the Board of Supervisors as a separate process.
PREPARATION OF THE SIX YEAR ROAD PLAN
In October, 1987, Mr. Roosevelt forwarded a package of information to
the County regarding the six year road plan. Included in that
information package were Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations for certain
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
662
components of the Plan. On November 10, the Planning Commission
received public comment regarding potential secondary road projects.
The Commission held three work sessions (January 26, February 2, and
February 16) at which public comment was received. Their final
recommendations are included in Attachments 10 and 11 (on file). The
other attachments are background information."
If the County were to limit the acquisition of rights-of-way for road
improvements to gravel roads in the growth areas, Mr. Lindstrom said, he
thought the County could avoid what he believed to be the biggest danger of
using secondary funds for right-of-way acquisition: it would destroy the
incentive for the private acquisition of rights-of-way.
Mr. Perkins said the Board has been telling citizens that it will have
the road paved if the citizens donate the right-of-way. He said he thinks the
Board owes something to citizens living in the rural areas who have dedicated
the necessary right-of-way and are awaiting the pavement of their roads under
the old policy. Mr. Lindstrom suggested perhaps the decision could be based
on how much right-of-way had been granted on~a given road: if private citi-
zens had donated 90 percent of the necessarylright-of-way, then perhaps
improving that road would be a higher priority than improving a road with only
10 percent of the right-of-way dedicated.
Mr. Bowie said one of the reasons citizens refuse to donate the
right-of-way needed for road improvements is!because they object to having
roads built to the State's ultimate design s~andards. He said he thought it
was a good idea to build the road to lower standards if this would encourage
more citizens to dedicate rights-of-way. He,said he thinks this would be
better than having the County buy the rights~of-way.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Comprehensive Plan should be considered
when the addition of a rural road is being discussed. He said the VDOT's
standards preclude the addition of a road that would generate more subdivi-
sions. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, agreed and said the use of rural
addition funds was limited to roads where no 'subdivision has occurred since
1949. Although the requirements have been relaxed somewhat, he said, he
thinks that there will be few new roads foun~ eligible for rural addition
funds. Mr. Horne said the County has requested VDoT to consider five roads
for rural addition funding. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he also had a questiQn about the criteria for funding
category No. 4, Hazard Elimination/Spot Improvements. He asked if the VDoT
considered the posted speed limit on a road ~hen it reviewed that road for
funding under category No. 4. Mr. Roosevelt isaid "no". Mr. Lindstrom said he
thinks speed limits should be considered; wh~t~ is safe on a road with a posted
speed limit of 35 miles per hour may be dangerous on a road with a posted
speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Mr. RooseVelt said this was a valid point.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the Board was ~xpected to do something about the
gravel roads policy proposed by the Planning .Commission and what it was
expected to do. Mr. Home suggested that the Board present a priority list of
gravel road projects at a public hearing. Mrs. Lindstrom said he thought the
Board should first consider whether it wishes to adopt the proposal of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Home agreed, saying if the Board wished to stay
with the old policy concerning improvements to gravel roads, the priority list
would probably have to be changed. Mr. Horne said that citizens have dedicat-
ed all the right-of-way necessary to improve Route 785 and so, according to
the Board's old policy, have satisfied the Board's primary criterion for road
improvements. Improvements to Route 785 would therefore move up on the list
of priorities if the Board were to reject theI Planning Commission's proposal
and stay with its current policy. Mr. Lindst~om said the citizens along Route
785 would be in a strong position to argue that they had a moral right to be
on the priority list for improvements to gravel roads. He said he is not
saying that the proposed policy is wrong; he just wonders when it will come
into play. In cases like Route 785 where the%necessary right-of-way has been
dedicated, Mr. Home said, the road improvements could go ahead as planned.
In cases where the citizens have just begun to gather the right-of-way, he
663
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
said, the staff could inform these citizens that having the right-of-way will
no longer guarantee that the road will be improved.
Mr. Bain asked what would happen to citizens who had been told they
needed a 50-foot right-of-way for a road to be improved and now find out they
need only a 40-foot right-of-way. He asked where their request would be on a
priority list.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the proposed policy as long as everyone knows
the County will not buy a right-of-way and any road that is in the process now
will keep its place in the priority list. Mr. Roosevelt said he thinks the
VDoT is obligated to improve roads only in cases where the VDoT has accepted
the right-of-way and recorded it in the name of the Commonwealth. In these
cases, he said, the VDoT is actually holding the land. Until deeds granting
right-of-way are recorded, he said, citizens have not given away the land.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks citizens in the process of getting right-of-way
should be given a date when the policy will change and told that if they get
the right-of-wayby this date, their road will be improved according to the
terms of the present policy. Mr. Lindstrom said he believed these people
should be allowed six to nine months to get the right-of*way.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the new policy is a good idea and will serve
the Comprehensive Plan. He said he thinks the money to improve gravel roads
should go where it is needed and he thinks this new policy will make that more
likely. Under the old policy, the Board could be forced to spend this money
on roads with under 100 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Home. agreed and said the
Commission was trying to insure that money would be spent, on improving roads
that served a greater purpose than just two or three landowners.
Mr. Bowie said he agreed that the new policy made more sense than the old
but he could not advocate changing the rules in mid-stream for those citizens
who began seeking right-of-way under the old policy. Mr.~ Agnor suggested
holding a public hearing sometime in April and having the new policy become
effective as of November 1, 1988.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board should consider paying for
rights-of-way in the growth areas. He said he does not think this would
discourage citizens in the rural areas from dedicating rights-of-way. Mr.
Home said there were so few eligible roads in the rural areas that the Board
conld decide whether to pay for the rights-of-way on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the Board should make a policy of paying
for rights-of-way in growth areas, but it could be used a~ a last resort.
Particularly when there is an issue of safety involved,M~. Bain said.
Mr. Way said he thought the Board should adopt a resolution of intent to
adopt the policy, although he is not sure he will ultimately support a motion
to adopt the policy. He said he thought the old policy has served the County
well and he thinks the new policy would discriminate against residents in the
rural areas of the County. i
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of~Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to adQpt the following
as a policy concerning the paving of unpaved roads:
1) First priority will be given to those roads ilying in the
growth areas of the County as shown in the ComprehenSive Plan;
2) Second priority will be given to those road~ with signi-
ficant daily traffic counts; ~
3) Third priority will be given to those roads ~here the
right-of-way has been completely donated for the project; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve the
paving of any unpaved road in the Rural Areas District unless all of
the right-of-way had been dedicated in advance or there is a clear,
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
664
demonstrable danger to public safety which would necessitate the use
of State Secondary Road Funds to acquire the right-of-way; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board will not approve the paving of
any unpaved road in the growth areas where there is not a complete
dedication of right-of-way unless there is a clear, demonstrable
danger to public safety or, on a case-by-case basis, in the opinion
of the Planning Commission and/or the BOard of Supervisors, the
acquisition of right-of-way is needed to fulfill the Plan; and
ALSO RESOLVED that this policy will be effective as of Novem-
ber 1, 1988, and there is to be specific notification of this policy
to all persons who have contacted the HSghway Department, or a county
department, about getting an unpaved road paved using State Secondary
Road Funds.
Mr. Bowie said he was not sure what he would do at the public hearing and
he is uncomfortable with the idea that roads in the growth areas will be paved
first even if they do not have much of a traffic count. But, he said, he
thinks the new policy would better serve the entire County.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board should decide whether 40- or 50-foot
right-of-way will be needed for the improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said the VDoT
standard for all paved roads, regardless of ~he amount of traffic they carry,
is 50 feet. He said the VDoT sometimes gran~s waivers allowing improvements
to be made on a 40-foot right-of-way. Mr. B~in said he would support the
resolution of intent but he was not sure he ~ould support a motion to adopt
the policy as proPosed above.
There was no further discussion. Roll ~as called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Perkins said he was concerned about .several fords in the County. He
said they were on sparsely traveled roads, b~t he thought they posed a threat
to the watersupply, because the water washes ~he oil and road salts frOm
vehicles as they were driven through the fords. Mr. Roosevelt said this would
fall under the category of bridge or road improvements, but the County must
work with the allocation it has, because the Btate will not allocate any more
money to the County for secondary road improvements. Mr. Horne said the staff
would try to locate all the fords in the County and work them into the prior-
ity list.
At this time, Mr. Way said the Board mush proceed to other matters
scheduled for public hearings. He suggested that the Board omplete Agenda
Item No. 6 later this afternoon, if Mr. Roosevelt could return at that time.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would be glad to return later in the day.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Amend Police Ordinance.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on FebruarM 23 and March 1, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor said this section of the County Code was adopted in 1983 for a
specific purpose. The County had to wait 12 months for State funding to fund
the police department. While the County awaited eligibility for State fund-
ing, it did not want to become ineligible for<'the Compensation Board funding
of the Sheriff's department. One of the requirements of the State funding for
the police department was that the County have a designated Chief of Police
and one full-time position in order to be considered as having created a
police force. Mr. Agnor said full-time meant 365 days a year, 24 hours a day
and equalled a staff of five. To stay eligible for both the State funding for
the police department and the Compensation Board funding for the Sheriff's
department, Mr. Agnor said, the Board appointed the Sheriff as Chief of Police
for the one year.
665
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that the last paragraph of the
ordinance be excised, not to diminish the responsibilities of the Sheriff's
Department under the general law of the Commonwealth, but instead, to remove
the implication that the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department are
equally responsible for law enforcement. The first paragraph of Section
10.1-1 makes it clear that the Police Department is responsible for law
enforcement in the County.
Mr. Bowie suggested that the following sentence in the third paragraph of
Section 10.1-1 be deleted: "Ail initial appointments to the positions estab-
lished hereby shall take effect on or after June 1, 1983, but not later than
June 30, 1983". He said there is no cut-off date to when appointments can be
made. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with Mr. Bowie.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to
speak concerning this ordinance.
Sheriff Terry Hawkins addressed the Board. He said he would like to go
on record to say that the existence of a police department does not relieve a
sheriff of his ultimate duty and authority as a law enforcement official. He
said he and his deputies do not intend to function as law enforcement offi-
cials, but that authority still remains a duty under the State constitution.
He said a lot of citizens were worried that the Board might be stripping the
Sheriff's Department of its authority and he wanted to go. on the record to
make it clear that the authority delegated to the Sheriff by the State consti-
tution remained untouched.
Mr. St. John said the Sheriff and each of his deputies will continue to
have the full powers of a police officer under general law, including the
power of arrest. If a Sheriff or deputy is riding around on his daily busi-
ness and sees a robbery take place, Mr. St. John said, that Sheriff or deputy
still has a duty to use whatever force is available to a police officer to
stop the robbery and arrest the perpetrator. If the Sheriff or deputy just
walked on by and ignored the robbery, Mr. St. John said, he thinks he or she
would be liable to the victim.
Mr. Hawkins said he agrees with Mr. St. John and pla~s to have his
deputies reinstated in the law enforcement phase, as other Sheriffs are doing
across the State. He said he wants to make sure his deputies are properly
equipped and trained to handle emergencies, since he is the one who will be
held liable if they are not. He said he does not want the reinstatement to be
seen as an attempt to interfere with the Police Department, but he does want
his deputies available to assist in emergencies, if necessary.
Mr. Rod Clark, from North Garden, said he had a list~of six questions he
would like to present to the Board. He asked how much it~!cost the County per
year to maintain a Police Department. He also asked for more information
concerning two female officers who were supposedly sent td Hawaii and Alaska
for training. He said he would like to know whether thes~ officers are still
on the payroll. He asked if it were true that fewer men Were on patrol duty
now than when there was just a Sheriff's Department with a staff of only 30,
and the Police Department numbers over 70 people.. He asked if were true that
the Police Department was experiencing unusually high turnover and vacancy
rates. He said he thinks the Board owes the citizens answers to these ques-
tions.
Mr. Ed Strauss, a resident of western Albemarle, sai~ he had also
attended the General Assembly meeting in Richmond recently. This ordinance
was not brought up at the meeting, he said, nor was anyon~ ever told that
Sheriff George Bailey was once both the Chief of Police an~ the Sheriff. He
said the Board went to Richmond and complained that peoplelwere working behind
its back and he would like to know who is doing what to whbm. He suggested
that members of the Board should just scrap this ordinance~ talk to their
constituents to find out if they want a Police Department ~nd, if they do,
give them one. He said he does not think the proposed amendment amends the
ordinance, but rewrites it, cutting out 43 percent of the Ordinance.
Since no one else wished to address this amendment, M~. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before the Board.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
666
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Agnor provide Mr. Carter and the Board
the answers to his questions. Mr. Agnor agreed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the
ordinance as advertised and in addition to the amendment presented, delete the
second sentence of the third paragraph reading: "Ail initial appointments to
the positions established hereby shall take effect on or after June 1, 1983,
but not later than June 30, 1983". There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below:)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 10.1
LAW ENFORCEMENT
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Section 10.1-1, Chapter 10.1, Law Enforcement,
of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted as set out
below:
Sec. 10.1-1. Police force established~
A police force, as defined in section 14.1-84.2(L) of the Code
of Virginia, is hereby established which shall be responsible, on and
after June 1, 1983, for the prevention and detection of crime, the
apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the
preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws,
regulations and ordinance. ~
This police force shall be and hereby is designated "The
Albemarle County Police Department" and ~shall consist of a chief of
police and full-time police staff.
The chief of polite and all other personnel of the county police
force shall be appointed pursuant to section 15.1-598 of the Code of
Virginia and shall constitute a division of the county's department
of law enforcement under section 15.1-608 of the Code of Virginia.
The salary scale for members of the county police force shall be pre-
scribed from time to time by the county board of supervisors within
the regular budgetary and appropriation ~process.
At 10:47 A.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
10:50 P.M. Mr. Bowie was absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Wind River i~reliminary Subdivision Plat.
The appellants are Mr. and Mrs. John H. Bridsall, III, Mrs. Gabriel Copen, Dr.
and Mrs. Andrew B. Martof, Mr. and Mrs. Thoma~ McCrystal, and Mr. and Mrs.
William B. Trevillian, Jr. The appeal was brought to the attention of the
Board by the following letter from Mr. Forbes R. Reback, attorney for the
appellants, dated February 9, 1988:
"I wish to note an appeal, pursuant to Section 18-4 of the Albemarle
County Code, of the decision of the Planning Cormmission at its
February 2, 1988, meeting to approve the~preliminary plat of Wind
River on State Route 614 in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
This appeal is taken on behalf of several adjoining landowners who
have been aggrieved by the decision of the Commission.
The bases for this appeal may be summarized as follows:
The Mt. Harmony Meeting House Issue: Section 18-52(a) of the
Subdivision Ordinance requires the preliminary plat to include
667
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
names and addresses of the record owner's of all included land.
Approximately one acre of the proposed subdivision was deeded to
'Robert Rodes, Meriwether S. Anderson, Willis Garth, Anderson
White and Valentine Head, their heirs and assigns as trustees
forever' on May 18, 1844. The meeting house was to serve eight
Protestant denominations. A copy of the deed is attached to
this letter. This issue has not been fully addressed by the
developer. The developer admits finding remnants of an old
cemetery on the property but it is not shown oh the preliminary
plat.
The Old Public Road Issue: Section 18-52(a) of the Subdivision
Ordinance also requires the names and addresses of the holders
of any easements affecting the proposed subdivision. The deed
referred to above and older residents of the COunty confirm the
location of a public road running all the way through the Wind
River Property. The existence of this road is also indicated on
the 1937 aerial map of the county prepared by the U. S. Soil
Conservation Service. The developer has found a June 1935
resolution of the Board in which it voted to 'discontinue and
close' this road. It will be argued that 'discontinue' implies
the end of County maintenance only and not the ~extinguishing of
the right of the public to continue to use the ~right of way. If
the intent had been otherwise, would not the Bdard have used the
word 'abandon' rather than 'discontinue.'
Violations of Section 10.5.1 of the Zonin8 Ordinance: The
preliminary plat does not comply with Section 1!0.5.1 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as amended March 18, 1981,
which is designed to place a~limitation on divisions permitted
by right, namely, 'that no parcel of land of record on the date
of the adoption of this ordinance may be divided into an aggre-
gate of more than five (5) parcels .... ' Since 'parcel' is no
where defined in the Zoning Ordinance, it must be construed in
ordinary, everyday usage to mean any piece of land. The table
on the developer's preliminary plat reveals at least four
violations of this provision of the Ordinance. 'Parcel 42-46B is
to be divided into 9 parcels; Parcel 43-4E into 6 parcels;
Parcel 43-4F into 7 parcels; and Parcel 43-4G ihto 6 parcels.
Of the 16 new lots proposed for Wind River, only Lot 5 does not
contain at least one illegally divided parcel.
The 'Kernel Parcel' Issue: The Zoning Ordinance is vague on
this issue and interpretation of it by the office of the County
Attorney and the Board has not been consistent. Appellants take
the position that the Board should uphold its dhty to protect
the environment in the Rural Areas District, RA, which it has
imposed on itself in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, to be consistent with th~ intent of the
Ordinance, the so-called 'kernel issue' should be construed in
favor of the preservation of agricultural and f6restal lands,
i.e. open space, and strictly against residential development.
The interpretation of the kernel theory espoused by appellants,
requires that all the ingredients that go into ~ residential lot
in the RA District be contained within a single!County Tax Map
parcel without the necessity of recombining parcels from other
Tax Map parcels. In other words, a properly created residential
lot would have to include at least two acres fr~m one tax map
parcel and that two acres would have to contain!a building site
of at least 30,000 square feet with sites for a~ least two
septic drainfields, all on slopes of less than 25 percent and
preferably less than 20 percent in the drainfie~d areas. Each
such lot must also have 250 feet of frontage on~ian existing
public road or 150 feet of frontage on internalipublic or
private roads. The main point of this argument !is that each tax
map parcel must contain all of these ingredient~ for each
'development right' sought to be used and that Che ordinance
should not be interpreted to permit the divisio~ and recombina-
tion of existing tax map parcels to meet the requirements. The
Wind River preliminary plat does not meet this test.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
668
The Safety Issue: State Route 614 serving Wind River is classi-
fied non-tolerable by VDoT. I understand that this refers to
the fact that the road is sub-standard for the volume of traffic
it carries and relates primarily to maintenance, but you have
charged yourselves in Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance 'to
protect against...undue density of population in relation to the
community facilities existing or available,...danger and conges-
tion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health or
property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers. I need not
remind you of the recent fatalities on Garth Road which were
within half a mile of the proposed entrance to Wind River. I am
also enclosing an official VDoT print out of reportable acci-
dents on State Route 614 from Owensville to Sugar Hollow be-
ginning January 1, 1981 and ending July 31, 1986. One of the
arguments which persuaded you as a Board to deny scenic road
designation to the State Route 614 was an expected increase in
traffic whichwould enhance the risk of accidents. We ask that
you apply the same logic to the creation of sixteen (16) new
residential lots on the road.
We ask for notice of the meeting at which this appeal will be heard
and for an opportunity to present the arguments summarized here and
such other argument as may be appropriate and we most earnestly
request that the action of the Planning Commission in approving the
preliminary subdivision plat be reversed and that the developer's
request for approval be denied."
(Note: Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at this time.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Proposal: To create 16 single family residential lots with an
average lot size of 6.3 acres, from 95.7 acres (seven parcels). The
development will be served by internal ~ublic roads, with a single
entrance onto Route 614.
Location: This property is located on the north side of Route 614,
adjacent to the Mechum River near Owensville. Tax Map 42, Parcels
46, 46A, 46B; Tax Map 43, Parcels 4E through 4H. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. 3ack Jouett Magisterial District.
Staff Comment: A discussion of the maj°r issues involved in the
preliminary review of this plat are as follows:
Right Turn Lane on Route 614: The Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion has commented that a 100 foot long,~ 12 foot wide right-turn
lane, with a 100 foot taper lane, is recommended to serve the pro-
posed entrance on Route 614. Also, the Department has recommended
that sight easements are necessary on th~ opposite side of the road
to insure sight distance is maintained ti the east. The applicant
has stated that a site easement is obtainable.
Designation of Existing Streams: The Watershed Management Official
has field verified the location of all streams on this site. The
preliminary plat has adequately noted these streams. One hundred
(100) foot septic setbacks and drainage easements, as required by the
County Engineer, have been shown on the ~lat.
Verification of Building Site from ParenT Parcel: For this proposal
to be considered a by-right development Of the existing parcels, all
of the proposed lots must contain two (2~ acres with a lawful build-
ing site from the original parcel where ~he division right origi-
nates. The applicant has verified to staff's satisfaction that all
of the proposed lots meet the mentioned driteria. In addition to
demonstrating that each lot has an adequate building site, a soil
scientist study has been completed, and ~he Health Department has
approved septic and well locations on eadh of the proposed lots.
669
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Environmental Conditions: The topography of this area in moderate to
steep, while areas of critical slopes exist. Soils in this area
consist of Albemarle Fine Sandy loam, Louisburg loam, Hazel loam and
Tocco loam. The Tocco soil found along the river is subject to
flooding. The Watershed Management Official has commented that
erosion control/runoff control measures designed to protect and
promote area water quality and quantity should be incorporated into
the development plan for this site.
This proposal will meet the requirements of the Albemarle County
Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to the
following:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a)
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b)
The Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road
and drainage plans and calculations, commercial entrances,
and right turn lane;
c) Approval of an erosion control plan.
2. Administrative approval of the final plat."
(Note: Mrs. Cooke arrived at 10:56 A.M.)
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission unanimously approved the prelimi-
nary plat at its meeting on February 2, 1988. Mr. Horne went to the map and
pointed out the seven parcels, colored yellow, that spawned the subdivision.
Mr. Home presented the staff's perspective on the appeal. He said the
first two grounds of appeal given were the Mount Harmony~meeting house and the
old public road issues. He said the County Attorney researched these issues
and agreed that they are not material to clear title for 'the property. Items
three and four, he continued, were stated violations to the Zoning Ordinance.
I~particular, the fourth issue dealt with kernel parcels~ He said the Board
had discussed the kernel parcel issue in work sessions about six months ago,
after another developer proposed to use a similar method of development. The
result of these work sessions, Mr, Horne said, was that the Board told the
staff to continue to administer the ordinance the way it had in the past. Mr.
Horne said this is how the staff handled this request, inithe same way it has
administered the ordinance on a number of subdivision proposals since the work
sessions. What is before the Board, he said, is a subdivision proposal that
has been treated in all respects precisely as subdivision!.proposals of this
nature in rural areas have been treated for a number of years. Mr. Home
added that the amended subdivision plat for the Wind River development met the
full requirements for the building site regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked the applicant, Mr. Frank
Kessler, to come forward.
Mr. Kessler said he was here as President of the Kessler Group to repre-
sent the applicant, Mr. Terry Seig. In 1986, he said, he.suggested that Mr.
Seig purchase the Wind River property, because the configuration of the
land would lend itself to a residential community with la~ge lots. He said
Mr. Seig's attorney urged Mr. Seig to meet with the Count~ before
purchasing
the property to make sure of his development rights. He Jaid Mr. Seig then
met with the County staff and, relaying on its information, purchased the 95
acres known as Wind River in December, 1986. Mr. Seig th~n hired the Kessler
Group to be the development coordinator because he felt t~e Group shared his
philosophy of development. Mr. Kessler claimed that an iHtegral part of this
development philosophy is the commitment tothe preservation of the rural
character of Albemarle County. He said the plat before t~e Board exemplifies
this philosophy. ;
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
670
In preparing the Wind River plat for review, Mr. Kessler continued, the
Group had to comply with a number of strict rules and regulations. No build-
ing site could be located on any portion of the property with a slope of 25
percent or more. No septic field could be located within 100 feet of a
stream, even one that flowed intermittently. Neither of the two septic fields
required could be located on a slope of 20 percent or more. To satisfy the
Health Department, each lot had to have a well to provide water to the home-
owner. Mr. Kessler said his Group went beyond the County's requirements and
spent more money to have a topographical mapmade to two foot intervals,
instead of the 20 foot intervals required by the County. This more accurate
composite of the land allowed the Group to find better sites for the septic
fields, protect the watershed and determine the exact degree of slopes.
Despite this compliance with the rules and regulations set forth by the
Board for the protection of the citizens and!the land, Mr. Kessler said, the
Group was contacted by legal counsel for an adjoining landowner and told that
the plat wOuld be challenged. In the spirit!.of cooperation, he said, the
Group asked that the Planning Commission defer its review of the plat until
the Group could meet with the adjoining landowners. The landowners told Mr.
Kessler that they wanted him to reduce the number of building sites from 16 to
nine, which Mr. Kessler said he thought was an infringement upon Mr. Seig's
right to develop his property. Mr. Kessler said h~ offered the adjoining
landowners the first right of refusal on all.the lots above the first nine
that were sold. The landowners did not respond to this offer. Later, the
landowners asked Mr. Seig about purchasing the entire property. In order to
give all the parties enough time to evaluate'ithis option, Mr. Kessler guaran-
teed in a written document that groundbreaking would not begin until 75 days
after the date of the meeting. He said he did not hear from the land-
owners again until the Planning Department sent the Group several letters
deploring the development.
Mr. Kessler said he will not respond to the charges that he and his Group
are land rapists and pirates, because actions speak louder than words. He
said he and his Group are proud to stand on ~heir record as developers and
their projects reflect the amount of respect '!they have for Albemarle County.
He said he did carefully read the letters from the landowners to pinpoint
their concerns. In response to their concern that houses would be too close
to Garth Road, the Group put a 150-foot setback line on the portion of the
property that fronts Garth Road. In response to their concerns that the Wind
River development would harm the watershed, the Group placed a 100-foot
private conservation easement along the enti=e portion of the property that
front the Mechum River, in which no building construction or removal of
vegetation could occur. In response to their concern that the lights would
bother them at night, he said, he showed them that all of the houses are sited
in the center of the property. In response to their concern about extra
traffic, Mr. Kessler told them that one entrance serving the lots was better
than seven separate driveways. Finally, he said, in response to their concern
about the preservation of the rural character of the County, he pointed out
that his Group is developing less than half the number of lots that would be
allowed by right. Mr. Kessler said he also provided legal counsel for the
landowners with a draft of deed restrictions that would be placed upon each
lot. He said these deed restrictions would also preserve the rural character
of the land. ~
Mr. Kessler said he feels he has addressed every justifiable concern of
the adjoining landowners. Yet, he said, certain individuals still wish to
deny Mr. Seig the right to develop his proper~y. Mr. Kessler accused Mr.
Reback of throwing up a smoke screen in an effort to delay this development.
He said Mr. Reback based his appeal on allege~ technicalities. Mr. Kessler
claimed that the focus has shifted from a valid concern about the quality of
the development and its impact upon the Count~ to the desire of few individu-
als to stop development altogether. He asked~that the Board not allow this
philosophy of "no growth" to force him to abandon what he believes to be a
well conceived plan that meets both the lette~ and the spirit of the County's
development policies.
Mr. Kessler began to describe the development he and his Group could do
by right, had they not the best interests of ~he County at heart. He said
there could be more than 16 lots served by seven driveways going to Gart.h
Road. Or, he said, his Group could build a road so as to take advantage of
671
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
the 35 development rights accorded by this property. Mr. Kessler admitted
that the topography of the property would not allow the full 35 lots, but he
said he was certain that his client could get more than the 16 lots he is
asking be approved.
Mr. Kessler said the County's rules and regulations existed to protect
the County's resources, not to eliminate development. He said this project
meets all the requirements and insures such protection. Therefore, he said,
he and Mr. Seig ask that the Board approve the plan. He introduced Mr. Bill
Roudabush, engineer for the project, and Mr. Gary McGee, an attorney, to
answer any questions the Board may have.
Members of the Board had no questions at this point. Mr. Way continued
the public hearing and asked Mr. Reback if he wished to address the Board.
Mr. Reback said he wanted to explain why the adjoining landowners wished
to appeal the decision by the Planning Com~nission when there are precedents
supporting the developer's plat, such as the Inglecress and Red Acres subdivi-
sions, which the Board approved. He said this subdivision plat is different
because of the topography of the property. He said this is a very hilly piece
of land.
Another reason the Board should look differently at this plat, Mr. Reback
said, is because this property fronts almost three-quarters of a mile on the
MechumRiver. The Mechum River is the principal source of water for the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir, he said, and a mistake made here may not be easily
fixed and might affect the quality of life for thousands of citizens beyond
the borders of this small tract of land.
For these reasons, he said, his clients have gone fo:rward with this
appeal and asked their neighbors and friends to come today to be counted among
those who oppose this plat. He asked everyone attending the meeting who
opposed the plat to stand. About 25 people stood.
Mr. Reback then described the five issues his clients are asking the
Board to consider on this appeal. He said the first two issues deal with the
size and location of the Mount Harmony Meeting House trac!t, an old cemetery on
the old public road traversing the property, and both should be important to
the developer and to the Board. These issues are not addressed by the prelim-
inary subdivision plan dated September 18, 1987, which, he said, is the only
plan that he and his clients have seen. Frankly, he said~ neither the staff
nor the Planning Commission seemed concerned about the issues raised by the
meeting house and the old public road. Mr. Reback said h~ thought these
issues were important and that the Board should require the developer to
incorporate these matters in any future plats. He added ~hat the Board should
require the applicant to take appropriate legal action to'acquire title to
these areas or to remove these areas from the proposed lots and parcels as
shown on the plat in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Reback then moved on the last three issues, which he said he believed
to be crucial to this appeal and the fate of Wind River as a 16 lot subdivi-
sion. He said the third issue sets forth what appears to'him to be an obvious
violation of section 10.5.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. That provision states
that "no parcel of land on record on the date of the adoption of this ordi-
nance may be divided into an aggregate of more than five parcels". He said
the developer provided a table showing the seven tax map parcels and the
portion of each parcel that was divided out and recombine~ to form the 16
lots. He said this table clearly demonstrates four violations of this provi-
sion of the Zoning Ordinance. Tax Map 42, parcel 46B, is ito be divided into
nine parcels; Tax Map 43, parcel 4E, into six parcels; Tax Map 43, parcel 4F,
into seven parcels; and, Tax Map 43, parcel 4G, into six ~arcels. Mr. Reback
said he has concluded that only lot five does not contain a parcel which is
illegally cut from one of the seven previous tax map parcels.
Mr. Reback said the developer will probably argue tha~ the Board should
approve this because the illegally subdivided parcels are kecombined into only
16 lots, and he is seeking less than half the density to which he would
otherwise be entitled. Mr. Reback asked that the Board dismiss such an
argument on several grounds. Firstly, he said, that result is not possible
under the plain and unambiguous language of Section 10.5.1~ Secondly, he
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
672
said, the Board should not be swayed by the argument that the end justifies
the means. Thirdly, he said, the potential number of building sites on the
Wind River tract is nowhere near 35, because of topographical limitations and
pertinent zoning regulations.
Mr. Reback asked that the Board consider how there came to be 35 division
rights in the first place, when similarly situated 95 acre tracts in the rural
areas are limited to nine building sites. That would be five division rights
of two plus acres each and a residue of 84 acres which can be divided into
four lots of 21 acres each. In 1979, he said, the County was considering a
new zoning ordinance, which would provide five division rights per existing
tax parcel. The then owner of the 95 acre tract now know as Wind River
decided to avoid the strictures of the proposed ordinance by asking his
surveyor to make seven parcels out of one, thereby increasing the potential
development rights from five to 35. Mr. Reback said the subdivision was laid
out with a ruler to obtain the required road~frontage, without any considera-
tion for the topography of the land. He said we are now reaping the whirlwind
of that decision, made solely to thwart the spirit and the intent of the new
ordinance.
Mr. Reback asked that the Board reread ~he following sections of the
Zoning Ordinance: section 1.4, the purpose and intent section; section 1.5,
dealing with the environment; section 1.6, dealing with the Comprehensive
Plan; and section 10.1, which sets forth the~legislative intent behind the
rural areas district. If the Board takes tolheart the guidelines it has set
for itself, he said, he believes the Board will interpret and apply the
ordinance in this case most liberally in favSr of retainingopen space in this
environmentally critical area of the County,~and most stringently against
development. ~
Mr. Reback moved on to issue No. 4: th~ kernel parcel issue. He said
many of the arguments just made apply equally well to this issue. Because the
kernel parcel issue is technical and often misunderstood, he said, he chooses
to rely on the written statement on page two~!of the written appeal. He said
such an important issue affecting land use and development in the County
should not be left to a policy which may and does shift with the comings and
goings of the people who interpret and enforce the policy, such as members of
the staff, Planning Commission, Board of Supgrvisors and the County Attorney.
He said estimates by the Planning staff reveal that of 233 lots created in the
rural areas zone in 1986, 80 of those lots, Qr one-third, were approved using
adjacent land to meet the requirements of th~ ordinance. He asked if this was
how the Board wanted the County developed anq~ added that he does not think
this is the way to achieve the spirit and th~ intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
Most of the neighboring properties are in the Moormans River Agricultural
and Forestal District, Mr. Reback said. These landowners surrendered their
division rights for the next six or seven years in order to help implement the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and to protect open space and preserve
agricultural and forestal uses. When making~its decision, he said, he asked
that the Board consider the agricultural/for~stal district, which surrounds
the Wind River tract on three sides.
The final grounds for appeal, Mr. Reback said, is the safety issue. In
section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, he said,, the Board is charged"to protect
against undue density of population in relation to the community facilities
existing or available" and "to protect against danger and congestion in travel
and transportation". He said the already approved Harmony development and the
proposed Wind River project would add 36 expensive homes with two or three
cars each. He asked the Board to consider that the vehicle trips per day
would be added to the already congested Garth and Barracks Road. In conclu-
sion, he said, who should prevail on this appeal: the developer who wants to
capitalize on the artifice of his predecessom or the neighbors who want to
preserve and protect the forest and open space in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan?
Mr. Way asked if anyone wished to question Mr. Reback. No one had any
questions and the public hearing continued.
673
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Gary McGee, an attorney present on behalf of Mr. Seig, addressed the
Board. He said the Mount Harmony meeting house is not an issue, and a title
insurance company has fully insured the current owner. He said he has pro,
vided the staff with the results of his research on the meeting house, and the
staff agrees with his client that this matter should be of no concern. He
said the public road crossing this property was closed by ordinance of the
Board in 1935.
Mr. McGee said Mr. Seig purchased seven individual parcels, with five
development rights with each parcel, from the Calhoun family, who had subdi-
vided the land into the parcels now shown on the tax map. Last year, he said,
the Board went through lengthy work sessions concerning the kernel concept.
He said the staff based its recommendations to his client upon the results of
these work sessions. He said these lots come from parcels, each of which has
no more than five development rights. If the Board wanted to play games, Mr.
McGee said, the Subdivision Ordinance allows lot lines to be adjusted. His
client could adjust the lot lines of these seven parcels and then present this
plat to the Board. What his client has presented is based on the staff's and
Board's understanding of the ordinance, Mr. McGee said, and he knows of no
better interpreter of the ordinance than the Board who passed it.
Mr. McGee said his client submitted the plat in accordance with all the
regulations and ordinances. Any reinterpretation of these regulations and
ordinances by the Board, Mr. McGee declared, would be detrimental and unfair
to Mr. Seig, who has been playing by the County's rules.. He added that such
reinterpretation might also be very damaging to his client.
Mr. McGee said both the Comprehensive Plan and the ZOning Ordinance
recognize the type of development his client is proposing: a small residen-
tial development in the rural areas. According to the Comprehensive Plan, he
said, small residential developments are allowed in rural locations, but
should be limited to developments not exceeding 20 dwelling units. He said
his client is proposing only 16 dwelling units for the Wind River project.
Development in rural areas should be on internal public or private roads,
which is exactly what his client would do, said Mr. McGee~ According to the
Zoning Ordinance, he said, roadside or strip development ~hould be discouraged
and this is what his client is trying to do. Mr. McGee said this plat is in
a~cordanCe with both the spirit and the letter of the County's rules and
rmgulations concerning development.
The final concern of the appellants he wished to add~ess, Mr. McGee said,
is the safety of Garth Road. He said that section of Gar%h Road was classi-
fied as nontolerable, which according to Mr. Echols of th~ Highway Department,
means that if the road were built today, it might be built differently. He
said the only way the VDoT will appropriate money to upgralde such roads is if
these roads are classified nontolerable. He said he does~inot think this
classification of Garth Road should give the Board reasoni!to deny the plat.
He added that Mr. Kessler had also talked with water experts, and believes
that the Mechum River will not be affected by the development.
In conclusion, he said, he thinks the plat meets all ithe County require-
ments. He said the Wind River project will be a quality ~esidential develop-
ment, in harmony with the area and better than a strip de~ielopment on Route
614. He urged the Board to approve this plat, as the Planhing Commission had
done.
Ms. Mary Washington Bergin addressed the Board and sa~d she has owned
property on Garth Road for 27 years. She said she opposes~the proposed Wind
River subdivision. With other property owners, she said, .~he walked the area
where the proposed subdivision is to be located. She said. they~ were all
amazed at the steepness on which the proposed lots and septic fields were to
be located. Lots four, five, 11 and 12 are very close to grades that exceed
25 percent, she said. She said it appears that the septic~fields on lots four
and five will have to converge to meet the required setback and these septic
fields border an area steeper than 25 percent. She said M~. Pullen of the
Planning Department accompanied them and, after seeing forlhimself the sharp
incline of the property toward the river, said he could sea the reason for
their concern.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
674
She said she believes that anyone who saw this site would agree that a
16-lot housing development is not the best use of this land. The inclinefrom
the river is quite steep all the way through the Wind River lots to their
entrance on Garth Road, and on either side of many lots the land falls away
into deep gullies. She said the whole property slopes down toward the Mechum
River, not only in a general direction, but often in deep depressions which
lead to streams that flow directly into the river. She said it is difficult
to believe that some of the wastewater from sixteen septic fields serving
large houses with two or three bathrooms will not find its way into the River
and eventually into the reservoir. She said the Planning Commission even
exempted one lot, lot six, from section 4.24~1 of the zoning ordinance which
requires stricter setbacks provisions from streams and flood plains. In an
area as sensitive as this, she said, located:not only within the water shed,
but bordering the river itself, the strictest protection measures should be
rigorously enforced. She said the Board shonld see to it that, at the very
least, lot six is eliminated from the plat.
Ms. Bergin said that she and other citizens are becoming increasingly
concerned that the County's elected and appointed officials are not protecting
the watershed. She cited the number and size of developments built within the
Mechum watershed as evidence for her concerni She said Whipporwill and
Waverly subdivisions are both very large and~are located on land that slopes
down to the Mechum River. When Waverly was considered by the Planning Commis-
sion, a member of the Commission said "we think this project is the wrong
thing in the wrong place, but since the developer has complied with the
provisions of the subdivision ordinance, we cannot turn it down". She said
she believes that the Wind River development~is also the wrong thing in the
wrong place and, once again, the Planning Commission has granted such a
project approval because it complies with th~ letter of the law. She said she
and other citizens have come to believe that~neither the Planning Commission,
the Comprehensive Plan, nor concerned citizens can protect the watershed. It
is the Subdivision Ordinance that determines ithe fate of the watershed, she
said. Developers who got in under the wire ~efore the enactment of the Zoning
Ordinance, whose percolation test was positive and whose plats conformed,
however narrowly, to the Subdivision Ordinanc~e, can and do build subdivisions
within the watershed.
Ms. Bergin said something must change in~ order to reverse this trend.
She suggested curtailing, or even removing, the division rights of property
owners within the watershed. Perhaps, she said, there should be a review
board established with the authority to see that the watershed is protected
and that rural areas remain rural no matter who comes forward with building
projects that comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. She said such review
boards exist and operate effectively in many Coastal areas. She said many
property owners would undoubtedly raise a hue and a cry about such measures
and legal battles would ensue. But, she said, it is time for local officials
to take up their proper roles as stewards of the land and guardians of the
Comprehensive Plan, even if they meet with powerful opposition. She said it
is time to turn the spotlight on those land speculators who would welcome the
transformation of the County into an Arlington County. She said it is time to
turn the spotlight on those public officials Who sought votes with promises of
concern for the environment amd now, installed in power, appear to capitulate
time after time to the interests of developers. Since the Comprehensive Plan
went into effect, she said, 6'0 percent of the?development in the County has
taken place in rural areas. Despite Mr. Kessier's platitudes about Wind River
preserving the rural character of the County, she said, subdivisions, by their
very presence, destroy rural character. She asked the Board to honor the
appeal of the adjoining landowners and deny aPproval of the Wind River
project.
(Note: Mr. Bain left the meeting at this time.)
Dr. Gerhard Dessauer addressed the Board~and said he and his wife sent a
letter to Mr. Pullen on January 15, 1988, andinever received an answer. He
said he and his wife were concerned about theiavailability of fresh water to
all.the people who plan to be build houses inzthe Harmony and Wind River
subdivisions. He wanted to know if anyone had studied the availability of
water in this area. He said he is worried th9 house located down the slope
may take all the water and those, like himself, who live further up may be out
of water.
675
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne if he could answer Dr. Dessauer's question. Mr.
Home said well locations have been sited on the individual lots, but no one
has studied the general availability .of groundwater. Mr~ Dessauer said this
was an important issue, and one the staff should know something about.
Mr. Frank Peters addressed the Board and said he appealed before this
Board eight years ago on a similar issue, the development of the Berta Jones
property on Garth Road. He said his contention then was that the Comprehen-
sive Plan was not something the Board was at liberty to toy with. He said the
Board seems to feel it is not bound by the Plan. Many of the ordinances, he
continued, are inconsistent with recent development activity on Garth Road,
such as the Edgerton property, which abuts his property and has affected his
pond, and this property at the hearing today.
(Note: Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at this time.)
After the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Peters continued, it
appealed to the federal government for money to clean up the Rivanna River.
The federal government gave the County this money because the County had a
Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Peters said. Now, he said, the Board is allowing more
developments in the watershed and will have to return to'the federal govern-
ment and ask for more money to clean up the reservoir.
Mr. Peters said he was also concerned about the traffic this development
would add to Garth Road. He said his wife is already afraid to drive on this
road because the traffic is so heavy. He said the Board ~can say Garth Road
should be the VDoT's problem. However, he said, as deveiopment continues,
Garth Road will become a big highway, and the very thing property owners along
the road have sought to preserve and protect will be lost.
If the Board is not going to abide by the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Peters
said, then why did the Board bother to pass it. He says ~he thinks the Plan
and the protection it should offer to rural areas are the important issues
here, not details such as how many lots there will be, or how many houses. He
said he thinks this hearing would have been unnecessary if the Board had said
"no" eight years ago. Now, he said, he fears there will be an endless churn-
ing of plats, hearings and oppositions.
Ms. Gabriel Copen addressed the Board and said she is an adjacent land-
owner to the proposed Wind River subdivision. On a Sunda~, two or three weeks
ago, she said, there was an accident on Garth Road about one hundred feet from
the proposed entrance to the Wind River project.
Ms. Copen said she moved to the County recently from~an area that was
renowned for its beauty and high per capita income. She said she would like
to tell the Board what happened to that area. The area was originally open
rows of farm land surrounded by reservoirs which supplied~ia large city. As
the city began to grow, the laws of the community slowly ~egan to change to
protect what was left of the rural environment. Many developers heard of the
changes, purchased land and divided it before the new laws could take effect.
Now, she said, the area is no longer rural. The few farm~ left are forced to
use and pay for public water, in spite of their having weils and septic tanks
of their own. But developers had met the provisions of t~e local Subdivision
Ordinance and so developments and even light industry popped up everywhere.
The roads became congested and dangerous and they all had ito be widened at the
same time. The schools became overcrowded and the qualit~ of education
plummeted. Starving deer ravaged yards for lack of space:iand food. Even the
animal lovers begged the authorities to slaughter the dee~ to protect their
yards and their children and their pets. The water becam~ foul and no good
for fishing. She said she does not believe anyone at the ~eeting tonight
wishes to see this happen to the County, but it will happen unless the Board
acts right now.
One of the problems experienced in a rural area as it! becomes surbur-
banized is a conflict in values, Ms. Copen said. Residentis of subdivisions
often want regulations that conflict with normal rural act~ivity. For example,
she said, there is a dog leash law in Waverly Subdivision,i a regulation that
would be absurd on the adjacent farm of one thousand acres~. Residents of
another subdivision have complained about stallions being turned out in
paddocks near the backyards of residents with small children, even though the
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
676
paddocks and stables have existed on the farm since the Revolutionary War.
Those who live in subdivisions have paid high prices for their lots and expect
amenities such as a safe road and good schools. Yet the road on which Wind
River is proposed is unsafe for heavy traffic and the new school which chil-
dren in this area will attend is already too small for the number of students
anticipated. She said the suburbs are not compatible with rural life, nor are
rural areas suitable for suburbs.
Ms. Copen said the proposed revision to the Comprehensive Plan recommends
that the County take an active role in encouraging rural landowners to form
agricultural/forestat districts. She said several landowners adjacent to the
proposed Wind River subdivision have already formed such a district, thereby
giving up all division rights for eight years. Nonetheless, the development
of a 16-house subdivision is allowed to destroy the open space the adjacent
property owners sought to preserve.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick addressed the Board and said she lived on Garth Road,
past the proposed Wind River subdivision. She said she has driven on Garth
Road every day for the last ten years and knows that increasing the traffic on
this road will make it more dangerous. She said she and her neighbors believe
that it is crucial to preserve the County as they have known it and, to this
end, growth should be directed into the designated growth areas. From the
current review of the Comprehensive Plan, shelsaid, she has gathered that the
Board wishes to direct growth into the growt~ areas, but has failed to do so
within the last four years. She said the Board could see this plat as an
opportunity to send a message that this kind ~of development will not be
allowed outside the growth areas of the Coun~.
Ms. Buttrich added that she asked an independent surveyor to look at the
plat. He was concerned that lot 11 did not have a kernel of two acres in the
parent parcel and therefore should be considered a non-conforming lot.
Ms. Jane Heyward said she lives far away, but was still concerned about
the County and its open space. She said the ~hesapeake Bay has a setback of
1000 feet and asked if a setback of 100 feet was enough to protect the Coun-
ty's watersupply.
Ms. Mary Scott Birdsall addressed the Board and said she and her husband
live on Schelford Farm, which lies directly downstream from the Wind River
subdivision. She
said they also owned land directly across from the Mechum
River where the subdivision is expected to go.~ She said they have over 1000
acres of land in the Moormans River Agricultu~al/Forestal District. She said
she represented herself, her husband, and many other property owners who, by
placing their land in an agricultural/forestai district, demonstrate their
convictions that the remaining farms and forest surrounding the City of
Charlottesville are an irreplaceable treasure and an asset to the community in
which we live and work.
She said she is concerned about the insinuation of subdivisions in rural
areas. She said she will not respond to Mr. Kessler's accusations of smoke
screening; she feels he had a good smoke screen machine plugged in when he
gave the Board his version of the events immediately preceding the appeal.
Even a lot of smoke, she said, cannot hide th~ ever-increasing subdivisions
that are sprouting in the rural areas.
Ms. Birdsall said the plat raises iSsueslwhich have not yet been
addressed and which may not be able to be resdlved today. She said she thinks
the County needs a reevaluation of the interpretation of the intent and the
content of the requirements and regulatiqns concerning the land policy. She
asked that the Board look vigilantly to ~he ZQning Ordinance and the Compre-
hensive Plan as guides and do everything in ins power to protect the citizens
of the County and its watershed and irreplaceable environment, by insisting on
rural densities in rural areas.
She said she and like-minded citizens hage been advised that the proper
forum for expressing their concern over ~he rural areas is the upcoming
meetings on the Comprehensive Plan. In ~he m~antime, she said, at least three
subdivisions on a three-mile stretch of Curaliroad in a rural area have been
established. This development is said t~ be a by-right subdivision, she said,
because the owners divided the property into ~s many skinny little parcels as
67 7
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
they could before the Zoning Ordinance went into effect in 1980. When someone
sets out to thwart County zoning regulations and the Comprehensive plan, she
said, the citizens may call upon the Board to protect the land. She said the
Board could protect the citizens and the environment by enforcing the princi-
ple of rural density for rural areas.
Ms. Birdsall said she would also like to respond to the threats heard
continually from speculators and developers, that their developments could
hold even more houses and even more people, as this developer says he could
put as many as 35 houses on this property. She said she supposes this threat
is made to frighten rural residents into silence. If this expensive develop-
ment had to have seven little roads coming out of those skinny little lots and
had to work with the slopes, screens, cemetery and roads lying inside those
skinny little lots, she said, the lots would not be nearly as salable as Mr.
Kessler would like. These skinny little lots would not be as salable as the
proposal Mr. Kessler brings before the Board today, she said, a proposal he
tells the Board the neighbors will love. She said she and other neighbors
will not love this subdivision, because it will eat up yet another chunk of
the rural area and soon there will be no more country left.
Ms. Birdsall said the treasurer of the county's farms and forests has no
voice of its own; the citizens must be that voice and the elected officials
have the power, when different interpretations exist, to look very carefully
at the issues and decide upon them. She asked that the Board please double
check the slopes, consider what is right for the watershed and the utility of
exchanging building rights between parcels. Finally, she~said, she would ask
the Board to keep areas designated rural as rural as possible.
Since no one else wished to speak on the Wind River plat, Mr. Way closed
the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board2
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. McGee said there in no body better able to inter-
pret the Zoning Ordinance than the Board. The fact of the! matter is, he said,
there is only one member of this Board who was on the Board that adopted this
ordinance and that is him. He said he thinks Mr. Bowie m}ght say, and quite
rightly, that the intent of the six people who adopted the ordinance in
Recember, 1980, is subject to the interpretation of this ~oard. He said he
would defend this opinion and he also feels he has the right to describe the
intent of that earlier Board, as expressed during the many, many meetings that
want into this ordinance.
He said the Board cannot ignore its ordinances any moire than an indi-
vidual can ignore the law. Nor can the Board impose the Comprehensive Plan as
if it were the Zoning Ordinance. He said this country was founded on a
government of laws, not of men, and we must respect this p~inciple even when
the laws are not to our liking. Laws must be predictable and stable, he said.
He said he believed the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, when it was
adopted, was to implement the Comprehensive Plan and to allow people who owned
tracts of land in rural areas an escape valve. He said he.was concerned that
agricultural activities might not support some farmers and~they might find it
necessary from time to time to sell lots in order to keep ~he major parcel of
property upon which they may have lived all their lives. He said the Board
decided to allow five two-acre development rights per parcel in existence at
the date of the adoption of the ordinance. He said that ia the table in
Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, there is a column entitled "Require-
ments'' and he believes all of these requirements must be met on the parcel
that generates those five development rights. He does noti!think the require-
ments should be met by rearranging the parcels. He said hA does not think the
Zoning Ordinance says a developer automatically has 25 lots if five parcels
were in existence, or 35 for seVen lots. He said he wishe4 he could say this
was the way the Board has applied the Ordinance. He said he believes this
zoning ordinance was intended to direct development away f~om the rural areas
and the law should be applied in.these cases as strictly a~ it is in others.
He said he has voted in favor of Comprehensive Plan provisions that have not
been popular, because he thought the Plan should be followed.
Where the law was set out with a particular purpose, ~ implement the
Comprehensive Plan which was intended to preserve the ruralt areas, Mr.
Lindstrom said, the law should be strictly construed. Unfoirtunately, he said,
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
678
the law has not been interpreted this way and he does not think it will be in
this case. He said he does not think this plat, even in the wildest of
imaginations, can be thought to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
People may say a strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance may lead to bad
planning, Mr. Lindstrom said. He said the issue is whether these lots would
be salable and developable in a practical economic sense if the Board imposed
the Zoning Ordinance strictly. Every time the Board imposes less than the
letter of the law for the sake of what is believed to be good planning, Mr.
Lindstrom said, the Board is second-guessing the Ordinance. Instead of
second-guessing the Ordinance, he said, he thinks the Board should read it as
it is written and apply it as it lays.
Mr. Lindstrom moved that the plat before the Board be denied.
Mr. Bain said he would support the motion on the legal basis that the
plat does not comply with Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. He said he
was not a member of the Board during the discussions six months ago, nor was
he a member of the Board during the discussions eight years ago, but he
liStened then and believes that the Ordinance was intended to limit the number
of parcels in rural areas. He said he has problems with the way development
has occurred in the rural areas. Today, he ~aid, he will second the motion
simply because he does not believe it meets the parcel concept as it is
designated and set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion.
Mr. Way said he does not support the motion because he believed the Plan
met the standards the Board has laid down. He said he thinks the landowner
has the right to develop his property in the~ay he proposes and has made a
considerable effort to comply with the ordinances.
Mr. Bowie said he would not support the motion either. Although part of
his position has already been given, he said~ he would like to respond to a
few comments. He said he thinks the applicant has gone beyond the letter of
the law to the spirit of the law. Everybody who spoke this morning and at
least three members of the Board, including h~mself, live in a rural area, he
said. He said he has a lot of problems with people who live in a rural area
and do not want anybody else to live near them. People want to live in a
rural area, he said, and they should be able ito. He said the applicant has
complied with all the County ordinances, agreed to the setback on Garth Road
to meet the scenic highway requirements, agreed to a one hundred foot conser-
vation easement from the Mech%~n River and even offered to sell the land to the
people who did not want anything there. He s~id he can find no reason to
support the motion.
Mr. Perkins said he has always been confused when he sees developments
approved to preserve the countryside, when one family is taking up five, ten
or thirty acres. He said he would rather see~something like 16 or 20 families
on 40 acres, rather than 16 families taking up 95 acres. He said houses
destroy the rural landscape and having large lots does not preserve anything.
One side says the plat complies with the Zoning Ordinance and another side
says it does not, he noted. He asked Mr. St..John for his opinion.
Mr. St. John said he should be able to give Mr. Perkins a yes or no
answer, but he cannot. He said his opinion iA only the opinion of one attor-
ney and there are two attorneys on the Board ~ith opinions just as valid as
his. When the planning staff and he got together shortly after the 1980
ordinance was enacted, he said, they decided that this kernel concept was the
proper interpretation of the ordinance. He s~id they took their interpreta-
tion to the Board to make sure this was the i~terpretation the Board wished to
be enforced. If not, Mr. St. John said, the ~oard could amend the ordinance
simply by saying all the requirements in that~table must be met within the
boundaries of the existing parcel. Mr. St. Jdhn said the Board met in several
work sessions and the Board members at that t~me could not agree to change the
ordinance, which indicated to the staff and him that they were to continue
with the interpretation in use and allow some of the requirements of these
lots to be met off the parcel in question.
Mr. St. John said he was prepared to defend whatever this Board decides
on this plat. He said there are justiciable arguments on both sides. In
679
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
order for Mr. Perkins to form his own opinion on whether this kernel concept
is the proper interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, he said, he would have
to go through the work sessions the Board went through before, because this is
such a complicated issue.
Mrs. Cooke said she has sat here time after time, application after
application, and lawyer after lawyer, hoping to hear something upon which a
lay person like herself can base an opinion. She said she is satisfied this
applicant has done what was asked of him by the ordinance and has complied
with the concerns of the opposition. She said she has a problem with the fact
that an application may get this far and the Board is still arguing about what
is right and what is wrong, what is meant by the Ordinance and what is not
meant by the Ordinance. She said the ordinances should be written so that
people like her and other citizens can understand them.
For those who have problems with the content of the ordinance, she asked
that they not take it out on this particular applicant. She said the time to
address these problems is during hearings for the ordinances. She said she
understands that the people who have spoken here in opposition to the plat
want to protect the rural areas. But, when an applicant'has done everything
he has been asked to do, she said she does not think the Board should pull the
rug out from under him at this late point. She said shecannot support the
motion.
There was no other discussion. Roll was called and'..the motion was denied
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Lindstrom.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
With no affirmative action taken by the Board, the action of the Planning
Commission stands.
Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:37 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and Seconded by Mr. Bain
to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters pertaining to the
nativity scene and personnel matters. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by ~he following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Linds~.rom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:43 P.M.
Agenda Item No 10. Appalachian Power Company Contract. Mr. Agnor
presented the following memorandum, dated March 4, 1988: ~
"The Virginia Association of Counties and Virginia MUnicipal League
Steering Committee, negotiating rates for electric service for local
governments and school divisions, has completed its :task and signed
an agreement to a reduction in rates for a three year term from
3uly 1, 1987, through June 30, 1990. Rate reduction attributed to
changes in tax laws of the 1986 Tax Reform Act are 10 percent for the
period July - December 1987, and 15 percent beginning January 1,
1988, for buildings and pumps. Street light rates are reduced six
percent July - December 1987, and .12 percent beginni~ng January 1,
1988. ::
Each locality has been presented new contracts reflecting the rate
changes, which require governing body approval. It ~s requested that
~ "
the County Executive be authorized to execute the re ised contracts.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to authorize
the County Executive to execute the revised contract, dat?d April 12, 1988,
between the Appalachian Power Company and the Albemarle C6unty Board of
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
68O
Supervisors. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Set public hearing to amend Chapter 5 of the County
Code, Buildings, to include Statewide Building Maintenance Code. Mr. Agnor
presented the following memorandum, dated March 3, 1988:
"The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has
adopted a building maintenance code which governs the maintenance and
use of both public and private buildings statewide. While this code
is a mandatory set of regulations, it states that enforcement of the
provisions may be in whole or in part.
The code, in staff opinion, is all encompassingregarding building
maintenance and applies to both rental and owner-occupied properties
including residential, commercial and industrial uses. The code is
intended to provide a hazard-free, clean and sanitary (free of trash,
rubbish and vermin), structurally sound, properly heated and venti-
lated, and safe structure/property.
There are three alternatives which staff poses for your considera-
tion:
Proposal I - Adopt and enforce the building maintenance code in
its entirety. This proposal would provide a means for pre-
venting blight and maintaining the tax base. (This approach is
used primarily in densely populatedlurban areas where blighted
areas exist and their impact on the locality's tax base is
evident.) This proposal, if implemented, would be the most
costly for the County since an estimated doubling of inspection
manpower, vehicles and equipment would be necessary.
Proposal II - Adopt the code but make its enforcement applicable
through written complaints only fon~residential rental pro-
perties and not applicable to private owner-occupied property,
commercial, or industrialproperty.
This would supplement the State's LAndlord-Tenant Act, although
the legal staff is of the opinion that this Act adequately
protects tenants. No additional manpower needs would be
required for implementation.
Proposal III - Adopt the code, which is a mandatory set of
regulations, but provide no enforce~ent of its provisions until
further need for such regulations can be identified.
Of the three proposals, staff would support Proposal II since the
majority of the complaints received by tbe Inspections Department are
related to rental property and this approach would complement the
Landlord-Tenant provision already in effect.
Regardless of which option is favored byithe Board, a resolution of
intent to amend Chapter 5 of the County Code to include Volume II
Building Maintenance Code, will be necessary.
APPENDIX ~
The following is a summarized list of th~ major provisions found in
Volume II of the State's Building Maintenance Code.
1. All premises shall be graded to pre~ent the accumulation of
stagnant water. '~
2. Sidewalks, steps, driveways etc. sh~ll be free of hazards
such as ice, debris, and improper s~ate of repair.
3. Exterior building structure shall b~ generally sound and
structurally adequate.
681
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Me
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Street numbers, if assigned, shall be posted on the building.
Roofs shall be watertight.
Exterior surfaces shall be coated (i.e. painted) for protection
from the elements.
Handrails, guardrails, porches and steps shall be properly
constructed.
Windows and doors shall be easily operable and weathertight.
All window panes shall be intact.
Insect screens are required from April 1 to December 1.
Lead-based interior paints shall be removed.
Bathrooms and kitchens shall be constructed of materials
that are generally impervious to water.
Basements and crawl spaces shall be free of dampness.
There shall be no interior accumulation of rubbish.
Buildings shall be free from vermin infestation.
Minimum light and ventilation requirements for all rooms
shall be satisfied.
Rooms shall have minimum dimensions; including seven feet room
width, seven and one-third feet ceiling height, and bedroom
sizes of 70 sq. ft. for one occupant with an added 50 sq. ft.
for each additional occupant.
Certain plumbing fixtures shall be mandatory, and they shall
operate properly, (i.e. toilet, lavatory, bathtub or shower, and
a kitchen sink).
Plumbing fixtures shall be connected to an approved private or
public sewage system.
Water supply to a building shall be adequate to serve all
plumbing fixtures.
Buildings shall be heated from October 1 to May 15. The temper-
ature is to be at least 65 degrees F. from 6:30~a.m. to 10:30
p.m., and at least 60 degrees F. at all other times.
There shall be at least two electrical receptacles per habitable
room, one per bathroom, and one per laundry room.
There shall be light fixtures in halls, stairs,.bathrooms,
laundry rooms, and furnace rooms.
The electrical system shall be basically safe and functional.
Any elevators, escalators and dumbwaiters shall ioperate safely.
Buildings shall be generally clean and sanitary.I
Garbage disposal facilities shall be provided.
Rubbish storage facilities shall be provided.
Vermin shall be exterminated.
Fire escapes shall be maintained.
Exit signs shall be maintained.
Two exitways shall be provided from upper floors of a residen-
tial building that is three or more stories, except one and two
family dwellings.
Fire doors shall be maintained.
Fire extinguishers shall bemaintained."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the building maintenance code Would apply to
someone who owned just one rental property. Mr. Agnor said he believed the
County could apply the code as it wished. Mr. Lindstrom said he had a rental
unit which may be affected by this code and did not think he should vote on
this issue.
Mr. Bowie said several citizens from his district hav& complained about
three residential properties and he does not understand wh~ the County does
not extend the code to residential, owner-occupied buildings. Mr. Agnor said
the problem was that citizens did not limit themselves to Complaining about
safety hazards, but would report their neighbors for thingg like not pa£nting
their houses. Mr. Agnor said a complaint could be accepte~ only if the
occupant of the house was in danger due to negligence on thee part of the owner
of the house.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the building maintenance code wou%d apply to commer-
cial and residential property. Mr. Agnor said it could, but the staff recom-
mended applying the code only to rental property.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
682
Mr. Bowie noted that the wording of Proposal II makes it clear who can
file a complaint against a landlord.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to set a
public hearing for April 13 on an ordinance adopting the Building Maintenance
Code according to Proposal II, as outlined in the memorandum presented above.
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to amend the service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for water only, from Alexander von Thelen for
Chathill Farm on Route 677.
Mr. Home presented the following memorandum, dated February 25, 1988:
"This Department has discussed this request with Mr. von Thelen and
in those discussions it was indicated that the applicant has experi-
enced quantity and quality problems with the existing well on the
property. It is our understanding that these problems are the basis
for the request. If after discussions with the applicant the Board
is convinced that these quantity and quality problems are severe
enough to warrant connection to the water system, the staff would
recommend amendment of the service areas to include this parcel for
water service to existing structures only. This has been discussed
with the applicant and Mr. von Thelen has indicated that this would
solve his immediate problem and it is not his intention to use water
service as an impetus for further develo~pment of the property."
Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John if the Board would be setting a precedent by
extending water to existing structures. Mr. Home said the Board has granted
requests such as this before and stipulated that the water would be extended
only to existing structures.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Horne who decided that the water on the applicant's
property was bad, and what criteria were used~ Mr. Horne said there was no
standard set of criteria involved.
Mr. von Thelan addressed the Board and s~id he bought the 24-acre pro-
perty on Route 250 West and Route 677 in 1950~. He said he consulted with Mr.
McGill about having a well dug and was told the property lay on a major
granite cap and there was only a small chance of locating a well on this
property. With the help of local douser Mr. Alexander Reeves, Mr. yon Thelan
said, he had a well dug and finally reached water at 258 feet. The well has a
flow rate of only 30 gallons per minute, he said. He said he had no problems
with this well until the Kearsarge subdivision was built and the developer had
a deep artesian well dug. Since then, the pressure of his water has been
steadily dropping. The quality of his water has declined as well, he said,
and he has had to have the well chlorinated three times recently. He said he
is not developing the property or adding to its density, he is just concerned
about his personal water supply.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority
if he could elaborate upon the central well s~stem of Kearsarge subdivision.
Mr. Brent said the water table has been droppSng in this area for a few years
and pumps for the subdivision were lowered to!keep up with the water supply.
Finally, during the summer of 1987, the wateritable dropped too low for the
pumps and Kearsarge subdivision has been importing water ever since. Even
after the rains came, the water table did not!rise, Mr. Brent said.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set a public
hearing for April 13 to amend the services ar~a of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for water only to existing ~tructures. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
683
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Messrs. Bainand Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appropriation: Funding of Joint Security Complex
expansion.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left at 2:04 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor said the reasons for this appropriation are set out in the
minutes of February 17, 1988. A public hearing was held last week and now the
Board may take action to make the actual appropriation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve an
appropriation of $225,000 for the County's share of funding the Joint Security
Comples expansion by a transfer of funds from the undesignated Fund Balance of
the Capital Improvement Fund; and to also appropriate $300,000 as the County's
share of the advance for the State fund. There was no further discussion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: Mr. St. John left at 2:08 P.M.)
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom returned at 2:09 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Burley School Project.
The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. N. Andrew
Overstreet, School Superintendent, dated February 24, 1988:
"The School Board voted unanimously to request the Board of Supervi-
sors to incorporate, on an emergency basis, funding in the current
Capital Improvements Plan to complete of Phase I of the renovation
for Burley Middle School. The $1,032,000 requested is divided into
three categories on the attached page (Top Priority ~ Must Have,
Second Priority - Energy Savings, and Third Priorityl- Deferrable).
The scope of the project is unchanged; items listed were included in
the original project. The request is for funding of this project to
allow completion with the current contractor. If the contract for
these items is signed by March 15, 1988, materials can be ordered and
the project completed this summer.
Burley Project
1. Annex presently has no fixed walls to separate classes.
2. Handicap access from floor to floor is virtually impossible.
3. Administrative Area is cramped and not conducive ~o student needs
or community reception.
The present exterior doors are not energy efficient. It is
recommended that these doors be replaced with units which
complement the new windows.
o
The annex, guidance and administrative areas will require modular
furnishing to provide storage, student seating and office
operations.
Total Project Bid:
Completion of Annex
Installation of Elevator
Completion of Guidance & Admin. Area
Replace Exterior Doors
Equipment/Furniture
$ 364,000
99,2p0
70,000
32,000
65,000
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Completion of Mechanical Upgrade
Replacement of all Interior Doors
277,800
123~500
$1,032,000
Top Priority (Must Have):
Completion of Annex
Installation of Elevator
Completion of Guidance & Admin. Area
Equipment/Furniture
$ 364,000
99,200
70,000
65,000
$ 598,200
Second Priority (Energy Savings):
Replacement of Exterior Doors
$ 32,500
Third Priority (Deferrable):
Completion of Mechanical Upgrade
Replacement of Interior Doors
$ 277,800
123~500
$ 401,300
Burley Middle School Construction Budget/Request
Phase I
Construction Budget
Initial Low Bid
Amount Deferred
Phase I Contract
$1,891,000
2,415,000
533~500
$1,881,500
Phase iA Request
Annex
Elevator
Guidance/Administration
$364,000
99,200
70,000
$ 533,200
Equipment 65~000
TOTAL (Top Priority)
684
$598,200"
Mr. Overstreet said the School Board had deferred about $533,000 worth of
items from Phase I of the Burley project, because the bid for the project
exceeded the appropriation for the project. These items included completion
of the annex, installation of an elevator and completion of the Guidance and
Administrative areas. He said it was important that the annex be renovated
from an open space into regular classrooms, with interior walls, in time to
hold the additional students expected to attend Burley school next year. He
said an elevator was still needed in the main part of the school, so students
in wheelchairs do not have to be wheeled outside the building, into the street
and back into the school.
Mr. Overstreet asked that the Board appropriate the funds necessary to
complete Phase I of the project this summer, iIf the School Board were to
submit this request as part of the CIP, the pnoject could not be completed in
time for the 1988-89 school year. He said he.~is particularly concerned that
the annex be completed to handle the surge in !enrollment.
He said one item was added to the Top Priority list that was not part of
the original Phase I project: a request for $65,000 for furniture and equip-
ment. Hesaid this money would be used to furnish the completed annex and
would include things like lockers, blackboards and coat closets. This item
brings the total of Top Priority items to $598;200, Mr. Overstreet said.
He said most of the items listed as second and third priorities could be
deferred. He said he thinks one of the items, the replacement of exterior
doors, is important enough to be considered for funding at this time. He said
new heating and cooling equipment was installed in the school and he is afraid
that some of the energy savings resulting fromlthis new equipment may be lost
unless the exterior doors are replaced. He said the doors should have been
replaced as part of the original project, as the windows were.
Mrs. Cooke asked why the doors were not replaced as part of Phase I. Mr.
Papenfuse said the architects overlooked the n~ed for new doors and it was the
685
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
contractor who suggested that the doors should be replaced with more energy-
efficient doors.
Mr. Overstreet said the School Board wished to have the work listed under
"Top Priority" completed by the same contractor, R. E. Lee Builders, who had
worked on Phase I of the project.
Mr. Bain asked if the costs were firm. Mr. Overstreet said "yes", and
added that representatives from R. E. Lee Builders are present at the meeting
today, if the Board had any questions for them.
Mr. Perkins asked what would be involved in replacing the doors. Mr.
Overstreet said the door opening would be re-framed; only the existing interi-
or, wide-wood casing would be kept. On the front of the school, facing Rose
Hill Drive, the doors would be of black aluminum, to match the windows. The
side and back doors, he said, would be of hollow metal painted to match the
window casings. He said less expensive doors could be used, but this would
affect the appearance of the school.
Mr. Perkins asked what the existing doors were like. Mr. Overstreet said
these doors were wooden, with glass windows made of single-pane glass.
When it became clear that the Burley project was going to exceed its
budget, Mr. Bowie said, the Board agreed to allocate the~funds available for
this project and then pay for the rest of the approved project during this CIP
cycle. He said this is the first time that some of the extras have been
brought up. As he remembers, he said, the Board obligated $533,200 to pay for
the rest of the project.
Mr. Bowie asked what the children who were attending classes in the annex
now used for equipment. Mr. Overstreet said students used lockers and storage
in the main building. Mr. Way asked if the students had desks and chairs.
Mr. Overstreet said "yes".
Mr. Bain asked how much one hundred lockers would cost. Mr. Overstreet
said he did not know, the estimate he gave the Board was for a list of differ-
ent types of equipment. Mrs. Cooke said she wondered if the person doing the
estimates now was the same person who did them before. Mr. Overstreet said he
thought all the other costs were firm, the costs for the exterior door, the
annex, the elevator, and completing the guidance and administrative centers.
Mr. Papenfuse added that the bids for the Burley library equipment and office
equipment and kitchen furnishing for Meriwether Lewis School had all been
right on target, because the prices were drawn straight from a catalog. Where
the estimates have erred, Mr. Papenfuse said, is on construction costs and
site development. He said he believes the estimate of $6§,000 for equipment
and furniture for the annex is accurate.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to know what will be indluded under the
listing of equipment and furniture. Mr. Papenfuse said t~e list includes
modular furniture for secretaries and receptionists, furnishings for the
Principal and Assistant Principal, and furnishings for a dlinic in the admin-
istrative area for sick students. In the annex, he said,~the equipment needed
includes storage cabinets for the classrooms, lockers, and mountable tack
board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the Principal and AssistantiPrincipal for Burley
School are using now for furniture. Mr. Overstreet said ~he teachers and
students all got new desks, but no new furniture was ever iprovided for admin-
istrative and guidance personnel. He said furniture for ~he administrative
office was a very small part of the amount needed for furditure and equipment.
The most expensive item on this list, he said, is the modular furniture for
the secretaries, which will include partitions as part of{the furniture, thus
doing away with the need to build walls and interior partitions in this area.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the teachers' desks were replaced as part of this
project. Mr. Papenfuse said this was funded from the operating budget over
the past two years.
Mr. Bowie asked what happened to the old furniture. Mr. Papenfuse said
the furniture that was replaced was either reassigned to other schools or
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)~
(Page 31)
686
discarded, if it were no longer usable. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Papenfuse to
estimate how much it cost to replace the desks and chairs for teachers and
students at Burley. Mr. Papenfuse said it probably cost somewhere between
$15,000 and $20,000.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there were a list of every piece of furniture needed
to finish the Burley project. If there were such a list, she added, she does
not understand why the amount needed for the furniture should be an estimate
and not a firm cost. Mr. Papenfuse said the Schools staff had the list of
items needed and the current price of each one. Mrs. Cooke asked that the
Board be given this list and Mr. Papenfuse agreed.
Mr. Overstreet asked that the Board not delay its decision on the entire
project until it has received the itemized list of furniture.
Mr. Bowie said he had promised he would support the School Board's
request for an additional $533,200 to finish the Burley project. He said he
would liked to have seen a request from the School Board for this amount, not
one for $100,000 more.
Mr. Way asked if an appropriation of $533,200 would finish the annex.
Mr. Papenfuse said $533,200 would not be enough to make the annex into opera-
tional classrooms. Mrs. Cooke said the Board was told $533,200 would be
enough to finish the annex. Mr. Papenfuse said the equipment was not consid-
ered in the estimate. Mr. Overstreet said he would have added the cost of the
equipment to the amount deferred, had he known it had been left out of the
estimate.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would support funding the $533,200 now. He said he
would also like to see the itemized list of furniture. He said he thought the
Board should consider some of the other requests, such as replacing the
exterior doors, and decide if these are things that really must be done. If
they are, he said, it would be better to hav~ them done quickly.
Mr. Agnor said there would have to be ah advertised hearing to add any
new amount to the CIP budget. He said the Sdhool Board was asking for a
decision by March 15, 1988, so the project c~n be finished by the beginning of
the next school year. In order to be proper~y advertised, a public hearing
could be held no earlier than April 6, 1988. ~ He recommended that the Board
allow the School Board to proceed with the T~p Priority items of the project,
except for the equipment, and the Board coul~ decide whether to appropriate
funds for other items as more information bedomes available.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom end'seconded by Mr. Bain to set a
public hearing for April 6, 1988, for the items requested in the memo from Mr.
0verstreet, dated February 24, 1988, and to ~sk for more information concern-
ing the equipment requested and the mechanical upgrade. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion ~arried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom said there was another mahter related to the problem with
Burley School that worried him: time is running out for the two extra class-
rooms that may be needed at Meriwether Lewis ~Bchool. He said the School Board
and Schools staff are taking a big risk if they assume there will be a new,
major school built in this area that will negate the need for adding two
classrooms to the Meriwether Lewis School. He said he is very concerned that
the deadline for adding these two rooms is approaching and the Board has yet
to hear anything from the School Board about redistricting or using teachers'
aides in the classroom. He warned that he will not be pressured into support-
ing the building of a new school simply because the School Board has allowed
time to run out on other options.
Mr. Overstreet promised to pass these concerns on to the School Board at
its meeting on March 14, 1988. He said there' are constraints against expand-
ing Meriwether Lewis School: the size of the lot, the drainage and sewer
system, and the configuration of the cafeteria and gymnasium. He said he
687
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
thought two more classrooms could be added, but he thought this would be a
short term solution, because he has seen figures that show growth is going to
be higher than anticipated in this area.
Mr. Bowie said he had asked for some information in October, 1986, and
again a month or so ago, and had not yet received this information. All he
wanted, he said, was a list of schools with three columns of information: how
many students each would hold according to State construction standards; how
many students each would hold according to the Schools staff's requirements;
and, how many students were enrolled in each school. Mr. Overstreet said he
would pull the necessary pages from the Task Force Report. Mr. Lindstrom said
this report does not reflect the School Board's policy. The Task Force Report
shows a State standard of 25 students per classroom and the Schools staff's
standard of 22 students per classroom, he said. Mr. Lindstrom said he under-
stood that Schools policy was to limit kindergarten through third grade
classrooms to 22 students, but to allow more students per classroom in the
upper grades. He said he does not want the County to have to build schools
that may stand empty in a few years, as he has seen happen in other parts of
the country.
(Note: Mr. Perkins left at 2:51 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the School Board would have the information Mr.
Agnor needed to complete the County budget to present to the Board. Some of
the questions, Mr. Overstreet said, his staff did not get until Friday,
March 4, 1988, and he did not think he could get the answers, in the form Mr.
Agnor wanted them, to the County staff, for at least a few days. Mr. Agnor
Said he still needed answers to questiQns the County staff asked two weeks ago
and the delay forced him to reschedule the budget work sessions. Mr. Agnor
said he could not meet the deadline the Board had given him due to the School
staff's delay.
(Note: Mr. Perkins returned at 2:55 P.M.)
At this time, the Board returned to finish the following uncompleted item
on the morning agenda.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Work Session - Update Six-Year
Secondary Highway Improvement Plan and 1988-89 Secondary Highway Budget.
(Note: Mr. Bowie left at 2:55 P.M. and Mr. St. John!left at 3:.00 P.M.)
Mr. Horne presented the following list of projects slated for 1988-1994:
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
688
PoC.
"CateRory Priority
Spot 1
Spot 2
Spot 3
Spot 4
Spot 5
Spot 6
Countywide 7
Other 8
Major, Bridge 9
Bridge 10
Major 11
Major 12
Bridge 13
Bridge 14
Major 15
16
17
Major 18
Spot 19
Spot 20
Major 21
Major 22
Major 23
Spot 24
Major 25
Major 26
Major 27
Spot 28
Major 29
Spot 30
Spot 31
Major 32
Bridge 33
Bridge 34
Bridge 35
Spot 36
Spot 37
Spot 38
Spot 39
Major 40
Major 41
Bridge 42
Bridge 43
Bridge 44
Major 45
46
RR crossing 47
RR crossing 48
RR crossing 49
RR crossing 50
RR crossing 51
RR crossing 52
RR crossing 53
RR crossing 54
Project Description
Rt. 631 at Rt. 659
Rt. 631 at Agnese St.
Rt. 654 at Rt. 656
Rt. 631 at Rt. 768
Rt. 656 turn lanes
Rt. 631 (Rt. 781 to Rt. 708
bridges)
Pipe installation, signs, prel.
eng., rural additions, etc.
Hatton Ferry operation
Meadowcreek Pkwy (NCL to RR
and bridge)
Rt. 671 bridge & approaches
Estimated
Cost
$ 114,000
81,600
64,900
205,100
105,000
148,500
780,000
60,000
4,656,982
594,792
Rt. 631 widen along new alignment 4,204,920
Rt. 631 widen to 5 lanes 333,355
Rt. 601 Buck Mt. Creek 350,000
Rt. 660 So. Fo=k Rivanna 860,000
Rt. 678 Reconstruct .2 mi. to 85,900
Rt. 250
Unpaved roads (min. allocation) 4,462,528
Plant Mix 1,000,000
Peyton Drive 210,000
Rt. 729 (interSection at Study
Rt. 250E)
Rt. 810 (north'of Rt. 240) 90,000
Rt. 743 (WhiteWood to Rt. 631) 1,700,000
Rt. 631 (Rt. 743 to Rt. 29N) 2,200,000
Berkmar Drive Ext. (800 ft. N. 300,000
Rt. 631)
Rt. 708/Rt.631 intersection 100,000
Barracks Rd. (WCL to Rt. 656) 300,000
Park Road Ext. ~o Rt. 240 150,000
Rt. 649 (Rt. 29N to Rt. 606) 850,000
Rt. 743 (intersection at Rt. 606) 75,000
Greenbrier Drive Extension to 600,000
Rt. 743
Old Ivy Road (~pot improvement) Study
Rt. 743 Commonwealth Dr. turn lane 20,000
Rt. 691 (Rt. 2~0 to Rt. 684) 750,000
Rt. 810 Moormans River 350,000
Rt. 677 (RR at Dld Ballard Rd.) 275,000
Rt. 620 Buck Island Creek 219,000
Rt. 743 (interslection at Rt. 663) Study
Rt. 726 (Rt. 7915 to Rt. 1302) Study
Rt. 631 (growt~i area boundary Study
to park)
Rt. 708 (Rt. 20!to Rt. 29S) Study
Rt. 692 (Rt. 29!~ to Rt. 712) 500,000
Rt. 631 (South ~f improvements to 600,000
growth area b~undary)
Rt. 712 (Ammone~t Branch) 180,000
Rt. 637 (Ivy Creek) 215,000
Rt. 781 (Sunset~Avenue) 185,000
Rt. 656 (George~own Rd.) 600,000
Unpaved Roads (~ther) 6,219,755
Gates at Rt. 745 .02 mi S Rt. 22 35,000
Flashing lights!& gates Rt. 679 65,000
.24 mi S Rt. 538
Flashing lights~& gates Rt. 627 65,000
.74 mi S Rt. ~26
Gates at Rt. 611 .23 mi W Rt. 691 35,000
Gates at Rt. 64~ .28 mi NE rt. 708 35,000
Flashing lightsi& gates Rt. 625 65,000
.75 mi SE Rt.}812
Gates at Rt. 13~0 .04 mi S Rt 6 35,000
Flashing lightst& gates Rt. 662 65,000
mi S. Rt. 626~
$35,196,332"
689
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Horne said the first six projects were spot improvements: on Route
631 at Route 659; Route 631 at Agnese Street; adding a turn lane on Barracks
Road as it meets Georgetown Road; right and left turn lanes on Rio Road at Pen
Park; straightening a curve and adding turn lanes on Georgetown Road at Old
Forge Road; and, improving the bridges on Old Lynchburg Road.
Mr. Horne said Priority 7 included pipe installations, signs, preliminary
engineering and funding for rural additions. Priority 8 is to fund the Hatton
Ferry operation at $10,000 a year for six years. Priority 9 is to build the
Meadow Creek Parkway from the City limits to Rio Road.
Mr. Bain asked if the funds allocated for the Meadow Creek Parkway were
for the entire project or just what the County had available to do the project
right now. Mr. Horne said it was what the County had available right now.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, VDoT Resident Engineer, said the VDoT;has already allocated
$1,153,000 for this project.
(Note: Mr. Bowie returned at 3:00 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the Board had to do to request that the Meadow
Creek Parkway be extended beyond the terminus at Rio Road.
Mr. Bain asked if there were an estimate for the cost of this segment of
Rio Road to the County. Mr. Roosevelt said there were several options for the
kind of road that could be built there. He said he took.the least expensive
option for his estimate and calculated that the road would cost $5.35 million
and $0.5 million for the rest of the project, or $5.85 million for the whole
project, including the bridge over the creek and railroad. Mr. Roosevelt said
it was his responsibility to decide how rapidly the funds would be applied to
the project. If Meadow Creek Parkway is delayed for anoCher six years, he
said, he will not allocate any more money to the project,i freeing funds for
other County projects. He said it was possible that PriOrities 24 and 25 may
be built before Priority 9, the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt said his
responsibility as part of the Six Year Plan process is to estimate a financial
plan based on the priorities set by the Board. If Meadow Creek Parkway is no
longer delayed, he said, he can change this plan so the funds will be there,
ready to be spent.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment upon the progress made on
Priority 10, the bridge and approaches on Route 671 (Moormans River Bridge).
Mr. Roosevelt said a survey had been developed and he met'with a group of
citizens and Mr. Perkins to discuss the plans for the brfdge. He said the
citizens would not even let him unroll the plan and he tkinks they intend to
ask the Board to drop this project from the list. Mr. Roosevelt said the
project was on hold until the Board approves the Six Year[iPlan, but could be
brought up to the point of construction with 15 months once the Board approves
the Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to know what had been done on Priority
10 so far, so he would know how much money would be wasted if the Board
decided to delete this project from the list. Mr. Roosevelt said the survey
and the alignment had cost $7500. ~I
Mr. Perkins asked what the bridge over Route 671 was rated. Mr.
Roosevelt said it was rated a 60.3 out of 100 and was one of the worst ten
bridges in the County, according to the deficiency rating~ of VDoT. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the deficiency ratings concerned only ghe structure of the
bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said the deficiency rating was based on a national
system of comparison and took in consideration the amount of traffic that used
the bridge and the life-span of the bridge, among other t~ings.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for the deficiency rating of thetRey's Ford Bridge on
Route 660 over the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Mr. Roosevelt said
"76.8", which he believed was the highest deficiency rating of any bridge in
the County. Mr. Lindstrom noted that this bridge was Priority 14 on the list.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt for an estimate on Rout~ 631 South. Mr.
Roosevelt said it would cost $4.5 million and $300,000 had already been
allocated.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
690
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Roosevelt for the status of Priority 15, the recon-
struction of two-tenths of a mile of Route 678 to Route 250 West. Mr.
Roosevelt said the VDoT had reviewed a preliminary plan for alignments and
grades before Christmas. He said he returned the preliminary plan to the
County Engineer and has not heard anything more about this project. Mr.
Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive, said Roudabush and Associates was
doing the design work for the County and they were proceeding slowly. Mr.
Tucker said he hoped the project would be done this construction season.
After the plans have been approved, Mr. Roosevelt said, the County will still
have to acquire the right-of-way, and he thinks that may be difficult in this
case. Mr. Tucker said he thought VDoT was going to acquire the right-of-way,
but the County would actually purchase the right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said
he thought the County wanted to acquire the right-of-way because it could move
more quickly than VDoT, since the County would not have to hold all the public
hearings and adhere to the environmental guidelines that VDoT has to meet.
Mr. Horne then presented the Planning Commission's recommended Unpaved
Road Priority List as follows:
Priority Route
1 727
2 777
3 693
5 712
6 760
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
682/787
784
785
643
688/791
682
643
627
600
600 (Watts)
678
18 688
19 674
20 662
Remark
In current Six Year Plan.
funding.
In current Six'Year Plan.
funding.
In current Six year Plan.
funding.
Needs additional
Needs additional
Needs additional
Close to growth area.
school. ~
Public request.
Immediate vicinity of
Public request.
Close to growth area.
Hazardous intersection.
Public request.
Feeder route to Route 743 and Route 29 North.
Route connecting Route 20 North and Route 231
over Southwest Mountain. Potential primary
emergency access.
Railroad underpass and bridge on this segment.
Public request ,to Board on 11/11/87. Board
requested Commission to review in Six Year
Plan.
Between Routes 635 and 689.
Public request.
Public request.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the amount of money to be spent on unpaved
roads, over $4.46 million, made this item the~second most expensive on the Six
Year Road Plan. Mr. Roosevelt said State law,requires that the County spend a
minimum of $4,462,528 on unpaved roads. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to point
out how much money the State was requiring tolbe spent on roads that do not
have many people living on them.
Mr. Horne said the first new road recommended by the Planning Commission
was Route 712, in the Village of North Garden~ Some of the curvey section of
Route 712, connecting Route 692 and Route 29 South, would be realigned, Mr.
Home said. Next on the list, he said, is Route 760, also in the Village of
North Garden. Route 760 goes off Route 712, =uns north of the Red Hill School
and then connects to Route 29 South. Mr. Horne said Routes 712 and 760 were
high up on the Planning Commission's list because both roads were in growth
areas.
Mr. Home said the next priority was RouBe 682/787, a road that goes from
Route 250 West to the southeast. Mr. Bain asked if there has been substantial
public request to pave the section of Route 787, from where Route 682 bears
off, to Route 708. Mr. Roosevelt said he has~ireceived a lot of calls about
Route 787 ever since one side of the road was~developed into a by-strip
691
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
subdivision about eight years ago. Although a lot of people have complained,
he said, no one has ever tried to acquire the right-of-way necessary before
improvements could begin. At least four people have tried to acquire the
necessary right-of-way along Route 682, he said.
Mr. Horne said the next recommended project was Route 784, which runs
along the eastern edge of the Village of Stony Point. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
roads marked "in growth areas" were in growth areas under the current Compre-
hensive Plan or in growth areas anticipated by the Planning staff. Mr. Horne
said "both". Route 712 is in a current growth area and part of Route 760 is,
while the longer part of Route 760 lies in what may be an expanded North
Garden growth area.
Mr. Bowie commented that Route 784 lay in the most rapidly developing
area of Stony Point and he thinks it is one of the worst roads in the County.
Mr. Horne said the next project was Route 785, one of the projects for
which the right-of-way has been acquired. Route 785 is a dead-end road
connecting to Profitt Road and it carries a lot of traffic, he said.
The next priority, Mr. Horne said, is Route 643 west of Bentivar Drive.
He said Route 643 has already been paved from Profitt Road to Bentivar Drive;
beyond this point, there was a problem with acquiring the right-of-way. Mr.
Bowie asked if the road fronting two pieces of property and the underpass
would be left unpaved. Mr. Horne said he was not sure; staff had not tried to
acquire the right-of-way again. He said this portion of Route 643 was recom-
mended to be paved because it was on the boundary of the growth area.
Mr. Horne said the next project was Route 688/791 off of Miller School
Road and provides access to a subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said it carries 307
vehicle trips per day, the fourth highest volume of traffic of any gravel road
in the County.
The next project is Route 682 from Route 787 to Route 637, a very lengthy
stretch of road which will require extensive regrading, Mr. Horne said. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if this were the road that was drawing so much public opposi-
tion. Mr. Horne said "yes". Mr. Roosevelt commented that this road marked
the end of the $4.46 million the County had allocated for improvements to
gravel roads. Mr. Horne said staff included the rest of ithe roads in case
work could not proceed on some of the roads listed above.~
Mr. Horne said the next project was Route 643 from Route 29 North towards
the Airport. ~
The next project recox~ended by the Planning Commission was Route 627
from Carters Bridge toward Lanark. Mr. Roosevelt said the right-of-way was
already available and recorded. Route 627 carries 193 vehicle trips per day,
he added. Mr. Way added that this was the only gravel ro~d on this list which
lies in the Scottsville District.
Mr. Horne said the next recommended project was Rout~ 600. He said this
would be an extensive project if the entire road from Cis~ont to Stony Point
were improved. Another section of Route 600, through Watts, was the next
project recommended. ~
The next project recommended by the Planning Commission was Route 678
from just below Meriwether Lewis School to Route 614, Garth Road. Mr. Horne
said the residents of Waverly Subdivision want this road to be improved,
because they do not think it is safe enough for school buses.
Route 688, from the west side of Miller School Road,~was the next project
recox~ended, Mr. Horne said.
The next road recommended for improvements, Route 679, also has the
right-of-way necessary for improvements, Mr. Horne said. !The section of Route
674 recommended for improvement runs from Route 810 to th~ intersection with
Route 673 and is in the White Hall District. {
The final road recommended for improvements also has the necessary
right-of-way, Mr. Horne said. It is Route 662, one mile horth of Route 660.
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
692
Mr. Lindstrom asked which roads Mr. Roosevelt recommended moving forward
in pr'iority. Mr. Home said Routes 785, 627, 674 and 662, because all the
right-of-ways have been recorded. Mr. Roosevelt said these four roads repre-
sented $2.2 million worth of improvements he is asking the Board to move
forward. As a result of this change, he said, all roads from the tenth in
priority downward on the list would be removed from any priority in this Six
Year Plan. Mr. Horne noted that there are two proposed agricultural/forestal
districts, straddling Route 627.
(Note: Mr. St. John left at 3:40 P.M.)
Mr. Home then returned to the Planning Commission's recommendations for
the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. He said Priority 18, Peyton Drive, is the
first of newly eligible roadways. Priority 19, Route 729 at its intersection
with Route 250 East, is recommended for study because it is uncertain whether
this will be a secondary or primary project, or a combination of the two. Mr.
Home said the Schools staff has co~ented thatthey would like to have
something done about this intersection at Stone Robinson Elementary School.
Mr. Horne said Priority 20, Route 810 north of Route 240, should be
rebuilt for sight distance and have turn lanes added at the entrance to Crozet
School. Mr. Home asked Mr. Roosevelt if Route 810 would be eligible for
state funding. Mr. Roosevelt said he thought it would be, as an improvement
to an existing secondary road.
Priority 21, Mr. Horne said is Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) from Whitewood
Road to Route 631 (Rio Road). This section of Route 743 is recommended to be
widened to four lanes, divided. Mr. Lindstr0m said he was concerned that some
of the routes the consultants are studying for Route 29 North may have an
impact on the need for this project. He said he does not think the County
should spend the money widening this section~of Route 743 before the Board
knows what the improvements for Route 29 North will look like. Mr. Roosevelt
said the financial plan he had designed for funding road improvements would
not show an allocation to the Route 743 project until 1990-91, when $20,000
would be provided to update the survey.
Mr. Home said Priority 23 would construct a new four-lane roadway to run
from Rio Road, through the existing mobile hdme park to the end of the road
being built by the Jefferson Square Shopping lCenter off of Route 29 North.
Mr. Roosevelt said his financial plan, based !on this priority list, would run
out of money at Priority 22. He added that ~e did not include any funding in
the plan for Peyton Drive and the work on RoHte 810. In other words, Mr.
Roosevelt said, projects from Priority 23 on idown would have no financing
within the next six years.
Mr. Home went on to Priority 24, the intersection of Routes 708 and 631
(Old Lynchburg Road). He said this may be one project the Board may wish to
move up on the priority list, especially if the new Sourthern Regional Park is
opened soon.
Priority 25 involves widening Barracks R~ad to four lanes from the City
limits to Georgetown Road. Priority 26, Park Road Extension to Route 240, was
shown in in the Comprehensive Plan as a neede~ improvement, Mr. Horne said.
The next project, Priority 27, would widen RoUte 649, Airport Road, from Route
29 North to Route 606 and realign parts of Rohte 649 as it approached the
airport. Mr. Horne said airport access fund~! may be available for this
project.
Priority 28 is realigning the intersection of Route 743, Hydraulic Road,
and Route 606, south of the airport. The next project, Priority 29, would
extend Greenbrier Drive from Whitewood Drive to Route 743. Mr. Horne said
this project was also shown in the ComprehenSive Plan.
Priority 30 involves spot improvements t~o Old Ivy Road, which, Mr. Horne
said, would probably be superseded by the most needed improvement to this
road: redoing the underpass at the intersection of Old Ivy Road and Route 250
West.
Mr. Home said Priority 31 is the installation of a turn lane on Route
743, Hydraulic Road, for right turns onto Commonwealth Drive, near the new
693
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
· (Page 38)
shopping center. Mr. Home said the developer has already reserved the
right-of-way.
Priority 32 is to widen and improve the alignment of the Jarman Gap
roadway in Crozet. Priority 33 is to replace a bridge over the Moormans River
on Route 810 north of White Hall. Priority 34 is to replace a railroad bridge
on Old Ballard Road. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the deficiency rating was on
this bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said it was 71 and it had a weight limit of only
eight tons. Mr. Bain commented that the citizens do not want this bridge
replaced because they are afraid the traffic will increase.
Mr. Horne said Priority 35 is to replace a bridge over Buck Island Creek
on Route 620. Mr. Lindstrom asked for this bridge's deficiency rating; Mr.
Roosevelt replied 83.3. Mr. Lindstrom said this is one bridge the citizens do
want replaced.
Mr. Horne said Priority 36 was to study the intersection of Route 743
(Hydraulic Road) and Route 663 in Earlysville. Priority 37 is to make spot
improvements to Route 726 in the Village of Scottsville. Priority 38 is to
widen Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) and make spot improvements from the
boundary of the growth area to the new Southern Regional park. Mr. Home said
Priority 39, widening Route 708 from Route 20 to Route 29 South, is to improve
another major access to the new park.
Priority 40 is to realign Route 692 in North Garden from Route 29 South
to Route 712. Priority 41 is to extend the four-laning on Old Lynchburg Road
(Route 631) from the Southwood Mobile Home Park to the southern boundary of
the urban area. ~
Priority 42 is to replace a bridge over Ammonnet Branch on Route 712;
Priority 43, to replace a bridge over Ivy Creek on Route ~37; and, Priority
44, to replace a bridge over Moores Creek on Sunset Avenue. Of course, Mr.
Home said, Priority 44 becomes unnecessary if the City closes its portion of
Sunset Avenue. ~
Priority 45 is to rebuild two lanes of Route 656, Georgetown Road, to
improve the alignment, Mr. Horne said. Mr. Lindstrom said he has fought this
project for eight years and he thought everyone was finally satisfied. He
said he thought an estimate of $600,000 was high just to rebuild two lanes.
Mr~ Roosevelt said the estimate included the cost of four41aning a section of
Georgetown Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought this was an underhanded way of
trying to get a road four-laned.
Mr. Horne said Priority 46 is to improve other unpaved roads. Priorities
47 through 54 are to add flashing lights and/or gates to eight railroad
crossings throughout the County. ii
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought Meadow Creek Parkway n~rth from Rio Road
should be added to the priority list. Mr. Home said the ifirst of the new,
Comprehensive Plan roads on this list is Priority 18, Peyton Drive. Perhaps,
he suggested, the Board would want to decide which of the~e two roads should
have the higher priority, ii
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board could amend the Six~ear Secondary Road
Plan after it has adopted the Plan. At some point, he said, he would like to
see the roads shown in the Comprehensive Plan that might ~e eligible for State
funding added to this list. However, he said, he does not wish to hold up the
whole process if the list can be amended later. Mr. Roosevelt said it was his
understanding that the Board could amend the Six Year Plan at any time, but
every time the Plan was amended, it had to go to a public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Six Year Plan was considered a comprehensive list
and he is concerned that some roads should be on the list that are not. In
particular, he said, he is concerned about two intersections: Route 610 and
Route 20, and Route 612 and Route 20. Both intersections,!~he said, have
virtually no sight distance. He said he knows there are o~her dangerous
intersections such as these in the County that should be considered on this
list. He said the two intersections he mentioned were notleligible for
federal money for safety improvements. He asked Mr. RooseVelt to provide the
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
694
Board with cost estimates and priorities for~'all the roads in the Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Mr. Bowie said he thought something should be done about the sharp turn
on Route 20 at Stony Point, especially if the County wants this area devel-
oped. He agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that the Board may want to add some roads
to the list.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Horne or Mr. Roosevelt could provide the Board
with a list of roads that citizens have identified as safety problems. Mr.
Lindstrom said he does not think the County should allow its planning for
growth to depend upon the State allocating funds to take care of road improve-
ments. He said he thinks the County should start spending more money on roads
instead of building new schools every time the Schools staff sees the need for
them. If the County waits for road improvements to be funded as they always
have been, he said, the County will wait a long time. Improvements to roads
are just as important to the welfare of the public as new schools, he said.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has always thought the County should consider roads
as a need resulting from growth, as it does schools and parks. He said he has
recently received a copy of Phase II of the Commission on Transportation in
the Twenty-First Century report, which tellsi°f options to fund roadways that
localities may wish to direct to the attention of their State legislators.
Mr. Roosevelt reminded Mr. Lindstrom that he had asked for a list of
dangerous intersections in the County and heltold him compiling such a list
would take a long time, because someone would have to drive to and inspect
every intersection in the County. For the purpose of a possible work session,
Mr. Lindstrom said, he would be satisfied if~Mr. Roosevelt just used his
judgment instead of presenting a detailed report. Perhaps such a report could
come later, he said. He said he would like to hold a work session after the
public hearing on the Six Year Plan to discuss further some of the points made
today.
Mr. Roosevelt asked if the Board planned to receive comments on the
priority list of gravel roads as presented. Mr. Bain said he thought the list
should be presented as is, and then the Board could change it later after
hearing comments from the public.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~seconded by Mr. Bain to set a
public hearing for April 6, 1988, on the Six'Year Secondary Highway Improve-
ment Plan and the 1988-89 Secondary Highway %mprovement Budget, as recommended
by the Planning Commission. There was no further discussion. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, M~ssrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Rivanna Park Recreational Access
Funds Agreement.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated March 4, 1988:
"Attached is an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation for recreational access funds to ~e used in conjunction with
the development of the Rivanna Park. ~!
This agreement sets forth what the Count~ and State will be responsi-
ble for in constructing the access road.I The County, for example, is
responsible for among other things, the ~esign and plan preparation
and the construction of the roadway. Th~ Highway Department will
review the plans, inspect the project an~ reimburse the County for up
to $252,279 related to road construction!
The County Attorney, Director of Engineering and Director of Parks
and Recreation have reviewed the agreemeht and given their approval.
695
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Staff would recommend that you authorize the Chairman to sign this
agreement once the State's Fiscal Division and Attorney General's
office have given their approval."
Mr. Agnor said several minor changes were made to the agreement. Para-
graph No. 2 of Section A will be changed to make it clear that the width of
the pavement will be 30 feet inside the park, rather than all the way to Elk
Drive. Mr. Agnor said the second change, in paragraph No. 2 of Section B will
state that the County will receive funding credit for changing the road from
rural to urban cross-section.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to author-
ize the Chairman to execute the following agreement with changes:
Recreational Access - Rivanna Park
Project No. 1421-002-228, C501
Albemarle County
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 19 __ by and
between the County of Albemarle, hereinafter sometimes referred to as
the COUNTY, party of the first part, and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the DEPARTMF~NT,
party of the second part.
WHEREAS, the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE by
appropriate resolutions requested recreational access funds to assist
in providing adequate access to the proposed Rivanna Park to be
located off of Route 20 in the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board has allocated,
subject to certain contingencies, $252,279 from the recreational
access fund to assist in providing access to these facilities, such
being designated as project 1421-002-228, C501; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY desires this improvement to include features
and standards not completely eligible for recreational access funds;
and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually desire the construction of
the access road.
NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the
premises and mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
A. The COUNTY will:
Cause the design and preparation of the plans for project
1421-002-228, C501 described as extending from Route 20, to
approximately 0.45 miles westwardly, as required to provide
suitable access for the Rivanna Park. In ~he event such
plan design necessitates the services of personnel other
than employees of the COUNTY, the selectio~ of such ser-
vices shall be administered in accordance ~ith applicable
provisions of the Virginia Public Procurement Act. Upon
approval, these plans shall be attached hereto and become a
part of this agreement; ~
Include in the design a pavement width of at least 22 feet
wide paved surface with eight feet wide shdulders with an
unrestricted right of way width of at least 50 feet with
additional easements for slopes and/or drainage as required
along existing Elk Drive; pavement width inside the park
will be at least a 22 foot wide paved structure with four
foot wide shoulders within an unrestrictedilright of way
width of at least 40 feet; ~
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(page 41)
696
Prescribe that all items of work and materials be in
compliance with applicable DEPARTMENT specifications and
standards;
Prepare any required environmental documents and secure any
applicable permits for the project's construction;
Acquire the necessary right Of way for the project at no
cost to the DEPARTMENT;
Cause any utilities in conflict With the construction to be
adjusted at no cost to the DEPARTMENT;
Present the final plans, cost estimate and specifications
to the DEPARTMENT for approval prior to start of construc-
tion. Such plans shall specifically identify eligible and
ineligible items and the estimated quantity of each such
item;
Cause the construction of the project through its competi-
tive bidding procedures, provided however, that no contrac-
tor who is disqualified from bidding on contracts with the
DEPARTMENT because of collusion or any matter relating to
violation of state or federal ~antitrust laws may construct,
either as a prime contractor or subcontractor, any part of
this project which is funded in part with state funds;
Provide financing for all costs not eligible for recrea-
tional access funds;
10. Provide financing for one-hal£ of the total eligible
project cost between $200,000 !and $304,558;
11.
Make the project available to inspection by DEPARTMENT
personnel during its construction and obtain the DEPART-
MENT'S concurrence in the project's acceptance;
12.
Maintain accurate records of all project costs in a form
satisfactory to the DEPARTMENT and make such records
available for review by the DEPARTMENT upon request.
13.
Present the DEPARTMENT with proper certification and
billing for its share of the total actual costs of eligible
items incurred in the design and construction of this
project upon its completion and acceptance pursuant to
paragraph A(ll).
B. The DEPARTMENT will:
Review the plans of project 1421-002-228, C501 as presented
by the COUNTY, and approve them with whatever modifica-
tions, if any, it deems appropriate;
(a)
Authorize recreational access funds not to exceed
$252,279 for the actual construction cost of eligible
items as expressly identified in the approved plans,
and related engineering;
(b)
Not participate in the cost of any utility installa-
tion/adjustment and related engineering, or other
ineligible items, which shall be the exclusive cost of
the COUNTY;
o
Make final inspection with the COUNTY upon completion of
the project and, if found satisfactory, approve its con-
struction; ~
After approval of construction, compliance with all the
contingencies of the Transportation Board's resolution of
July 16, 1987, and receipt of ~ertification and billing
697
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
pursuant to paragraph A(13), reimburse the COUNTY for
actual cost of eligible items in accordance with the
following schedule:
a. 100% of such cost up to $200,000
b. 50% of that portion of such cost between $200,000 and
$304,558.
In no case shall such reimbursement from the recreational access fund
exceed $252,279.
Mr. Roosevelt said this agreement implied that the County will not use
any other highway funds. He said the use of recreational access funds only
was prohibited; the County could use secondary road improvement funds if the
Board included the project in the Six Year Plan. He suggested that the
agreement be reworded so as not to bar the County from using secondary road
funds. Mr. Roosevelt suggested replacing all occurrences of "no cost to the
Department" with "no cost to the recreational access funds".
There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters. There were no other highway
matters.
Agenda Item No. 9. Request to vacate private access easement located off
South Pantops Drive near Riverbend Shopping Center. (Deleted from the agen-
da.)
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointments: Industrial Development Authority
(IDA). Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to
reappoint Mr. Bruce Rasmussen as the representative of t~e Samuel Miller Dis-
trict to the IDA for a term to expire on January 19, 1992. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appointments: Equalization Board. Motion was
offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to r~appoint Mr. Louis
Rauch to the Equalization Board for a term to expire on December 31, 1988.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following r~corded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16c. Appointments: Albemarle Count~ Service Authority
(not docketed). Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lind-
strom to reappoint Mr. Norman Gillum to the Albemarle Couhty Service Authority
for a term to expire on April 16, 1992. Roll was called And the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 16d. Appointments: TJPDC Regional Comprehensive Plan
Advisory Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and ~econded by Mrs.
Cooke to appoint Mr. Wayne Cilimberg to the TJPDC Regional Comprehensive Plan
March 9, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) 698
(Page 43)
Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and the Public.
Mr. Agnor said the plan for the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue
area, developed by the City/County/University PACC group, will be unveiled at
7:30 P.M., March 10, 1988, at Trinity Presbyterian Church.
Mr. Agnor said the County has received a request for the use of the front
lawn of the County Office Building for an Easter Sunrise Service. He said the
request will be granted. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it is a mistake to
allow a church service to be held on the lawn and he objects to the practice.
Mr. Agnor said the schedule for the budget must be changed. He asked
that the work session scheduled for Monday, March 21, 1988, be moved to
Friday, March 25, 1988.
Mr. Bowie said he received a letter from Mr. and Mrs.. Napier opposing the
proposed location for the Albemarle County Fair and stating that the water
table is too close to the surface of the ground to support a ferris wheel.
Mr. Bowie asked the staff to report on this.
Mr. Way said he traveled to Richmond to meet with legislators in an
effort to find additional funding for educati~on. He said the trip was not
successful.
Not Docketed: At 4:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters
concerning the Nativity suit and Cedar Hill Trailer Park case. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
At 4:40 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session.
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn to March 16, 1988, at 1:00 P.M. There being
no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately
adjourned.