1986-11-05November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
061
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 5, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room %7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Jo To
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St.
John, County Attorney; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Chairman, Mrs. Cooke.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 by the Vice
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Way,
to approve Item 4.1 on the consent agenda and accept items 4.2 through 4.9 as information.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Item No. 4.1. Amendment to Personnel Policy (P-26) to Mandatory Exit Interview, was
approved as presented. The policy was attached to the following memorandum from Guy B.
Agnor, Jr., dated October 27, 1986:
The revision has been created by two recent laws affecting employees. One
is a Federal law, which was reported to you earlier, requiring that em-
ployers offer access to health insurance programs for extended time periods
beyond active employment. The other is a State law requiring employees
enrolled in the State retirement system with less than five years of service
to withdraw from the State system upon termination of employment. Both of
these laws went into effect July 1, 1986.
To assure that terminating employees have these two requirements explained
to them with appropriate decisions by the employee, the exit interview is
being made a mandatory procedure. Additionally, the procedure will be used
to assure turn-in of keys and equipment, and payment of final paycheck.
AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL POLICY (P-26)
F. An ex2Lt interview shall be conducted with every employee who is separat-
ing from employment regardless of the length of service, their position or
the circumstances of their separation. The Personnel Director or designee
will conduct all exit interviews, normally during the employee's last week
of work. Supervisory personnel have the responsibility of notifying the
Personnel Director as soon as they know an employee is leaving. The exit
interview will consist of a discussion regarding the individual's employment
and the completion of various requirements such as continuation of health
care, refund of retirement money, return of county keys and material. The
final paycheCk will be held in the Personnel Office until such requirements
are met.
Item No. 4.2. Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
for the Year Ending June 40, 1986, was received as information.
Item No. 4.3. Building Report for Month of September, 1986, from the Department of
Planning and Community Development, was received as information.
re:
Item No. 4.4. Letter dated October 16, 1986, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive,
Hazardous Communications Act, was received as information, as follOws:
In 1983 the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
issued the Hazard Communication Act, commonly referred to as the employees
"Right to Know" law, the purpose of which was to ensure that all employees
were adequately informed of the hazards associated with materials they used
or handled. In 1984, the Commonwealth of Virginia adopted the federal law,
calling it the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Communication
Standard, and expanding its compliance requirement to include all state and
local government employees.
Compliance with the State Standard requires (1) an inventory of materials
identified as being under the standard (2) establishing a Materials Safety
Data Sheets file on every material so identified (3) labeling of the materi-
al (4) training employees (custodians, maintenance personnel, teachers,
supervisor) in the identification, use, labeling and handling of the identi-
fied materials, (5) preparing a written program for compliance with the
062
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2 )
-regulations, and (6) establishing an ongoing compliance procedure for
purchasing, receiving, labeling and handling materials, and training new
employees.
The Director of Personnel, with assigned responsibilities for training and
safety, has engaged the services of two people, who supervised the Uni-
versity of Virginia, to set up the program for county employees by the end
of 1986. It will involve costs borne by the Personnel budget which were
unanticipated in the current budget, and which will be monitored and ab-
sorbed as much as possible from other planned appropriations. Results of
the absorption of these costs will be reported to you in the fourth quarter
fiscal year summary.
re:
Item No. 4.5. Letter dated October 16, 1986, from George R. St. John, County Attorney,
Agricultural-Forestal District - Tax, was received as information, as follows:
On October 15, 1986, the Board of Supervisors in response to a suggestion by
a citizen, asked that I determine whether real estate within an
agricultural-forestal district can be taxed a tax rate lower than the rate
applicable to the regular land use tax outside such district.
Under Code Section 15.1-1512 land used in agricultural-forestal production
within an agricultural and forestal district automatically qualifies for
agricultural-forestal value assessment under the land use tax provisions as
set out in Code Section 58-769.4.
In other words, the rates for agricultural and forestal land must be exactly
the same within and without the district. Therefore, the suggestion made by
this citizen at the October 15th meeting, cannot lawfully be implemented.
Item No. 4.6. Notice from the State Water Control Board dated October 14, 1986, re:
Application for an Industrial NPDES Permit for Cove Creek Industries, Covesville was received
as information. Mr. Lindstrom asked staff to check for some clarification of this permit
request.
Item No. 4.7. Letter dated October 20, 1986, from Richard W. Frizzell, of H.C.MoF.,
re: Bonds, Concerns Expressed by Board of Supervisors was received as information, as
follows:
First, you were concerned that an inequitable discrepancy might exist
between the rates charged Medicaid/Medicare patients and
non-Medicaid/Medicare patients. Specifically, you were afraid that the
Medicaid/Medicare patients might be charged a lower room rate than
non-Medicaid/Medicare patients, and that the rate charged Medicaid/Medicare
patients would not be sufficient to cover the costs of housing and caring
for the Medicaid/Medicare patients. You wondered whether the rates charged
non-Medicaid/Medicare patients would be high enough to make up for losses
incurred in caring for and housing Medicare/Medicaid patients, a rate higher
than that rate charged non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. Federal and State
laws and regulations provide for reimbursement of all reasonable costs
related to patient care to providers on behalf of Medicaid/Medicare pa-
tients. Therefore, neither group will be required to "carry" the others.
Furthermore, we have obtained a Certificate of Need which indicates prelimi-
nary governmental approval of the plans for the nursing home, including the
proposed rates.
Second, you were concerned that the refunding of the 1984 Bonds might result
in some sort of "windfall" for the developer. Federal law bases the Medi-
care/Medicaid reimbursement rates on a particular nursing home's debt
service requirements for reimbursement of the facility's capital costs.
Federal and State law limits the Medicaid/Medicare reimbursement for the
return on equity allowable to and expenses for interest incurred by a
nursing home operator. Therefore, nursing home operators cannot obtain a
reimbursement based on a rate of return higher than the operators' debt
service requirements and thereby profit on the difference between the rate
of return and the debt service costs (the "spread", if you will). Because
nursing home operators cannot charge Medicaid/Medicare patients rates higher
than the rates charged non-Medicaid/Medicare patients, as explained above,
this requirement that reimbursement be based on debt service requirements
effectively limits any hidden "windfall" a nursing home operator might
obtain in the rates charged non-Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Third, the 1984 Bonds were issued at a variable rate of interest, while the
1986 Bonds are being issued at a fixed rate of interest, which is currently
higher than the variable rate would be. Although we cannot predict with
accuracy what interest rates will be over the next forty years while the
bonds are being redeemed, we believe that the current drop in interest rates
is a temporary trend and that interest rates will eventually rise again,
making the forty-year fixed rate attractive. Nonetheless, because we cannot
predict with accuracy what interest rates will be over the next forty years,
we are unable to say with certainty that changing from a variable interest
rate to a fixed interest rate will result in specific cost savings in the
rate charged to patients. We can say, however, that obtaining a fixed rate
of interest makes one factor in determining the rates charged patients less
susceptible to inflationary pressures.
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
063
Item No. 4.8. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Program Report for Month of Septem-
ber, 1986, was received as information.
Item No. 4.9. Planning Commission Minutes for October 14 and October 21, 1986, were
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-86-07. Mary Doggett. To rezone 11.86 acres from R-i, Residen-
tial to Planned District-Mixed Commercial. Property located on east side of Avon Street
Extended about one mile south of 1-64. Tax Map 91, Parcels 1, la, lb and le. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and 28, 1986.)
Mrs. Cooke informed the board that this applicant had requested a deferral. Mr.
Lindstrom moved to defer ZMA-86-07 until November 19, 1986. Mr. Way seconded. With no
further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-86-04. Alliance Bible Church. To rezone 1.731 acres from R-2
to CO. Property located in the northern corner of the intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and
Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 (part of). Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 21 and 28, 1986.)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-86-50. Christian Missionary Alliance Church. To amend SP-84-45
to delete condition restricting access to Old Brook Road. Property located in the northern
corner of the intersection of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road). Tax Map 61,
Parcel 127 (part of). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 21 and 28, 1986.)
Mr. Horne presented the staff's report:
Petitions: Under ZMA-86-4, the applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors
to rezone the 1.731 acres of the existing 5.207 acre parcel from R-2,
Residential to CO, Commercial Office (PROFFER). Under SP-86-50, the appli-
cant seeks relief from condition one of SP-84-45 to permit the same 1.731
acres to have access to Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Property, described as Tax map
61, parcel 127 (part of) is located in the northeast quadrant of the inter-
section of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) and Rt. 652 (Old Brook Road) in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Character of the Area:
The southern portion of this property is developed with the Merridale School
and Alliance Bible Church. The northern portion of this property, subject
to these petitions, is vacant and encumbered with sewer, drainage, and
stormwater detention pond easements. Therefore, barring easement reloca-
tion/abandonment, the 1.731 acres is limited as to building construction.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan was amended to recommend CO Commercial Office zoning
in this area. The plan also recommends future improvements to Rio Road.
Staff Comment:
The only matter of public interest identified by staff is concern of access
to Rio Road. Property to the north is zoned CO, Commercial Office and
occupied by Bill Bailey (Coldwell Banker) Realty. Mr. Bailey DBA/Rio Land
Trust is contract purchaser of the property proposed for rezoning. Due to
title differences, these two properties would not be combined, however, Mr.
Bailey has proffered joint access for the two properties.
This request is consistent with Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Staff
recommends approval with the following actions:
ZMA-86-04 - Acceptance of the applicant's proffer for joint access
between Tax Map 61, parcel 128 and 1.731 acre portion of Tax map 61,
parcel 127;
2. SP-86-50 - Amend Condition 1 of SP-84-45 to read as follows:
1. Access from 3.476 acres residue of Tax Map 61, parcel 127 restrict-
ed to Old Brook Road (Rt. 652).
3. Staff approval of subdivision plat.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 15, 1986, unanimously
recommended approval of these petitions with the three conditions set out above. Mr. Horne
then pointed out that in Paragraph 2, the report indicates 3.476 acre residue. He informed
the Board that the residue should be 3.163 acres. Mr. Horne discussed the very limited
building activity that could take place in Parcel X because of the stormwater detention basin
for the Church located on that parcel as well as water, sanitary sewer easements and a
drainage easement bisecting the property. He said that the proffer is that the existing
'064
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4 )
Bailey Realty property and the 1.731 acre Parcel X would have a joint access easement to Rio
Road.
The following is the proffer offered by W. W. Bailey in a letter dated September 15 1986
addressed to the Board: ' ' '
In conjunction with the pending application for rezoning of 1.731 acres, a
partion of Parcel 127, Tax Map 61 the following proffer is hereby offered:
Access from State Route 631 to the 1.731 Acre parcel will be limited to
one entrance to be located over a "joint access easement" on parcel 128
Tax Map 61. This access easement is shown on the attached subdivision
plat of Parcels X and Y prepared by Roudabush, Greene,. and Gale, Inc.
P.C. revised July 21, 1986 and also shown on an attached plat showing
Joint Access Easement to serve Tax Map 61, Parcel 128 and Parcel X
which is to be subdivided from Tax Map 61, Parcel 127 prepared by
Roudabush, Greene and Gale Inc. dated September 11, 1986.
Mr. Horne said the Highway Department has reviewed the proffer and has no problem with
the joint access easement.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about Condition 1 of SP-84-45. Mr. Horne repliedthat the entire
parcel, X and Y, can only have access to Old Brook Road. The change in that condition is to
allow parcel X to have one access to Rio Road, a joint access with the existing Bailey
Realty.
Mr. Lindstrom said with the exception of the proffer, the rezoning is without limita-
tion. He asked about the proposed use of the property. Mr. Horne said that at the Commis-
sion meeting the applicant had stated the reasons for the request is to protect his own
parcel and for potential overflow parking. Mr. Horne emphasized the limited potential for
building on this land, pointing out the encumbrances to it by easements as well as the
steepness of the property. Mr. Horne said that with the stormwater detention pond, the area
would have to be re-engineered for any building to take place.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Richard Thurston, Pastor of the Church, came forward and stated he has nothing to
add, but will answer any questions concerning the property being retained or what Mr. Bailey
plans to buy. Mr. Lindstrom asked him about the purpose of the rezoning. He replied he
wanted the property to be compatible with his existing property. With no one else coming
forward to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie offered motion that ZMA-86-04 and SP-86-50 be approved with the conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion which carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Conditions of Approval:
ZMA-86-03 - Acceptance of the applicant's proffer for joing access
between Tax Map 61, parcel 128 and 1.731 acre portion of Tax map 61,
parcel 127;
2. SP-86-50 - Amend Condition 1 of SP-84-45 to read as follows:
1. Access from 3.163 acre residue of Tax Map 61, parcel 127 restrict-
ed to Old Brook Road (Rt. 652).
3. Staff approval of subdivision plat.
Agenda Item No. 8. Grant Application - Rivanna Park.
Mr. Tucker explained that the County and City propose to request funding assistance from
the State with regard to the development of Rivanna Park. The ~State's maximum grant is
$250,000. The City and County will jointly match that amount. City Council has already
adopted this resolution on November 3, 1986. We will be making application in the future for
similar funding requests. The Board is requested to adopt the resolution which will be
attached to the grant application to the State.
JOINT RESOLUTION
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RIVANNA PARK
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation provides funds
to assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in
acquiring and developing open space and park lands; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville have
recently acquired land for a jointly-owned recreational facility to be named
Rivanna Park; and
WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance from the Virginia
Division of Parks and Recreation, it is necessary that the County and City
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
'065
guarantee funding of fifty percent of the cost of the improvements to be
made; and
WHEREAS, the County and City have previously agreed to contribute in
equal shares to the first phase;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, that
the County Executive and City Manager are hereby authorized to make applica-
tion to the Virginia Division of Parks and Recreation for a grant for the
development of Rivanna Park and cause such information or materials as may
be necessary to be provided to the appropriate State agencies and enter into
such agreements as may be necessary to permit the formulation, approval and
funding of that project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by such governing bodies that each jurisdic-
tion hereby gives its assurance that it will provide its proportionate share
of the cost of the proposed project, up to a maximum of $125,000 from each
jurisdiction.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County and City give their assur-
ances that the general provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
and the Virginia Outdoor Fund Fiscal procedures and all other applicable
state and federal regulations governing expenditure of the requested grant
funds will be complied with in the administration of this project.
AND BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the National Park Service, U. S.
Department of the Interior, and the Virginia Division of Parks and Recrea-
tion are respectfully requested to assist in the prompt approval and funding
of the Rivanna Park Project in order to enhance the recreational opportuni-
ties for all our citizenry.
Mrs. Cooke asked for any discussion. Since there was none, Mr. Bowie offered motion to
adopt the resolution as set out above. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption: Board's Statement on Rt. 29 North Improvements.
Mrs. Cooke opened the discussion by addressing the people in the audience, explaining to
them that this meeting is not a public hearing; that there will be no discussion open to the
public at this time. She said this statement is a matter for the Board to discuss and decide
upon a statement to be sent to the Highway Department. She expressed the Board's apprecia-
tion for the interest shown by the people present.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Board members were mailed a memorandum from the Planning
Staff for discussion tonight. He asked Mr. Horne to briefly review the memorandum and
highlight the areas of concern on the Rt. 29 improvements.
Mr. Horne said he would divide his comments into two parts: 1) The eight-lane portion
of the project; and 2) the Rio Road interchange. The staff believes that all property south
of the interchange ramps will be provided with satisfactory access. As far as the dual turn
lanes at various intersections, staff feels these will be a significant improvement ~as some
of these intersections are already a hindrance to traffic flow. He particularly mentioned
the problem at Greenbrier Drive. The closing of the crossover at Dominion Drive should
further reduce friction on the roadway, but will make access to Shoppers World more inconve-
nient for certain areas. North of the interchange, the reconstruction of the southbound lane
should greatly improve sight distance to properties west of Rt. 29. Because the eight lane
project is to be constructed in the existing right-of-way, or in the median, the staff
opinion is that the project should significantly improve traffic flow between Rio Road and
Hydraulic Road without unreasonably affecting existing usage.
Mr. Horne then discussed the Rio Road grade-seDarated interchange as a separate topic.
The present level of service at that intersection, he explained, is at Level F, the lowest
level of service. That is primarily due to the amount of traffic and that the at-grade
intersection has to have four phases on the lights. The four phases leave a very limited
amount of time for actual movement of traffic. As traffic grows on Rt. 29, there will be an
increasing demand for green time at the light on Rt. 29. As more green time is given to Rt.
29, less will be available to Rio Road. The primary problem in the future with an at-grade,
four phase intersection would be on Rio Road. The proposal on this plan is for a three-phase
urban grade-separated interchange. That design was presented to the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) with an analysis of the level of service it would give. Service would be
at level C, which is a better level of service. He emphasized that a three-phase inter-
change, not a four-phase, is essential. He added that staff has recommended that sidewalks
be placed on the north side of Rio Road west of the interchange. Half the construction costs
of these would have to be paid by the County.
Mr. Horne stated that if the Meadowcreek Parkway is built, the lower portion of which is
to be located between Rio and the 250 Bypass, and Rio Road is upgraded between the Parkway
and this interchange, even more pressure would be placed on the interchange between Rio and
Route 29.
Mr. Horne continued that staff opinion is that the eight-lane part of the project will
have more impact upon the traffic than the interchange. He stated that the staff has no
068
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6 )
significant problem with the specific design of the interchange. They feel that if an
interchange is to be put in, this design is the most logical in the long run.
The plans have been altered since the Board was briefed by the Highway Department.
For example, the widening of Rio Road has been changed from extending all the way back to
Berkmar. The plan now extends the widening only to Phillips Building Supply entrance. Staff
would prefer four lanes back to Berkmar. At Greenbrier Drive, which is a severe problem now,
there is an existing gas station/convenience store in the southwest quadrant of that inter-
section. It currently has four entrances. The plans you saw showed closing the two entranc-
es nearest the actual corner, one on Greenbrier Drive and one on Route 29. The staff feels
that those two entrances should be closed.
In conclusion, Mr. Horne spoke of the plans for the median area. The proposal is to
have the a concreteJmedian or some other non-vegetative material~ The staff feels some
low-maintenance vegetative material should be placed in the median.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Horne. Mr. Bowie referred to
the staff opinion that the eight lanes would improve traff_'~Blore_than the interchange. He
asked if the two improvements together would increase ~ ~ ............ ~.,~u= =~_==~
staff was working with the Highway Department and would continue to do so concerning design
changes, etc. Mr. Horne replied ~4Tat--~ and added that the Highway Department had been
cooperative with County Staff. q~%
Mrs. Cooke then read a statement from Mr. Fisher, the Board's Chairman, who was unable
to be present. The most relevant parts of that statement follow:
"The Board of Supervisors has repeatedly asked for improvements to Route 29
as its first priority for primary road improvements. These requests have
occurred over a period of 5-10 years. It would be very inconsistent of us
not to support this project, or at least most of it.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Support all of the proposed improvements, provided:
A. The Rio-Route 29 interchange traffic signals can be set to work in
three phases, not four.
B. The question of access to Albemarle Square is reviewed to see if
any other alternatives exist which don't damage so many businesses.
C. The Hydraulic Road grade-separated interchange is moved up to Phase
2 (it is now one phase behind the Rio interchange in the plan, and
should be kept in the same relative position; the other projects now in
Phase 2 should not be deferred).
D. Planning for any bypass is deferred until after the Hydraulic Road
grade-separated interchange has been built and its effect on through
traffic flow has been properly evaluated.
E. Property owners and their tenants are properly compensated for
right-of-way acquisition and damage to properties and businesses.
F. The median strip is not an unrelieved stretch of concrete for three
miles.
2. If the Board cannot support the full eight lanes, then I would support
six lanes with all the other improvements and with all the qualifications
stated above.
3. I cannot support the removal of the Rio grade-separated interchange from
the project, because I think it would be short-sighted and would make it
appear that we don't really support our own planning efforts.
Finally, I believe it is very important that the "old" roadbed (southbound
lanes) be regraded to the same height as the "new" roadbed (as is recommend-
ed by the Highway Department)."
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, about an alleged
"redesign" which had been mentioned in the local news media. Mr. Roosevelt came forward and
explained that there would be no redesign until there had been sufficient time for analysis
of all the testimony. The ten-day period after the hearing is considered hearing testimony.
The Board's recommendation is considered significant testimony. He stated that with the
amount of negative testimony at the hearing itself, there will be a lot of consideration
given, but it will take some time before any decisions are reached. The Highway Department
intends to review the comments and consider alternatives. That will not occur until the
ten-day period has elapsed.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt about the possibility of another hearing if changes are
made as a result of the comments made at the first hearing. Mr. Roosevelt summarized the
Department of Highway and Transportation policy-on this. If significant changes are made
after the first public hearing, the Department will hold a second public hearing to explain
the changes to the public and to accept additional testimony on those changes. If after full
consideration of testimony, it is decided to remain with the current plan, then there would
not be a second public hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the normal time sequence of a project like this. Mr. Roosevelt
described the steps the Department takes in a normal project, but prefaced the description
with a comment that he did not feel this is a normal project. After the ten days have
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
067
elapsed, the Department staff will analyze the information received and make a recommendation
to the Deputy Chief Engineer, who then makes his recommendation to the Commissioner. The
Commissioner, in turn, carries the recommendation to the Transportation Board. This process
usually takes a period of two to three months. The recommendation would then be considered
at the Transportation Board's monthly meeting. In this case, the recommendation would
probably not reach the Board before December or January. Eventually the Board would vote on
a location and design for this improvement. Plans would then be cleaned up to show these
design features approved by the Board. It would probably take a month or two. The plans
would then be signed "approved for right-of-way." The next step would be taken by the
appraisers, who would take another three months. If this project were moving in the normal
sequence of events, it should go to the Transportation Board in January, and about July or
August the people concerned would be contacted by right-of-way agents about purchase of
right-of-way and easements. These steps would take about a year., bringing the project to an
advertisement date in August of 1988.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is still a period during which suggestions might be made
for changes in the design and be considered by the Department. Mr. Roosevelt said that
significant changes in design should be made between the public hearing and approval by the
Transportation Board. That is the purpose of the public hearing. Once the Transportation
Board votes on the project, any suggestions are too late for consideration. Mrs. Cooke asked
how strictly the Department adheres to the ten-day grace period. Mr. Roosevelt answered that
any letters received in the ten-day period will be included with hearing testimony and sent
to the Transportation Board. As far as the Board of Supervisors' recommendation, the Highway
Department will be interested in that opinion regardless of when it is given. Any comments
from citizens received after the ten-day period are not going to be included with the com-
ments sent to the Highway and Transportation Board. Mrs. Cooke expressed her concern about
the statement. She said she feels the statement is more far-reaching than just what happens
to this county.'~ Her hope is that there might be some interaction with the City prior to
making a statement.
Mr. Roosevelt explained that primary road projects deal with primary funds. There is
nothing in the law that requires the formal position of the local government to be obtained
before the Transportation Board makes a decision. He doesn't feel that the Department will
delay its process waiting for this Board's resolution. He said he feels the Board would be
safe in making its' statement as late as the first part of January 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he generally supports the recommendations presented by the
staff. However, the hearing which Mr. Lindstrom attended changed his attitude somewhat. His
greatest concern at that hearing was the animosity and the friction that was apparent between
different segments of this community about transportation issues. That divisiveness is
something the Board should try to minimize. Mr. Lindstrom sees that animosity as a greater
problem than the transportation issue immediately before the Board. He suggested that the
Board defer the statement to see if some of the differences cannot be reconciled. He feels
there is a need to work with the City and the University, both of which are affected dramati-
cally by this project. He stated that he would like to have several weeks before taking a
final position. He suggested waiting until the Board's first December meeting. Mr. Bowie
asked what the Board would do in the meantime if the statement is deferred until December.
Mrs. Cooke said she hopes that will give the Board time to make an effort toward a meeting
with the City. She feels that if the Board and City Council can approach the Highway Depart-
ment with a joint resolution, it might have more impact. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes that
there is no easy alternative. He hopes that talking with several groups of people will have
the effect of finding some proposal more acceptable to a broader base. He added that he
feels that all road projects are interconnected. Because of this interrelationship, the
Board needs to express a unified position with the city.
Mr. Way said he has no objection to deferring if there is any possibility of coming up
with a better solution. He warned that it should not be deferred too long. He expressed
agreement with Mr. Fisher's statement, at least basically. He said that the Board has to do
something. Mr. Henley stated that was his feeling as well. He said that he believes that
the Board must rely on the expertise of the Highway Department. He plans to support the
Highway Department's position. Mr. Bowie also concurred with the memo from Mr. Fisher. He
strongly supports paragraph E, which concerns appropriate compensation for not only the
owners, but the tenants who have money invested in businesses. He is also willing to defer
until the first week of December if there is any hope of any kind of joint position. He
pointed out that everything in the proposed project except the eight lanes has been approved
by the Board again and again. The new wrinkle in the project is having the service roads.
This needs to be studied. The Highway Department can be asked to redesign this portion of
the project in order not to overburden the businesses affected. If redesigning is not
possible, then those businesses should be properly compensated. He feels that any reduction
the Board makes to the plan for Route 29 North expedites the approach of a bypass. He said
that the Board must press forward and have a solid position. There is no room in this
instance for a minority report.
Mrs. Cooke stated that her greatest concern is the destruction of businesses caused by
these plans. There simply hasn't been enough time for her to react. If there is some
possible way to eliminate the items that destroy the businesses in this area of Route 29,
North, then it is worth the effort to take these few extra weeks.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer action on this matter until December 3. Mr.
Henley seconded. He added that he is a bit skeptical about the deferral, but feels there are
a couple of glimmers that justify looking into. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
The Board recessed at 8:45 P.M. and reconvened at 8:50 P.M.
068
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8 )
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: FY '87-88 Budget Procedures.
Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive, reviewed the budget preparation procedures used
by the County Executive's staff. The County Executive and School Superintendent have set up
a tentative calendar for the FY 87-88 budget. Mr.. Jones explained that the budget is moving
back to a "traditional" process. Under the presen~ plan, revenue projections, will be sent
to the Board in the next week to ten days. Everything will be provided on a timely basis.
The County Executive's staff will forward the planning forms to the department heads tomor-
row. These forms will be returned in mid-December and then submitted to the County Execu-
tive. After the County Executive reviews and balances the information, it will be presented
to the Board the latter part of February. Board review of the budget will be made during the
first or second week of March, with the target date for adoption by the end of the second
week of April. This schedule will enable the School Board to mail teacher Contracts in a
timely manner.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned that the approach used last year had not been a success. He
asked if the Board will be getting information at an earlier time. He suggested there be some
sort of presentation of what what the County Executive's projections are going to be, in the
near future. Mr. Bowie commented that the new procedure last year had indeed not succeeded.
He said the traditional approach bothers him because the Board receives no information until
it gets a 100-page book of computer printouts. Then after many hours of budget work ses-
sions, with all of the pluses and minuses, the Board has only made minute changes. The Board
can't do the budget itself. There needs to be some method whereby the Board at least gives
some guidance to the County Executive earlier in the process. Mr. Bowie said he has been
working on an analysis of budgets back to 1980. He would like to present that analysis to
the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Bowie's statement was basically the same as his own
request. He would like a view of the foundation of the budget; an opportunity to make
tsuggestions which, the Board cannot do without the pertinent information.
Mr. Jones stated that a sampling of about 80 percent has been done of the real estate
reassessment. The staff has the advantage this year of having the capability of doing
trends. The real estate reassessment figures will be more than just a sampling. The staff
should be able to do things in a more timely manner. Mr. Lindstrom said it might be helpful
if the Board could have as many of the pieces (revenues, expenditures, etc.) in one spot
rather than getting a report on revenues and then a couple of weeks later something else.
Mr. Bowie added that revenues are meaningless without expenditures. There was no further
discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adoption: Senate Joint Resolution 47.
Mr. Tucker summarized a letter to the Board from the County Executive giving the back-
ground of the proposed resolution. The conclusions of the Inspections, Engineering and
Planning staffs are as follows:
The problem is a localized one (Northern Virginia) that should not be
solved by state legislation. Albemarle completes inspections within
the same~work day of an inspection request being received, and approves
plans within a three to five day review period.
Current state Building and Subdivision codes provide for the acceptance
by localities of inspection reports by qualified private sector
agencies, but the problem in Northern Virginia seems to center around
whether these private agencies are employed by a developer, or by the
local government.
Mr. Tucker explained that S.J. Resolution 47 arose from a request by the Northern
Virginia Builders Association which is dissatisfied with regulatory procedures. He said that
a hearing on this matter by the Joint Subcommittee of the General Assembly is scheduled for
November 7, 1986. The adoption of the resolution opposing Senate Joint Resolution 47 is
requested so that it can be forwarded to the subcommittee in time for that hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels it is reasonable for the County to maintain the flexibility
it has. Mrs. Cooke askedthe reason for this resolution. They have local control to do what
they want to do. Mr. Tucker answered that it is basically a question of whether or not the
developer can go out and do his own inspections. Mr. Lindstrom commented that that seems to
be an inherent conflict of interest. Mr. Bowie noted that the resolution was sponsored by
the Northern Virginia Builders' Association, and not by a governing body in Northern Virgin-
ia.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie seconded the
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, it appears that Senate Joint Resolution 47 was initiated due
to a perceived local problem within one geographical area of the Common-
wealth; and
WHEREAS, Volume I of the 1984 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code
mandates enforcement of the Code by the Building Official of each jurisdic-
tion in Virginia; and
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
06,
WHEREAS, the Code already allows the Building Official to waive the
review of plans and specifications when prepared by professional engineers
and architects; and
WHEREAS, the mandated acceptance by local government officials of
certified plans and certified inspections would undermine the Official's
authority without decreasing responsibility and would eliminate his current
ability to reject certified plans and certified inspections when noncompli-
ance of land development codes are discovered; and
WHEREAS, it is felt that mandated acceptance by local government
officials of certified plans and certified inspections would result in an
increase in Code related problems to residential buildings and subdivision
faciliites by diminishing the authority of government agencies in providing
quality control of the land development process; and
WHEREAS, this diminished quality control could affect the health,
safety, and welfare of home buyers and occupants of buildings;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle, is strong-
ly opposed to any change in the Code of Virginia that would mandate accep-
tance to certified plans and certified inspections related to the land
development process.
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: December 11 and December 16, 1985; January 3,
January 8, January 15, January 22, January 28, February 1 and August 20 (afternoon), 1986.
Mr. Way stated he had read January 22, January 28 and February 1 and finds all three to
be satisfactory.
Mr. Bowie said he had read January 8. There were three minor typos which he had brought
to the attention of the Clerk. -He finds them satisfactory.
Mr. Lindstrom read December 16 but failed to read August 20. December 16 are all right.
Mr. Way also failed to read Item 10. Mrs. Cooke stated she had read January 3 and
January 15, pages 1-9, and finds them acceptable.
Mr. Bowie moved to approve the minutes which had been read.
called and the motion carried with the following recorded vote:
Mr. Way seconded.
Roll was
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Members
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Public and Board
Mr. Lindstrom reported briefly on the Second Pre-Allocation Hearing held by the Highway
Department in Culpeper on November 3, 1986. The only thing he changed from the prepared text
was that he said the Board generally supports the improvements to Route 29 North, but had not
had a chance to meet since the public hearing, and so he was unable to speak specifically.
He said he thanked the people for coming to the hearing and especially noted Mr. Roosevelt of
the Highway Department, who, he felt did a terrific job chairing that meeting, the
ZMA-86-05, RAC-Charlottesville, LP
ZMA-86-06, Encore Investment Partnership
ZMA86-05, RAC-Charlottesville, LP, and ZMA-86-06, Encore Investment Partnership, were both
advertised at the request of the Planning staff, to be heard by the Board on November 5. We
have just been informed that neither petition has yet been scheduled to be heard by the
Planning Commission. The advertisement was in error.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: The Acquisition of Property.
At 9:18 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn into executive session for a discus-
sion of acquisition of property. Mr. Lindstrom seconded. Mr. St. John suggested that legal
matters be added to that. Mr. Bowie added discussion of legal matters to his motion. Mr.
Lindstrom agreed. There being no discussion, the roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie to reconvene into
open session. Mrs. Cooke stated for the record that she wished to disqualify herself from
the executive session due to a possible conflict of interest. Mrs. Cooke left the meeting at
this time.
O7O
November 5, 1986 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10 )
At 9:30 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to return to
executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher.
At 9:46 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned.
CHAIRM~N