1987-02-11February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
209
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 11, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 97, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:04 A.M.), and Peter T. Way
(arrived at 9:05 A.M.).
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.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to approve Item 4.6 on
the Consent Agenda and to accept the remaining items as information. Mr. Lindstrom seconded
the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried
with the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item 4.1. Memorandum from the Watershed Management Official dated January 29, 1987,
entitled "Summary of Environmental Management Regulations: Local Responsibilities", was
forwarded to the Board members as information:
There are a number of Federal and State Regulations that impact local
governments in the area of environmental protection and management. Some of
the major regulations and policies affecting the locality are:
I. SMALL QUANTITY GENERATORS
Generators of hazardous waste who produce between 100 and 1000 Kg of wasue
per month are classified as small quantity generators. These generators are
now required to follow RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) mani-
fest, packaging and storage requirements. Transport and/or disposal of
waste regulated by RCRA requires the use of RCRA subtitle C permitted
facilities and licensed hazardous haulers. Since the area's landfill
facility cannot accept hazardous waste, due to State licensing limitations
on our landfill, the County's Engineering Department has compiled a list of
approved haulers to be given to citizens upon inquiry of disposal of this
waste.
II. UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Owners and operators of underground storage tanks and facilities are re-
quired to notify the State Water Control Board of the existence of all
regulated storage tanks. Underground storage tanks storing gasoline, used
oil, diesel fuel, industrial solvent, pesticides, herbicides and fumigants
are among those being regulated. Also, no new tanks may be installed unless
it will prevent the release of the stored substances. The County has listed
its tanks with the State, and advises owners of the State requirements if
development plans include storage tanks. The Inspections staff inspects
tank installations for compliance.
III. OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION
Businesses which have a storage capacity of more than 1320 gallons total
above ground, an above-ground oil tank larger than 660 gallons, or more than
42,000 gallons below-ground are governed by the EPA Oil Pollutions Preven-
tion Regulations. The regulations require owners or operators of these
businesses to prepare a written spill preventions control and countermeasure
plan (SPCC) and to put the approved plan into effect within six months.
Businesses are advised of this requirement if development plans include such
tanks.
IV. THE FEDERAL/STATE PESTICIDE LAW
The Federal/State Pesticide Law stipulates that the "use of any pesticide
inconsistent with its labeling is prohibited." Proper disposal methods
should be followed as indicated on the product label. In addition the "EPA
suggested Disposal Guidelines for Homeowners" can be followed by farmers or
landowners disposing of up to one gallon of liquid or 10 pounds of dry
waste.
V. THE HAZARD COMMUNICATION STANDARD
Uniform requirements have been established under Virginia Hazard Communica-
tion Standard to ensure that the hazards of all chemicals produced, imported
610
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
or used within the Commonwealth's manufacturing and public sector employers
are evaluated. Employers affected are to develop a hazard communication
program to inform their employees of work place hazards. The County Person-
nel Department has implemented a program to comply with this requirement.
VI. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Local capabilities for hazardous materials handling and emergency response
are being evaluated by the Emergency Services Coordinator for Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle. A plan for the improvement of local area response
capabilities will be developed from this evaluation.
While these procedures are being developed, the County has adopted an
administrative policy which establishes guidelines for the staff to follow
in the verification of potential and/Or actual pollution emergencies and for
the referral of this information to the proper Federal or State Agency for
action.
VII. HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE
The environmental impact of consumer disposal of household hazardous materi-
als is difficult to accurately evaluate. The Institute for Environmental
Negotiations in conjunction with the Medical Information Referral Service at
the University of Virginia is currently considering the implementation of an
educational effort to increase public awareness of the possible hazards
associated with household consumer products and the disposal of these
products. The details of their effort will be provided to the Board when
completed.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Agnor for including a list of haulers, and he asked if they
would also haul petroleum products. Mr. Agnor replied, "yes."
Item 4.2. A copy of 1985 Primary and Interstate Traffic Counts, was received from Mr.
D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, as information.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Roosevelt for giving the Board the traffic counts on the primary
and interstate routes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the counts are always broken down by Virginia,
non-Virginia and the various truck capacities. Mr. Roosevelt answered "yes."
Item 4.3. A copy of the Revised Final 1986-87 Allocation of Funds and Revised Six-Year
Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1986-87 through 1991-92 for the Culpeper District, was
received as information.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the "Free Bridge" and Route 250 East project will begin. Mr.
Roosevelt said that preliminary engineering will start about the first of January and run
through July, 1989, with right-of-way to be acquired between July, 1989 and July, 1990 with
construction beginning about July, 1990. Mr. Bowie asked if money was accelerated, if the
project could be moved up? Mr. Roosevelt stated that based on past history, he thinks it
would be difficult. He said that two and a half years is not a very long time to draft plans
and go through the public hearing process, buy the right-of-ways necessary, and build a
project that will extend from St. Clair Avenue in the City all the way out to the Interstate.
He thinks the Highway Department would be pressed to do things sooner than that.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Highway Department is planning to start this year, and Mr.
Roosevelt replied that they are planning to have the surveys and plans done by consultants
and that the advertisements for consultants is already out.
Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for January 20, 1987, was received
as information.
Item 4.5. Private Well System Completion Report dated January 30, 1987, for Earlysville
Forest Well 97 was received as information from the County Engineer (Tax Map 3lB, Parcel M -
south side of Carriage Hill Drive, Section 9, Phase A).
Item 4.6. Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) for the Director of Fi-
nance, Sheriff's Office, Commonwealth's Attorney, and the Regional Jail, for the Month of
January, 1987, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item No. 5.
(Night), 1986.
Approval of Minutes:
May 8, 1985; November 12 and December 3
Mrs. Cooke said she had read the minutes of November 12, 1986, Pages 10-15, and found
them to be in order. She then offered motion to approve those minutes. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and it carried by the folloWing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
February 11, 1987 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Discussion of Request for Sidewalks along
Route 240 (Deferred from January 14, 1987).
Mr. Agnor said that there was a letter forwarded to the Board from Mr. Roosevelt de-
scribing a proposal that the project be a joint project between the Highway Department and
the County, because of its relatively small size. He noted his memorandum dated February 6,
1987, with an attached estimate of the cost of the project, as follows:
"Attached is the cost estimate for material and labor for construction of a
sidewalk along Route 240 for pedestrian access to the Crozet Library. Mr.
Roosevelt has indicated that the State Department of Transportation would
provide the labor and equipments costs for construction, provided the County
funded the material costs.
Material Costs $3,150
Labor Costs 2,760
Total $5,910
You will note that the most significant cost regarding material involves the
retaining wall needed along the west end of the Library property. It is
recommended that the project be authorized with the funding derived from the
Board's contingency appropriation, which has a current balance of $18,633."
Also forwarded to the Board was the following letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, dated
January 28, 1987:
"Reference is made to your letter dated January 15, 1987, concerning the
Board's request for construction of a sidewalk along Route 240 between the
C & 0 underpass and the Crozet Library.
Construction of this sidewalk is considered an improvement by the Department
of Transportation. As such this request should be considered by the Trans-
portation Board at the time all other primary improvement requests are made.
The relatively small amount of money involved, however, allows us some lee-
way in this case. I have discussed this matter wlth Mr. W. L. Bower and he
has agreed we could handle this as a joint participation project with the
County if the Board of Supervisors is agreeable.
I believe I can make the labor available to extend the existing sidewalk
from the C & O underpass to the entrance to the Crozet Library. I request
that the County agree to cover the cost for the materials involved in such
construction. If the Board is agreeable to this plan, I will work out the
details with the appropriate County staff.
From my review of this request I am concerned that extension of this side-
walk may influence people to cross Route 240 in the area just north of the
underpass. Sight distance at this location is limited and I do not believe
we want to encourage pedestrian crossings at this point. For this reason
construction of the sidewalk would simply be a direct connection between the
underpass and the Library entrance with no connection to Route 240 at its
intersection with Route 810."
Mr. Agnor went over the estimates with the Board. He pointed out the proposed layout
of the project with a diagram. He said that the staff recommends that the Board consider
this project favorably. He also recommended that it be funded, if the Board wishes to do so,
from the contingency line item in the budget. He also mentioned that the Board had a letter
from Mrs. Joanne Perkins, Secretary of the Crozet Community Association, asking for the
walkway improvement, along with other supporters of the Library.
Mr. Henley requested that Mr. Roosevelt comment on the last paragraph in his letter
about the connection to Route 240. Mr. Roosevelt stated that his concern expressed in the
last paragraph is that they don't want to do anything that will influence people to try and
cross there at the intersection because the sight distance is limited. He said they could
not feasibly do anything without the money to do something with the underpass and regrade the
road, and he feels that that would cause problems with the buildings along that route. He
thinks it is adequate now for vehicles, but he does not feel it is safe for pedestrians. Mr.
Henley commented that people would still cross there. Mr. Roosevelt said they may do that.
But he doesn't think it should be made easy for them by setting up an actual sidewalk that
comes down to the intersection with crosswalks, because that would make people think that it
is a safe place to cross.
Mr. Henley brought out the fact that there is a sidewalk on each side under the under-
pass. Mr. Roosevelt said the sidewalk was built when the underpass was built. Mr. Henley
asked if they would be hooking into the sidewalk on the east side with the new one. Mr.
Roosevelt said they would be hooking into the sidewalk under the underpass, and he described
the safe route to the Library.
Mr. Henley said that it is a dangerous situation, and he feels that something needs to
be done because a lot of people walk that road. He said with the money that is invested in
the Library, which certainly gets a lot of use, he thinks the recommendation should be for
approval.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Norman Gillum for bringing this matter to the Board's attention,
and said he thought it was a good project. Mr. Gillum was present and thanked the Board for
acting on the request so quickly, and said it would be greatly appreciated by the people in
Crozet.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve the expenditure for material costs for the con-
struction of a sidewalk along Route 240 for pedestrian access to the Crozet Library, with
funding derived from the Board's contingency appropriation. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b.
Improvements.
Agreement:
Marriott Corporation/Others Branchlands Road
The following memorandum dated January 30, 1987, from the County Executive, was
received:
"Attached is correspondence relating to the improvements of certain roads in
the Branchlands Planned Unit Development. You will recall your earlier
approval of a Marriott Hotel within the Branchlands PUD, conditions of which
require certain roads to be built to appropriate state standards.
Dr. Charles W. Hurt, developer of Branchlands, will be posting a performance
bond with the County to ensure that the roads in question are built as
required. Marriott has prepared an agreement that requires the developer to
begin construction of the roads in Branchlands within 60 days after closing
on the property, and to complete construction of the roads within 120 days
after that closing. After this time period, if roads are not completed,
Marriott will have the right to complete construction of the road themselves
after proper notice to the developer and the County. Should this occur,
Marriott is requesting the County, as party to this agreement, to utilize
the surety of the bond posted by Dr. Hurt for payment to Marriott for the
road work they will have performed.
The County Executive's staff supports this type of agreement because it not
only provides surety for improvement of the Branchlands roads but also
avoids having the County be involved in the actual construction of the
roads, if it became necessary.
It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive to enter
into this agreement on behalf of the County. To avoid this type of an
agreement impacting the Board's agenda in the future, staff intends to
develop the necessary amendments to our bonding procedures which would
provide the County Executive the ability to authorize this type of surety
payment, when properly requested in the future."
Mr. Agnor asked Mr. St. John to explain the request to the Board. Mr. St. John
commented that the documents are simply a means for Marriott to be sure that once the land
has been purchased by them, in order for them to get an occupancy permit, the road in
question will be built by somebody. The developer has agreed to build the road, but Marriott
wants to be sure that if the developer doesn't do it, they can go ahead and do it at their
own expense, if necessary, and the bond will be available to reimburse them for the expendi-
ture. He said this is not an extraordinary request and he recommends that the Board
authorize the County Executive to enter into the agreement.
Mr. Fisher asked if Marriott is the only beneficiary of this road? Mr. St. John said
there are other beneficiaries ultimately to this road, but it is not known who those
beneficiaries are yet. The Marriott is the first purchaser whose occupancy permit would be
held up until this road is built. Marriott deems it is worthwhile to go ahead and do this in
order to get moving. If they are willing to do it on this basis, Mr. St. John sees no
reason why the others need to be brought into it.
Mr. Fisher said if the developer does not build the road, and if Marriott requests the
County to transfer the bond to them, what guarantee does the County have that Marriott will
use that money to build the road. Mr. St. John said he believes that even though a developer
or subdivider posts a road bond before any lots are sold off to innocent purchasers, or even
if the developer walks away or for some reason doesn't begin the road, and it hurts no one
but the developer, the County does not have to get into the road building business in order
to complete the development unless there is some innocent person who will suffer because of
the developer's default. The public has nothing at stake at this point. Marriott and the
developer are the only ones who have anything at stake. The bond will not be turned over to
Marriott, and there is no chance that the proceeds of this bond would be used by Marriott for
some other purpose.
Mr. St. John made a recommendation that a slight, insignificant change be authorized in
the description of the boundaries of where this road begins and ends. He said that Mr. Armm
has found that that needs to be done.
Mr. Bowie asked what was meant in the last paragraph of Mr. Agnor's memorandum. Mr.
Agnor said if this bonding procedure works well this time, staff believes that it is worth-
while because it keeps the County from having to advertise and find contractors to get a
project finished. Staff will bring back an amendment to procedures for ultimate approval by
the Board. Mr. St. John pointed out that not every case would have to come before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute "A
Developers' Agreement by and between Marriott Corporation, Albemarle County, and Albemarle
Bank and Trust and Vincent West as Trustees for the Belvedere Land Trust, under agreement
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
dated August 15, 1980" changing the description of the beginning and ending of the road as
recommended by the County Engineer. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further
discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Request that Routes 601/614 be included in the Scenic Byways
Program. The following memorandum dated February 5, 1987, from the County Executive, was
received:
"Attached is a letter from the Department of Conservation and Historic
Resources notifying us that Routes 601/614 qualify for addition to the
Virginia Byways System from the U.S. 29/250 Bypass to Route 810. Routes
601/614 are recommended for scenic byways designation in the Comprehensive
Plan. Staff recommends that the Board schedule a public hearing to consider
endorsing the concept of adding these two routes to the Virginia Byways
system."
Mr. Agnor referred the Board to a letter from the State Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources indicating that as a result of a request by the Piedmont Environmental
Council, they are recommending that Routes 601 and 614 from their intersection with U.S. 29
and 250 Bypass out to Route 810 be considered for inclusion into the Virginia Byways System.
He went through the procedure with the Board and said the state agencies will not make a move
in that direction unless the County Board endorses the concept. He said the staff recommends
that a public hearing be set to consider this concept and then make a decision on it.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had looked at the proposed routes. He said that Route 614 is also
Route 676 for a little stretch. He wondered if they were talking about the entire length of
Routes 601 and 614. Mr. Agnor answered, "yes," as the yellow line on the map indicates. Mr.
Agnor recommended that the public hearing be held on March 18, 1987.
Mr. Henley said he hated to advertise a road that he feels is inadequate now for the
traffic, and he feels that this is advertising it for tourists' travel. He said he did not
understand the principle of the whole thing, but he doesn't have any problem with putting on
restrictions that a scenic road requires.
Mr. Fisher said that the question was whether or not to set a public hearing. He said
that he felt that a public hearing should be set so that they could hear from the people, and
then make a decision.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to advertise for public comments at the March 18, 1987,
meeting. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and
the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor announced that the school zone blinking light at Scottsville School has been
repaired.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that he has been asked by the President of a scenic rivers committee
to write a letter concerning the Rivanna River. He has drafted a letter and had a copy sent
to the Board members. If any Board member objects to him signing this letter, and sending it
on County letterhead, he will not do so. There were no objections raised.
Mr. Way told Mr. Roosevelt that a gentleman had approached him concerning a small road
that runs between Route 618 in Albemarle County and Route 636 in Fluvanna County. The
inquiry was how to get this road into the State system.
Mr. Roosevelt replied that the roads can be added to the system through the normal
subdivision procedure or through the rural addition procedure. The rural addition procedure
has language in it which indicates that before this procedure can be used, the County must
have passed a subdivision ordinance that meets the requirements of the Highway Department.
The Department has reviewed all of the ordinances of all of the counties and has indicated
that unless those ordinances prohibit private roads, they do not consider that ordinance to
meet the requirements of that section of the code. The Department advised Albemarle, as well
as most of the counties in the state, about three or four years ago that their ordinances do
not meet the requirements of the rural addition section. What that means is that if the road
serves property which has been subdivided since 1949, that road is not eligible for addition
under the rural addition law.
Mr. Roosevelt said he spoke with the same gentleman and told him that although he has
not reviewed the properties along this road, but it is infeasible that there has not been any
subdivision in the last 38 years. For the purposes of this section of the code, "subdivi-
sion'' is defined as the division of one property into two or more properties. Mr. Roosevelt
said he can have the question researched to determine whether the road might be eligible.
214
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 6)
Mr. Way said there are about eight families who live on this road, which is about a mile
in length. The children have to walk to the end of the road to get to the bus. He mentioned
that most of the families have lived there for a long time, but for some reason the road was
never taken into the state system.
Mr. Fisher stated that when the snows hit two weeks ago, while there were many com-
plaints from many people about snow removal, he thought that the Highway Department people
and the contractors did an outstanding job. He thanked Mr. Roosevelt.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he had worked for the Highway Department for over 23 years,
and he has never been involved with a snow storm that was more psychologically a problem than
that of two weeks ago. He said that having two such big storms so close together put a large
burden on him and his people. He gave all credit for the snow removal to his people and the
contractors. He also mentioned that he was pleased that none of the Supervisors called and
indicated problems.
Mr. Henley said that he had a problem with one road, and feels that there should be some
leeway given to get someone to help clean the roads when they are bad. He said that it was
five days before he could get down one road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that they do have that leeway, and some contractors are hired in the
fall and are available, but most contractors don't want to go through the hassle of signing
up and supplying the necessary information not knowing whether or not they will be needed.
He stated that this is the first time in four years that anybody has been needed. Most wait
until the storm actually comes, and they can see that there is work to do and money involved
to offset their costs. But, his people do have the authority to hire this equipment.
Mr. Henley said that he thought they needed to get ready a little in advance for certain
roads, because they know which ones drift badly.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that he wished they could do things in advance, but last fall
they could only get two contractors to sign up with them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he didn't get out to any remote areas, but he didn't feel that the
snow had been an issue. He said the roads he had been to were clear.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received a number of calls requesting that the County get out
and clear off the roads. She explained to them that the County did not do this, and she said
that people were amazed that this.was not a County responsibility.
The fact was brought out that the County roads were so much better than the City
streets, and Mr. Roosevelt said that the City had such concentrated traffic even though there
are fewer miles to cover. He mentioned a problem that they had when they left the primary
system and tried to plow the secondary roads because they thought the sun would come out and
help melt the snow. The result was that some of the snow removal trucks got stuck, and they
didn't get as much plowed as they thought, and then the sun did not come out the next day.
He said he thought the City may have had some of the same type of problems.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Applications for Persons Taking Early Retirement.
The following memorandum from the County Executive dated February 2, 1987, was received:
"Only one employee applied for Voluntary Early Retirement in General Govern-
ment. This applicant, Mrs. Virginia Cassidy, has the longest continuous
service of all current county employees. She began work on October 15,
1946, in the Department of Finance.
The Voluntary Early Retirement policy will provide $1695 per year in salary
and $722 per year for medical insurance until November, 1992. The total
cost to the County will be $10,475 over the four years and five months
period.
Since the retiree is in the "0" step of the Accountant Position salary range
and the replacement will be hired in July, 1987 in the beginning range,
there will be approximately $8500 savings in salary and fringe costs per
year. The net savings per year will amount to $6100 after paying the $2417
annual retirement costs ($1695 in salary plus $722 in medical) to the
retiree.
Staff recommends your approval of the application as required by Board
policy. Funding will be included in the 1987-88 budget."
Mr. Agnor asked for approval for the early retirement of an employee in General Govern-
ment. He gave the Board a projection of early retirement costs from the employee's retire-
ment to the time that she is eligible for full benefits under the State Retirement System.
Mr. Way offered motion to approve the Voluntary Early Retirement application of Mrs.
Virginia H. Cassidy. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
215
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing: Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1987).
Mr. Armm stated that some time ago the Board had reviewed the changes proposed in the
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, and he summarized the major points. He
stated that this ordinance moves the authority for enforcement from the Zoning Administrator
to the County Engineer. Secondly, the Soil Erosion Review Committee will be deleted from the
ordinance the the review will be made by Engineering Department staff. This will streamline
procedures and help issue permits faster.
Mr. Armm mentioned that under new laws enacted by the General Assembly, greater enforce-
ment powers have been granted the locality for this type of ordinance. One new item added to
the ordinance is to allow a subdivision, even if it h~s.no~ been completed to have the soil
erosion control ordinance ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~= ~
provisions termInated at somet~t~me. -~ ..... ~ .... ~--~~
Mr. Bowie said~ had mentioned a problem at last month's meeting that the reference to
"Handbook" in the definition of "Conservation standard or standards" occurs before the
defintion of "Handbook" He had suggested that the sequence be rearranged or a note be added
at the bottom of Page two. Mr. St. John said that that is a good point, but he pointed out
that in the Virginia Code and in most other ordinances, there is a section on definitions.
The definitions appear in alphabetical order. Sometimes a definition, itself, includes a
word which has to be defined somewhere else. He said that is the problem here. The word
"Handbook" is defined at its proper place alphabetically. Mr. Bowie said he still feels that
in the paragraph where the handbook is first mentioned, there should at least be a notation
to saying "see definition of handbook below". He said it was not a big point, but he was
trying to clear up things. Mr. St. John said that would be better than putting the defini-
tion out of alphabetical order.
At this point, Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak
on this proposed amendment? No one appeared to speak, so the Public Hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Armm to explain the word "substantial" in Section 7-6(d). Mr.
Armm said there had been a lot of discussion about a better way to define the word, but he
thinks it comes down to the eyes of the person who is inspecting, and it is a matter of
judgment. He said every soil erosion plan and site is different, and it would be very hard
to put in definite terms as to what a substantial violation is. He explained that the staff
can enforce corrections of any violation, but they like to work with developers so the
developer will have a chance to correct the violation. He feels that the word "substantial"
just gives them the power to determine on their own what is a substantial violation. Mr.
Armm stated that he believes the word comes directly from State Code.
Mr. Fisher asked if this ordinance parallels the state law, and Mr. Armm said they were
trying to do this as much as possible. Mr. Lindstrom said he doesn't want staff to "get
caught in a bind" by using the word "substantial." He stated that if necessary, the ordi-
nance can be amended if it becomes a problem. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the
following ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 7 of the Albemarle County Code entitled
"Erosion and Sedimentation Control," as advertised, but adding the words "see definition of
handbook which follows" at the end of the definition of "Conservation standard as standards".
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(The ordinance as adopted is se~ out in full below)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 7
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
Article 1. In General
Sec. 7-1. Purpose of chapter.
The purpose of this chapter is to conserve the land,
water, air and other natural resources of the county and
promote the public health and welfare of the people in the
county by establishing requirements for the control of erosion
and sedimentation, and by establishing procedures whereby these
requirements shall be administered and enforced.
Sec. 7-2. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them
by this section:
A~ent. The engineer, surveyor, contractor, or other
person authorized by the landowner to act in his behalf.
Applicant. The landowner or his agent who submits plans
and specifications to the county for issuance of an erosion
control permit.
Conservation standard or standards. The criteria, guide-
lines, techniques and methods for the control of erosion and
sedimentation as shown in the handbook (see definition of
handbook which follows).
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Director of engineering. The director of engineering of
the county of his designated agent.
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. A document which
describes the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems
on a construction project and explains and illustrates the
measures which are to be taken to control those problems. The
plan has a written portion known as a narrative and an illus-
trative portion known as a map or site plan.
Erosion control permit.
pursuant to this chapter.
A permit issued by the county
Handbook. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook as the same shall be amended from time to time.
Land disturbinq activity. Any activity so defined by the
Code of Virginia in Title 21, chapter 1, article 6.1, section
21-89.3(a), as the same may be amended from time to time.
Permit holder. The landowner or other person authorized
to act as agent for the landowner.
Subdivision.
Albemarle.
As defined in Chapter 18 of the Code of
Sec. 7-3.
Approval required for certain activities and
conditions.
(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d), it
shall be unlawful for any person to engage in any land disturb-
ing activity until he has submitted to the director of engi-
neering an erosion and sediment control plan for such land
disturbing activity and until that plan has been reviewed and
approved and an erosion control permit issued to the person by
the director of engineering. It shall also be unlawful for any
person willfully to fail to conform to plans and specifications
so approved in performing such activities.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person who owns land in
the county willfully to suffer or permit any portion, regard-
less of size or area, of his land to remain in such condition
that soil erosion and sedimentation causes reasonably avoidable
damage or harm to adjacent or downstream property, roads,
streams, lakes or ponds. The director of engineering, on his
own initiative or upon complaint of any citizen, shall notify
the owner of any such land that such condition exists, and
shall require such owner to submit an erosion and sediment
control plan to control such erosion and sedimentation. If
such owner fails or refuses to submit such plan to the director
of engineering within the time specified in such notice, or if
he fails or refuses to provide the controls required by the
plan approved by the director of engineering within the speci-
fied time period after notice of such approval, he shall be
deemed to have violated the provisions of this section and
shall be subject to the provisions of section 7-8 hereof for
such violation; provided, that the director of engineering may,
for good cause shown, extend the period of such compliance for
a reasonable time. In addition to all other remedies, the
director of engineering may, upon proper finding, proceed in
accordance with section 7-6(c).
(c) Any person owning, occupying, or operating private
agricultural, horticultural or forest lands shall not be deemed
to be in violation of this chapter for land disturbing activi-
ties from the tilling, planting or harvesting of agricultural,
horticultural or forest crops or products or engineering
operations under section 21-2(c) of the Code of Virginia;
provided, that such person shall comply with the provisions of
this chapter when grading, excavating, or filling. Clearing of
agricultural areas of greater than ten thousand square feet
when such areas are not tilled and planted with agricultural,
horticultural or forest crops within sixty days shall be deemed
to be land disturbing activity. The disturbance of land areas
greater than ten thousand square feet for the construction of
farm structures, including but not limited to feed lots,
agricultural structures or roads not associated with tilling,
planting and harvesting, are not exempt from the requirements
of this chapter. In no case shall the construction of any
roads, other than those used exclusively for access to tilling,
planting and harvesting fields, be exempted from the require-
ments of this chapter.
(d) Any person whose land disturbing activities involve
lands which extend into the jurisdiction of another local
erosion and sediment control program and who chooses to have a
conservation plan approved by the Virginia Soil and Water
2].7
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Conservation Commission shall notify the director of engineer-
ing of such plan approval by the Virginia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission.
(e) Whenever a land disturbing activity is proposed to be
conducted by a contractor performing construction work pursuant
to a construction contract, the preparation, submission and
approval of the required erosion and sediment control plan
shall be the responsibility of the owner of the land.
(f) No permit shall be issued by any administrative
officer of the county for the construction of any building or
other development requiring a permit, nor shall any subdivision
plat be approved relating to land subject to this chapter
unless and until the requirements of this chapter have been
complied with.
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) Any person who applies for approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan and issuance of an erosion control permit
pursuant to section 7-3 hereof shall submit with his applica-
tion to the director of engineering an erosion and sediment
control plan with specifications for temporary and permanent
controls of soil erosion and sedimentation in such detail as
the director of engineering shall deem reasonably adequate,
considering the nature and extent of the proposed land disturb-
ing activity. Unless otherwise specified by the director of
engineering, four copies of all plans and specifications shall
be required.
(b) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to
this chapter shall be in accordance with provisions of the
handbook; provided that the director of engineering may require
such additional information as may be necessary for a complete
review of the project. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the
case of any approved subdivision which is subject to the
provisions of this ordinance, the director of engineering may
allow, in lieu of an erosion and sediment control plan for the
construction of buildings on individual lots in such subdivi-
sion, the provision of a contract satisfactory to him and to
the county attorney, executed on behalf of the owners of
individual lots, provided that an approved plan exists for the
development of such subdivision, including all land disturbing
activities in connection with the development of such subdivi-
sion other than construction of buildings on individual lots.
Such contract shall ensure that the construction to be per-
formed on such lot shall be so performed as to provide protec-
tion from soil erosion and sedimentation to a degree
satisfactory to the director of engineering and shall be
executed prior to the issuance of a building permit for such
construction.
(c) Ail plans and specifications submitted pursuant to
this chapter relating to land within any public drinking water
supply watershed, in addition to all other provisions of law,
shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 19.1,
Article II, of the Code of Albemarle, which is hereby incorpo-
rated by reference.
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to
section 7-3, of this article, the applicant shall pay to the
county a fee of seventy-five dollars to cover the cost to the
county to review and to act upon such plan. For each and every
erosion control inspection necessitated by this plan, a fee of
twenty-five dollars shall be paid by the applicant. The
maximum fee chargeable under this section, inclusive of inspec-
tions, shall not exceed three hundred dollars.
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications.
(a) After submission, all plans and specifications
required hereby shall be reviewed by the director of engineer-
ing in order to ascertain whether all items required by the
handbook are shown thereon where applicable. Regular meetings
will be held to review and discuss submitted plans with the
applicant.
(b) The director of engineering shall proceed to review
the plans and specifications to ascertain whether they are in
compliance with the conservation standards of the handbook and
thereafter approve or disapprove the application as submitted,
or notify the applicant of any changes necessary for approval.
Comments concerning any required changed to the plan will be
furnished to the applicant within seven calendar days of the
regular scheduled meetings; but provided further, that in any
event, the director of engineering shall approve or disapprove
the plans and specifications within thirty calendar days after
application is made.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically
provided herein, the director of engineering shall not approve,
and no permit shall be issued for any activity which is neces-
sitated by or which is to be done in connection with, any use,
change in use, development, subdivision of land or other action
for which a subdivision plat or site development plan is
required by law unless and until such subdivision plat or site
development plan shall have been approved as provided by law.
For purposes of this section only, such subdivision plat or
site development plan shall be deemed approved if it shall be
approved conditioned upon the issuance of such erosion control
permits as may be required pursuant to this chapter.
Permits may be issued for the following activities in
accordance with law prior to the approval of a site development
plan or subdivision plat under the conditions set forth herein-
after:
(1) The correction of any existing erosion or other
condition conducive to excessive sedimentation which is occa-
sioned by any violation of this chapter or by accident, act of
God or other cause beyond the control of the owner; provided,
that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the
correction of such condition;
(2) Clearing and grubbing of stumps and other
activity directly related to selective cutting of trees as
permitted by law;
(3) Installation of underground public utility
mains, interceptors, transmission lines and trunk lines for
which plans and specifications have been previously approved by
the operating utility and approved by the county in accordance
with Code of Virginia, section 15.1-456, if necessary;
(4) Filling of earth with spoils obtained from
grading, excavation or other lawful earth-disturbing activity;
(5) Clearing, grading, filling and similar related
activity for temporary storage of earth, equipment and materi-
als, and construction of temporary access roads; provided, that
in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to substan-
tially its previous condition with no significant change in
surface contours within thirty days of the completion of such
installation or temporary use or within thirteen months of the
commencement of any land-disturbing activity on the site which
is related thereto, whichever period shall be shorter; and
(6) Borrow, fill or waste areas in accordance with
sections 10.2.1.18 and 5.1.28 of the zoning ordinance.
(d) In the event that the plans and specifications so
submitted shall be approved, the director of engineering shall
require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a
performance bond with surety or other security of a type
satisfactory to the director of engineering in an amount
determined by the director of engineering to be sufficient for
completion of the controls specified in the plans and specifi-
cations, including, without limitation, maintenance during the
execution thereof, should the person receiving the permit not
complete the controls as required.
(e) The director of engineering may require the submis-
sion of amended plans and specifications in any case in which
inspection reveals that the controls set forth in the plan are
inadequate to accomplish the erosion and sediment control
objectives of this chapter; or where the permit holder finds
that because of changed circumstances as for other reasons the
approved plan cannot be effectively carried out.
Sec. 7-6. Inspections.
(a) The director of engineering and his respective
designated agents shall have the right to enter upon property
at all reasonable times for the purpose of making investigation
and inspection relating to compliance with the provisions of
this chapter.
(b) If it is determined under subsection (a) above that
the permit holder or his agent has failed to comply with the
plan, the director of engineering shall immediately serve upon
the permit holder, in writing, a notice to comply and stating a
reasonable time for such compliance. Such notice shall be
served by registered or certified mail to the address specified
by the permit holder in the permit application, or by hand
delivery to the site of the permitted activities and presented
to the agent or employee of the permittee supervising such
activities, as per section 21-89.8 of the Code of Virginia, as
February 1I, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
..:2 i @
amended, instructing that corrective measures~be taken immedi-
ately when immediate action is necessary to prevent erosion or
sedimentation problems. Such notice shall set forth specifi-
cally the measures needed to come into compliance with such
plan. If the permit holder fails to comply within the time
specified, he may be subject to revocation of the permit and
shall, in addition, be deemed to be in violation of this
chapter.
(c) In the event that the permit holder shall fail to
comply with a notice as provided in subsection (b) above, upon
finding that such action is reasonably necessary to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, the director of engineering
may cause the necessary measures to be taken and shall proceed
to recover the expenses of such action as provided in section
7-8 hereof.
(d) Upon receipt of a complaint of a substantial viola-
tion of either section 21-89.6 or 21-89.8 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended, from the designated enforcement officer,
the director of engineering may issue an order requiring that
all or part of the land disturbing activities permitted on the
site be stopped until the specified corrective measures have
been taken. Where the alleged noncompliance is causing or is
in imminent danger of causing harmful erosion of lands or
sediment deposition in waters within the watersheds of the
Commonwealth, such an order may be issued without regard to
whether the permittee has been issued a notice to comply as
specified in subsection (b) above. Otherwise, such an order
may be issued only after the permittee has failed to comply
with such a notice to comply. The order shall be served in the
same manner as a notice to comply, and shall remain in effect
for a period of seven days from the date of service pending
application by the enforcing authority or permit holder for
appropriate relief to a court of competent jurisdiction. Upon
completion of corrective action, the order shall immediately be
lifted. Nothing in this section shall prevent the director of
engineering from taking any other action specified in section
7-8.
Sec. 7-7. Review by board of supervisors.
Any person who is aggrieved by any action of the director
of engineering in disapproving plans and specifications submit-
ted pursuant to this chapter, or in the interpretation of the
regulations of this chapter, shall have the right to apply for
and receive a review of such action by the board of supervi-
sors. In reviewing the director of engineering's action, the
board shall consider evidence and opinion presented by the
aggrieved person, the director of engineering, and such other
persons as shall be deemed by the board to be necessary for a
complete review of the matter. The board may affirm, reverse
or modify the director of engineering's action and the board's
decision shall be final, subject only to review by the circuit
court of the county by appeal taken pursuant to section
21-89.10 of the Code of Virginia. For purposes of this sec-
tion, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the
applicant, owners of adjacent and downstream property and any
interested governmental agency or officer thereof.
Sec. 7-8. Penalties and legal remedies.
(a) Any person violating any provision of this chapter
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars
or not exceeding thirty days imprisonment, or both such fine
and imprisonment.
(b) In addition to any other remedy, the director of
engineering may institute any appropriate proceeding, either at
law or in equity, to prevent violation or attempted violation
of this chapter, to restrain, correct or abate such violation,
or to prevent any act which would constitute such violation;
provided, that in order for the director of engineering to
obtain injunctive relief to prevent or restrain violations
hereof, it shall not be necessary to show that there does not
exist an adequate remedy at law.
Sec. 7-9.
Authority of director of engineerinq to establish
administrative procedures.
The director of engineering shall have the power to
establish reasonable administrative procedures for the adminis-
tration of this chapter.
220
February 11, 1987 (RegUlar Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend Sections 14-12 through 14-23 of
the Albemarle County Code entitled "Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1987.)
Mr. Agnor highlighted the basic changes that will be occurring in the code. The princi-
ple changes are that it prohibits the discharging of firearms on the reservoir property and
prohibits camping at all times. It transfers responsibility for issuing fishing and parking
permits at the Ragged Mountain Reservoir from the City Public Works Department to the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority. It strengthens the language of the code and prohibits canoeing
and boating in the Sugar Hollow Reservoir. Two new sections are added. One makes the
Rivanna Authority the agency responsible totally for the reservoir properties operations, and
the other section prohibit fires at all times, except for those required and approved as part
of the watershed management program. He said one section, 14-15, subparagraph (b) of the
ordinance was inadvertently omitted in the draft given to the Board last month, but it has
been included in the copy furnished to the Board today, and was included in the copy prepared
for advertising purposes. Mr. Agnor said it has been recommended to him that two words be
added throughout the ordinance, that is: everywhere "discharge of firearms" is mentioned,
these two words should be proceeded by the words "carrying or" so the phrase would be "carry-
ing or discharging of firearms".
Mr. Henley questioned whether this would cover the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle.
Mr. Agnor responded that he was thinking about carrying of a firearm in hand, but it could be
defined more accurately.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the ordinance be adopted with the understanding that the
phrase is talking about physically holding the gun. He said he was curious as to the reason
for prohibition of any boats on Sugar Hollow Reservoir versus the less restrictive provisions
on other reservoirs. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Authority, said
he thought the main reason was that Sugar Hollow is not set up to accommodate any boats. He
said it is a very small reservoir. Mr. Bowie asked how many acres are at Sugar Hollow, and
Mr. Williams responded that there are approximately 55 acres of water surface. Mr. Bowie
asked if access to the property were improved if there would still be a prohibition against
canoes and boats. Mr. Williams said the Rivanna Authority would need to look at the poten-
tial water effects.
Mr. Bowie asked about paragraph 14-15 (a) which limits parking to two vehicles per day.
He asked if that is for the whole County. Mr. Agnor responded that that reservoir has no
place for parking. He said that permits have been issued for parking for years because of
that situation. Mr. Bowie asked if a person could walk in, and Mr. Williams said "yes."
Mr. Fisher opened the Public Hearing.
Hearing was closed.
No one was there wishing to speak, so the Public
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following ordinance to amend and reenact
Article III, Chapter 4 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Water Supply Reservoirs uti-
lized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority." Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 14,
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED
"WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS UTILIZED BY
RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
Article III. Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Sec. 14-12. Generally.
Water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority may be used for limited recreational purposes
allowed in this article and under conditions as set forth herein.
Sec. 14-13. Reservoirs affected.
The following reservoirs shall be subject to the require-
ments set forth in this article: Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain,
Upper and Lower, South Fork Rivanna, Beaver Creek and Totier
Creek. The boundaries of these reservoirs are shown on maps on
file in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors,
entitled as follows: "Sugar Hollow Reservoir, County Code
Section 14-14, Tax Maps 24, 25, 38"; "Ragged Mountain Reservoir,
County Code Section 14-15, Tax Maps 59, 74, 75"; "South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, County Code Section 14-16, Tax Maps 30, 44,
45"; "Beaver Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-17, Tax Maps
41, 56, 57"; and "Totier Creek Reservoir, County Code Section
14-18, Tax Maps 130, 136".
February 11, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pa~_~ 13)
Sec. 14-14. Permitted and prohibited uses--Suqar Hollow.
(a) Permitted uses. Reservoir bank fishing, hiking and
birdwatching shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Sugar
Hollow Reservoir.
(b) Prohibited uses. Canoeing and boating, swimming, hunt-
ing, trapping, carrying or discharging of firearms, picnicking
and camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the
Sugar Hollow Reservoir. All boats shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, except for those boats
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water
supply purposes.
Sec. 14-15. Same--Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower.
(a) Permitted uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-
combustion engines) shall be allowed within the boundaries of the
Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower; Parking shall be
limited to two vehicles per day within the Ragged Mountain Reser-
voir property. A permit for the limited parking spaces shall
first be obtained from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
before entering the Reservoir boundaries. Hiking and bird-
watching shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Ragged
Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower.
(b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, carrying
or discharging of firearms, picnicking and camping shall be
prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reser-
voir, Upper and Lower. Parking within the boundaries of the
Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower, properties without a
permit from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall be
prohibited. All boats operated with internal combustion engines
shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir, Upper and Lower, except for those boats operated by
the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes.
The owners of those boats equipped with internal combustion
engines not having written permission to operate the same shall
at all times have the engine tilted in a nonoperating position
when within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir,
Upper and Lower. In such case, for those boats equipped with or
utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed
prior to entering Reservoir waters. Canoeing and boating without
a permit from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is prohibit-
ed.
Sec. 14-16. Same--South Fork Rivanna.
(a) Permitted uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-
combusion engines), hiking and birdwatching shall be allowed
within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
(b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, carrying
or discharging of firearms, picnicking and camping shall be
prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir. All boats operated with internal combustion engines
shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork
Rivanna Reservoir, except for those boats operated with the
written permission of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The
owners of those boats equipped With internal combustion engines
not having written permission to operate the same shall at all
times have the engine tilted in a nonoperating position when
within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In
such case, for those boats equipped with or utilizing removable
gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering
Reservoir waters.
Sec. 14-17. Same--Beaver Creek.
(a) Permitted uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-
combustion engines), hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be
allowed within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir.
(b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, carrying
or discharging of firearms, and camping shall be prohibited
within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. All boats
operated with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, except for those boats
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water
supply purposes. The owners of those boats equipped with inter-
nal combustion engines not having written permission to operate
the same shall at all times have the engine tilted in a nonoper-
ating position when within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek
Reservoir. In such case, for those boats equipped with or
utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed
prior to entering Reservoir waters.
222
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Sec. 14-18. Same--Totier Creek.
(a) Permitted uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-
combustion engines), hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be
allowed within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir.
(b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, carrying
or discharging of firearms and camping shall be prohibited within
the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir. All boats operated
with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the
boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir, except for those boats
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water
supply, purposes. The owners of those boats equipped with
internal combustion engines not having written permission to
operate the same shall at all times have the engine tilted to a
nonoperating position when within the boundaries of the Totier
Creek Reservoir. In such case, for those boats equipped with or
utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed
prior to entering Reservoir waters.
Sec. 14-19. Vehicular traffic.
Motorized vehicular traffic is prohibited from all but
designated paved or improved roads and parking areas within the
boundaries of the Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower,
South Fork Rivanna, Beaver Creek and Totier Creek Reservoirs.
Sec. 14-20. Permits.
Permits for recreational use required by this article shall
be administered by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Sec. 14-21. Fishing Generally.
Ail state fishing laws and regulations shall be adhered to
at all times.
Sec. 14-22. Hours of Operating Generally.
The hours during which the water supply reservoirs will be
available for public use shall be posted at the entrances and
major access points for each reservoir area.
Sec. 14-23. Fires.
No fires shall be allowed on water supply reservoir property
at anytime except for those required and approved by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority as part of the watershed management
program.
Agenda Item No. 19. Receipt of County Audit for Year ended June 30, 1986.
Mr. Bowie said this is the report of the Board's Audit Committee for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1986. He said he wouldn't go into great detail because the Board members had
received a copy of the Audit. He mentioned that all through the report there is the consis-
tent remark that Albemarle County is in compliance with all regulations, etc. The figures
show that the County is in a healthy financial situation. He discussed the audit with the
Board and said that the Audit Committee had not been as closely involved this year as in
prior years. He directed the Board's attention to the following letter to Mr. Melvin
Breeden, Director of Finance, from the auditors, McGladrey, Hendrickson and Pullen dated
December 30, 1986, along with an listing of items the auditors feel need correction:
"December 30, 1986
Mr. Melvin E. Breeden
Director of Finance
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901-4596
Dear Melvin:
In connection with our examination of the financial statements for the
County of Albemarle for the year ended June 30, 1986, we made a s~udy and
evaluation of internal accounting control system and our report thereon,
dated October 3, 1986, has been issued under separate cover. In addition,
we submit the accompanying constructive recommendations and comments.
Please express our thanks to the personnel at the County offices for their
assistance during the audit process.
Sincerely,
(Signed) James E. Harris, Partner"
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting_)
(Page 15)
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Management Letter
June 30, 1986
Monitoring Teacher Leave Balances
We noted several instances where teachers had accumulated negative leave
balances, but their paychecks were not adjusted at that time or at year end.
This procedure could lead to overpayments in the event the employee is
terminated or leaves before his/her paycheck is adjusted. We recommend that
leave records be more closely monitored in the future.
Special Payrolls
As part of our examination we noted that several special payrolls were
needed throughout the year. These result in extra time and costs associated
with the processing of payroll. We recommend that these special payrolls be
eliminated to the extend possible by reviewing the cost/benefit of each
special request. We would also encourage the County's personnel to better
plan unusual payroll items to allow incorporating them into the regularly
scheduled payrolls. We understand that all special payrolls cannot be
eliminated, but we believe that minimizing them would help the County's
departments operate more efficiently.
Property and Equipment Accounting
The County is not required by the Commonwealth of Virginia to maintain_an
inventory of its property and equipment or to include it as an account group
in its annual financial statements. However, for the County to receive an
unqualified audit opinion on its annual financial statements, financial
reporting of these amounts is required and the Auditor of Public Accounts
Office encourages such accountability. An unqualified audit opinion would
give the County an added level of assurance that generally accepted account-
ing principles are being applied to all aspects of financial record keeping.
Maintaining property and equipment records would also increase the County's
control and subsequent accountability for capital expenditures. Accord-
ingly, we recommend that the County develop property and equipment records
and schedule physical inventory observations annually to assist in main-
taining these records. Such observations could be staggered through the
year with certain sensitive items being observed always near year end or
more often than annually.
We also reviewed the status of recommendations made to management at the
conclusion of the prior years audits. The following is a summary of actions
taken by management with regard to those recommendations.
The status of the three recommendations as a result of the June 30, 1985
examination is as follows:
Recommendations implemented by management:
1. A study of the data processing function identified future and prioriti-
zation of the various applications have been established.
Finalized inventory instructions have been prepared and distributed to
department heads and the inventories are being monitored by department
heads.
Recommendations currently in process:
2. Procedures are being implemented for detailed subsidiary records, which
support the general ledger kept by the Finance Department to be kept on
a microcomputer by social services.
The status of the two remaining comments from examinations before
June 30, 1985, is as follows:
Recommendations Implemented By Management:
The Chief Accountant is currently monitoring the fiscal administration
of all Federal and State grant programs.
Payroll check listings are currently being signed as approved by
department heads and then the signed listing is being returned to the
payroll department.
Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee has recommended that property and equipment records
be developed. The Director of Finance was asked to come up with a time schedule to accom-
plish this type of accounting, to give the schedule to the Committee this Spring, so as to be
prepared to start by the end of June and to have the system in place by the next fiscal year.
He said this is the last step necessary before having the County on a fully accredited
financial management system.
Mr. Way asked if this is a difficult thing to do and can it be done in a reasonable way.
Mr. Bowie said, as yet, the Committee has not received the time schedule it requested. Mr.
Fisher noted that this suggestion has been made by the auditors for three or four years, but
there has been no real motion made to do anything about the suggestion, so the Audit Commit-
tee took it upon themselves to ask the staff to formulate a time schedule for implementation.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said the staff made a fairly detailed report a year or two ago and estimated
an initial cost of $50,000 to install and begin the system (fixed asset accounting). This
was the complete inventory and the allocation of the exact cost to every item that is owned
by the School Board and the Board of Supervisors. There is also a continuing cost for main-
taining the automated system. The Board did not accept the report, in fact, there was a
lukewarm response; the Board indicated they did not think it would be needed since the County
was not planning to borrow funds on the open bond market, and those funds could be spent for
other purposes. The staff now has complete information on how long it will take to set the
system up.
Mr. Lindstrom said in the event the Board should have to borrow funds through the bond
market, it would be too bad to have to scramble to get things ready. He does not foresee
having to do that now. Unless setting up this system is going to be tremendously more
expensive in the future, he does not have a different reaction than he had before.
Mr. Fisher said there are several ways to set up this system, so the $50,000 estimate
may not be an accurate figure. As a member of the Audit Committee, he feels strongly that
the County needs to find some way of dealing with the recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this situation significantly affects the County in any way. Mr.
Agnor said it is primarily for bond rating purposes in terms of the accounting profession.
On the other side, it allows the County to manage fixed assets, a periodic physical inventory
is taken to verify that they are not disappearing.
Mr. Bowie stated that this has a definite impact on the qualification of the audit and
there are millions of dollars worth of real property and equipment owned by the County.
Officially there are only informal records as to its location, so $50,000 might be saved on
things that disappear. Mr. Bowie recommended that staff proceed with the scheduling and look
at some price limit that might make the start-up costs of the system less than $50,000 and
get something back to the Board on how the system can be implemented.
Mr. Bowie called the Board's attention to the fact that when the Audit Committee was
formed in 1984, there were 26 findings in the management letter of that audit. Over the
three years, everything which required improvement has been improved or something is being
implemented. In this audit, except for the recommendations pertaining to teachers' leave and
on Special payroll, there were no significant findings in the entire audit. He said the
staff should be commended.
Mr. Fisher commented that the auditors had identified approximately 13 special payrolls
in addition to the 12 regular payrolls each year. Four or more of these occurred in June,
the end of the school year, when school employees are sometimes hired for two to three week
periods following the end of school, and these people are paid immediately so that creates a
special payroll. Also, when teachers were given an increase in pay in order to bring their
salaries up to the ten percent raise mandated by the State, the School Board made the deci-
sion that this amount would be paid in a separate check. That also required a whole separate
payroll. It is this kind of decision that can cause an impact on payroll procedures. Mr.
Fisher commented that he thinks the staff has done an outstanding job in responding to the
comments from past auditors, and he asked Mr. Agnor to pass that along to the staff members.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Audit Committee.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the
motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Turtle Creek Phase VII Revised Site Plan. Mr. Fisher asked
if the applicant was present, and Mr. Horne responded that the applicant had called and
requested a deferral in order for him to work with the staff to hopefully find a solution.
Mr. Fisher asked if for a suggested date for this deferral. Mr. Horne said that
March 11 would be a suitable date. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer this appeal to
March 11, 1987. Mr. Way seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was
called and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request: Northwestern Health Systems Agency. Mr. Fisher said this
item was added to the agenda at the request of Ms. Betty Newell, Treasurer of the Board of
Directors of the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency.
Ms. Newell stated that their agency is the federally and state designated regional
health planning agency for this region. She said they do everything from reviewing and
making recommendations on certificates of need for health facilities, to the state certifi-
cates under the public needs law, to assisting localities in obtaining health services, to
being the resource for data needed on anything that has to do with health. She explained
that the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency has focused on and benefited this
particular area more than other areas partly because the Agency is located physically here.
She said one of the benefits of the Health Systems Agency is that it approaches health-
planning on a regional basis. As dollars become tighter, and there is more of a demand for
limited resources, it will be even more important to look at how what they are doing will
impact other regions. She commented that the big area they cover makes them spread them-
selves thin sometimes, but it also gives them an advantage in looking at things on a regional
basis.
225
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 17)
Ms. Newell said that Peggy King, Executive Director, had forwarded to the Board some
materials explaining things they do, as well as sending a copy of their proposed budget. She
said the Health Systems Agency has never asked for local funding before. Until October first
of last year, health systems agencies were funded entirely by the federal government. She
She said that the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency serves over 30 local govern-
ments, including five planning districts. It was decided to make a request from each local
government to help with interim funding on a per capita basis. She mentioned that there is
legislation pending in the General Assembly to grant the health systems agencies funding,
which they received from the state for first time last year. There has been six cents per
capita authorized by the General Assembly, but the only appropriated funding was for two
cents per capita. But there is legislation that seems positive now to give them the full six
cents per capita. The Northwestern Virginia Agency has initiated some projects that they
hope will help fund some them because they have a severe cash flow shortage now.
Ms. Newell emphasized some of the things they have done that have directly benefited the
Charlottesville-Albemarle area. They put some funds into getting the Thomas Jefferson Adult
Day Care Center started and provided staff hours and expertise to help with that. They have
published a long-term care guide and will be doing an update on that later this year. They
served as the lead agency for the Planning District 10 interagency, a long-term care coordi-
nating committee. They are working with the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce to
help identify health insurance needs of small businessmen in the area. They provided techni-
cal expertise and staffing to do several things with the elderly, and have worked closely
with JABA on a number of projects. They wrote the grant for the Southside Health Center in
Esmont. They assisted in obtaining national health services for physicians for the medically
underserved areas. They have supported the new services that the Martha Jefferson Hospital
and the University of Virginia Hospital have instituted. They have done evaluations and
provided assistance for some of the life care communities. They sponsored a debate and
program on ethical issues relating to health care for their Sub-area council.
Ms. Newell introduced Mr. Jim Heilman, Sub-Area Council President, and member of their
Board of Directors. They also support development of home health services. She said the
purpose of their agency is to identify the needs in an area, help to assure the availability
of services, the quality of services, access to the services, and to help control costs.
They also try to prevent duplication of services. All members of their Board are strictly
volunteers. She emphasized that they Agency has a large phone bill, but most of the calls go
to Richmond. The Executive Director works with just the mandated fringe benefits. Ms.
Newell noted that the Northwestern Virginia Health Systems Agency is requesting $3,612 from
Albemarle County.
Mrs. Cooke asked about Ms. Newell's remark that the Agency supports various things such
as developing home health services. Ms. Newell stated that when a new service is established
by anyone, they want to make sure that the service will be utilized. They have a very large
data base which is a resource that people need. They can calculate what the need is and what
service is available.
Mrs. Cooke inquired about their support of the hospitals. Ms. Newell responded that
they support not only the hospitals, but home health services; there are several private
agencies here in town as well as some not-for-profit agencies. These people need to know
projected needs and if their services will be utilized. She said that because of Medicare
restrictions and reimbursements, patients are being discharged early because the hospitals
are under increasing financial pressure to get the patient out of the acute care facility,
and into a less expensive care setting. This has had a big impact on home health services,
nursing homes and a lot of elderly resources.
Mrs. Cooke asked the Agency's role in this. She asked if the Agency tells the hospitals
that there is a need for a service, or do the people that have the need contact the Agency
directly for information. Ms. Peggy King said they provide support in a variety of ways.
They provide information to someone who is interested in developing a service, and sometimes
have discouraged the person when the service is not needed. Mrs. Cooke asked how the Agency
gets their information. Ms. King answered that they get a lot of it from state sources and
studies, some of which they do themselves.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Chamber of Commerce, the hospitals, and several agencies that Ms.
Newetl had mentioned pay them for their services. Ms. Newell said they have recently started
charging for services that they provide, since they are not receiving any federal funding.
Mr. Bowie inquired if there is a consulting fee the Agency charges if a person comes in and
says he wants to put up a nursing home for the elderly. Ms. Newell said they don't have a
consulting fee, but they do charge for staff time, etc. Mr. Bowie asked if that is reflected
in their budget? Ms. Newell answered, "yes." She mentioned that recently they did a film on
Alzheimer's Disease to assist caregivers. They have that film for sale. She said they have
been approached by the University of Texas to do a Spanish language version of that film.
Mr. Fisher asked if the request is for funding from now until June 30, with no requests
anticipated for any funding beyond that time. Ms. Newell answered, "right." She said that
she would not guarantee that they will never be back, but they feel as though with the things
they have been doing and with state funding, they should be able to carry out their needs
without local funding after June 30.
Mr. Fisher mentioned the large area that the Agency serves. Ms. King said that their
volunteers are making most of the contacts with the many localities, etc. Ms. Newell said
they have a lot of projects which should to bring in money in the next few months, but they
have a critical cash flow problem at this time. Mr. Fisher said the probability of obtaining
funding from all of the localities is essentially zero. What will they do if they are funded
by only half of these localities. Ms. Newell said her Board made a decision that having two
staffs for a short period of time would give them the best chance for long-term survival.
They have accomplished some of the things that they needed two staffs for. Now, they think
that they can go back to one staff for a few months and still carry out most of the things
they need to do along with using the volunteer board heavily.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if the Health Systems Agency has made a budget request to Albemarle
County for the year beginning July 1, 1987. Ms. Newell answered, "no." Ms. Newell mentioned
that a couple of counties had indicated that they approved of what the Health Systems Agency
is doing and they will give consideration to the request if it is files as part of the
regular budgetary process. However, they need very short term cash to keep them going
between now and July 1.
Mrs. Cooke asked if population is the reason this area received the largest amount of
services? She asked if they have specific data to back up that statement? Ms. King said
this area has the largest number of applications reviewed partly because of the University of
Virginia Hospital. This area is also forward-looking, gets involved in demonstration
projects and uses that knowledge to help people in other places. The Health Systems Agency
also has opportunities here that are available through cooperative agreements with Planning
District 10, that are not available in other areas.
Mr. Way asked if they helped generate matching funds for the Adult Day Care program for
this area? Ms. King said they used the $9,000 that they contributed to leverage other
contributions rather than just handing it over. It actually generated $18,000 for the
Center.
Mr. Lindstrom asked where the Board would get the $3,612 if they approved this request.
Mr. Agnor responded that there are funds available in the Board's Contingency Funds.
Mr. Bowie said he can understand the position of the agency, but when money starts
running out you have to cut staff and start charging for services. He asked how many of the
other counties the Agency has actually been to for funds. Ms. King said they have actually
approached ten and six have committed themselves to funding. Two or three have said they
would have to wait until July 1. With one, there is a misunderstanding that she hopes to
clear up soon. She said she was in Fredericksburg recently, and the Advisory Council there
invited some local government officials to their meeting. These officials will follow up
during the next two weeks by putting the request on their agendas. They have been to the
City of Charlottesville, but the City deferred taking any action until it is known what the
state will do.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not familiar with all the things the Agency does, but he has a
gist of it. He said it sounds as if they will be state funded, and he thinks under those
circumstances there is a legitimate reason to grant the request even if some of the other
areas don't. He does think if they were facing a long term future of no state funding then a
massive change in their approach would be necessary. Since this is temporary, he thinks that
funding through this time in his opinion is legitimate. He moved that $3,612 be appropriated
to the Northwestern Health Systems Agency from the Board of Supervisors' Contingency Fund.
Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowie said he sympathized with them, but the Board has not approved this sort of
thing while he has been on the Board unless it was something that benefited the citizens of
Albemarle County entirely. He cannot support the request.
Mr. Henley said he feels that these people should charge for their services, and he is
afraid that the Board will end up with this "in their lap."
Mrs. Cooke said she sees in the budget summary that only $300 is listed as fees that
were paid for service needs study contracts. She feels that is a low return. She agrees
with Mr. Bowie and Mr. Henley that if these agencies want and need these services, they are
well able to afford whatever fee is necessary to get the information that they want. She is
afraid that this will tend to set a precedent, and she is not inclined to support the re-
quest.
Mr. Fisher said he was skeptical when he read the request because there are probably
fifty agencies which have been set up by federal or state legislation and funding over the
last 15 years, and it's clear to him that localities will never be able to continue all of
those activities. However, the evidence that has been presented that the state has placed a
high value on this and is willing to continue it, makes him inclined to want to help. He
said he knows the state can't pay for anything prior to July 1, and he is inclined to support
this under the condition that it is not going to come back. The Agency will need to under-
stand that if it's not funded by the state, it will end. He really does not think that this
is something that the County can take over, but he can support the request on that limited
basis.
Mr. Way said that is basically the understanding that allows him to support it. He does
feel that there have been a number of citizens in the area who have been directly affected
positively by the existence of this agency. To keep the Health Systems Agency in existence
for a few months, but strictly for a few months, is the reason that he will support the
request.
There was no further discussion.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called, and the motion failed by the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Update: Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program. The following
memorandum from Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated February 5, 1987, was received:
"The attached two memorandums (from John T. P. Hornel Director of Planning
and Community Development) are forwarded for your information on the
Federally-funded housing rehabilitation program. The memorandums indicate
we are still experiencing a low quantitY of contracts and interest in the
program, and a continuing advertisement and workshop effort to inform
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
landlords of how the program works. Staff has made inquiries to HUD for
extension of the program beyond June, 1987, and also inquired of the possi-
bility of the expanded use of the funds for construction purposes in addi-
tion to their rehabilitation use.
In response to the question of a large project being considered for rehabil-
itation, there is one, consisting of approximately 100 units, which the
staff has had discussions with the owner concerning the program. Since the
focus of this program from the beginning has been on scattered sites, staff
requests guidance from the Board concerning a concentration of units, if
this one project should proceed towards a contract agreement."
Mr. Horne called the Board's attention to the second paragraph of Mr. Agnor's memo, and
said the Board may wish to comment on that. He noted that a couple of sheets in the report
list financial and problematic facts. There is continued interest in using the old
Scottsville School property for a moderate rehabilitation project. The activities of the
program have centered on discussions with HUD and the Corps of Engineers and the FEMA as to a
determination of the flooding design that would be necessary if a project were to be built on
that property. The County Engineering Department received a letter from FEMA suggesting the
use of a five hundred year flood as a design factor. The determination between a one hundred
year and a five hundred year design has to be made by HUD if they are going to be the financ-
ing agency. A letter has been sent to HUD, and he anticipates a response soon on the idea of
whether the design will be a five hundred year or a one hundred year flood. He said the
actual determination of where the floodplain lies can only be made by FEMA. They will only
make that determination when the Scottsville levy is up to fifty percent complete.
Mr. Horne said that staff has also discussed with HUD the possibility of transferring
some of the modern rehabilitation funding to construction funding for the Jordan Development
Corporation to be used at The Meadows for actual construction of new units. He said they
have received only verbal information from HUD and it does not lo0k hopeful.
Mr. Horne said staff has also discussed with HUD the possibility of obtaining an exten-
sion of the moderate rehabilitation program which will expire on June 30, 1987, but they have
yet to receive any guidelines as to the information they would need to furnish HUD in order
to justify such an extension. Staff thinks that an extension of this program would allow
them to get some additional units into the contract phase.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many of the 240 units are still unallocated or uncontracted.
Mr. Horne answered approximately 200. He said the financial information furnished the Board
today lists the units that are under preliminary discussion and units that they are fairly
confident will be going to the agreement stage in the near future. He said staff is attempt-
ing to put together some additional advertising measures to bring as many units as they can
to the agreement stage by the end of the program.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for an explanation of the 100 units. Mr. Agnor stated that staff
feels that they should not identify the units in a public meeting because it is private
property. He said staff could give a summary of the project. Mr. Horne summarized it by
saying that it is an entire apartment complex, in the urban area, and if the Board is willing
to support the entire complex, or as many units as are eligible in that complex moving into
the program, the owners are interested in pursuing the program. He hopes the Board will give
staff an indication, from a policy point of view, as to whether it feels it is a wise thing
to do.
Mr. Fisher stated that it is hard to evaluate the situation with no more information
than the Board has been given. Since it is a matter of private owners and private property,
does the Board want more information? Should the Board deal with the question privately, or
publicly? How does the Board want to proceed? Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a basis for
having an executive session on this question? Mr. St. John said he needs to think about it,
and he might need a little more information. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like more informa-
tion about the complex in question, and he did not mind talking about it publicly.
Mr. Fisher asked how many of the 100 units might qualify for this program? Mr. Horne
responded that staff thinks a majority of the units would qualify. He said it is not so much
a matter of the work to be done, but some of the units are occupied, and that creates a
complex situation under the Mod Rehab Program.
Mr. Way stated that the Board has already indicated that they would prefer to have these
units separated. But, there is a complex in Crozet that is in operation, and there have been
questions about doing one in Scottsville. He doesn't see why the urban area can't be consid-
ered, when it is already being done in other parts of the County.
Mr. Bowie said his concern is that discussion this in public hearing could blow the
whole deal. If it is private property, he doesn't know that the Board should disclose
negotiations. If somebody is interested and all of a sudden it is in the media, they could
conceivably lose interest.
At this time, Mr. St. John agreed that this was a legitimate reason for a closed ses-
sion. He said the question is whether this is use of property for a public purpose. He said
it is certainly not a purely public purpose, but the elimination of substandard housing and
lack of housing is a public purpose. This is in the Code of Virginia, and Mr. St. John said
he thinks this is a legitimate topic for an executive session.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that obviously the Board has preferred to scatter these units, and
he has supported that position. However, he is skeptical that a substantial number of the
remaining units will be used in the time that is left in the program, and he thinks the
possibility of an extension is small. He asked if the units are limited to Albemarle County
residents who have lived here a certain period of time, or can anybody apply without respect
to their prior residence. Mr. Horne explained that the Housing Office has a waiting list
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
that is the same that is used for the existing Section 8 Program. He doesn't believe there
is a stipulation as to whether or not the people live in Albemarle County. He said the
guidelines take into account income, family characteristics, etc. He does not think the
guidelines mention residency.
Mr. Fisher commented that he could give his answer without knowing any details. Rather
than losing the possibility of providing housing for people who are on the waiting list and
losing the funds, he thinks the staff should be authorized to negotiate and get a commitment
on as many units as possible.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how many people are on the waiting list now? Mr. Pete Bradshaw
stated that the waiting list is relatively small now because it has been closed for
two-bedroom units. He estimated that probably within a one month period of opening, he
estimates the number could increase to approximately 150.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired if this project would mix one and two bedroom units? Mr.
Bradshaw said it will be primarily two bedroom units, with a few one bedroom and three
bedroom units.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Fisher that he does not need to know the specifics
if there is a need for these units. He said that obviously the complex must be in an area
that is zoned properly. He thinks it would be a real loss not to take advantage of this
program. He is sorry that there has not been better use of the program, and hopes the staff
will not lose whatever momentum there is on the extension requests that may enhance the
County's position. Mr. Horne assured him that the staff would definitely proceed with the
extension request.
Mr. Bowie said he concurs that this is an excellent opportunity. He Will state, without
knowing where the project is located, that he is inclined to move ahead. However, he does
want to know where the apartment complex is located, and it seems the only way to do that is
in Executive Session. He does not think it is fair to encourage something if the Board
members then find out in the long run they cannot support it.
Mr. Fisher suggested that final action be deferred until afternoon, and that this
subject be discussed in Executive Session at lunch. Mr. Lindstrom said that all the Board
needs to know is the location of the apartment complex.
Mr. Agnor explained that the staff's concern is that it is a hundred units in one
concentrated location. He said the units in Crozet total approximately 20 and if the
Scottsville School property were ever used in that way, it will be approximately the same
size. He stated that a hundred units will be more visible and certainly more focal. He said
it just happens that the apartments are in the urban area, but could have been located
elsewhere.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she would need to know the location of the units before she can
support it or make further comments. She needs to have that information.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would then discuss this matter again after lunch.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Community Development Block Grants for 1987/88
funding cycle. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1987.)
Mr. Horne presented a staff analysis of some possible Community Development Block Grant
projects would could be sponsored or initiated by the County for the next funding cycle.
Following is a brief version of the staff's report:
"The Virginia Community Development Block Grant program (VCDBG) includes
three objectives which specify types of eligible projects: increasing
business and employment opportunities, conserving and improving housing
additions, or improving the availability and adequacy of community facili-
ties. There exist 30 project types which may be considered for a grant
application from the VCDBG program. Two types of grants will be funded on a
competitive basis under the 1987 VCDBG: 1) Community Improvement Grants
(construction grant), approximately $19,400,000 in grants under two rounds,
maximum $700,000 grant per project; and 2) Planning Grant, approximately
$200,000 in grants under one round, maximum $25,000 grant per project.
Virtually all VCDBG applications must demonstrate that the project provides
primary benefit to low- and moderate-income persons. Low- and moderate-
income persons are defined as individuals whose family income is less than
eighty percent of the median family income for like size families within the
same area. VCDBG proposals must document that:
Fifty-one percent or more of the project beneficiaries are low-
and moderate-income, or
Project serves an area where 51 percent or more of the residents
are low- and moderate-income, or
Fifty-one percent or more of the jobs created are available to low-
and moderate-income residents.
Following is a list and brief description of VCDBG eligible projects that
have been identified for Albemarle County. It must be stressed, however,
that the second project listed is the only actual request for County spon-
sorship that has been received to date. It is also the only project on
which any significant groundwork has been done in preparation for submittal
of a grant application.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paeg~21)
I. Possible Project: Farmer's Market
Project Description: Purchase and develop a facility to accommodate
local farmers to market their goods to the public. Other uses of this
facility might include the option of allowing farmers to sell wholesale
to local retail businesses; and/or incorporating a produce packing area
for commercial distribution.
II.
Possible Project: Owner-occupied Housing Rehabilitation - Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
Project Description: A major rehabilitation housing grant would focus
on upgrading substandard owner-occupied units. AHIP anticipates a
grant application for approximately $500,000 which would provide major
rehabilitation of 45 to 55 owner-occupied homes. The AHIP staff is
currently conducting a needs assessment to determine target areas.
This process should be completed by early February. This grant propos-
al would be a continuation of the AHIP program. AHIP recently complet-
ed major rehabilitation on 55 units with $500,000 CDBG funding since
February, 1985. A total of 78 units are on AHIP's waiting list.
III.
Possible Project: Conversion of Scottsville School to Apartments -
Jordan Development Corporation
Project Description: Conversion of part of the Scottsville School to
approximately 30 units for rent. Jordan Development Corporation has
expressed an interest in obtaining part of the existing structure from
the County for this purpose. All units are intended to be eligible for
rental assistance through the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
Program administered by the County. Project is estimated to cost
approximately $1.3 million. CDBG funds would be used to finance the
actual rehabilitation work, thus enhancing the economic viability of
the Moderate Rehabilitation project.
IV. Possible Project: Crozet Community Improvements
Project Description: Improvement project for the Community of Crozet
could be designed as a multi,purpose grant with the following activi-
ties: housing rehabilitation (51 to 79 percent of total grant); sewer
line and lateral extension; flood and drainage facilities.
V. Possible Project: Solid Waste Transfer Facility
Project Description: Purchase and develop a site to operate a solid
waste transfer facility to replace the landfill at Keene which now
exceeds its design capacity.
Summary: The five projects presented are all eligible for VCDBG
funding. However, they exhibit varying degrees of funding potential
based on prior state and regional project priorities, previously funded
VCDBG projects, and perceived benefit to low/moderate income persons.
Based on these factors, the AHIP Housing Rehabilitation, old
Scottsville School conversion, and Crozet Community improvement seem to
hold the best potential for funding.
Only AHIP to this point has requested County sponsorship. AHIP is currently
closing out a VCDBG awarded in 1984. Jordan Development Corporation has
expressed potential interest, but has not made a formal request. The
remaining three projects have only been identified at the staff level.
The County can only be party to one local and one regional Community Improve-
ment grant application at the same. time. The County can have a maximum of
$700,000 in grant funds allocated to it for a local grant or a combination
of a local and a regional grant. Planning grants are only available to
localities who do not have a local Community Improvement grant."
Mr. Agnor said that he had one more thing to mention. He would like to suggest investi-
gating the extension of utilities for the Scottsville Shopping Center. He said the
low/moderate income benefit has to be not to the shoppers or the users of the facility, but
to the people who are marketing their product. Staff feels the Shopping Center might have a
low eligibility because it would benefit the marketing and sale of merchandise on the pro-
perty. Mr. Way said the water situation on that property is getting worse, and Mr. Agnor
agreed that the utility extension is certainly needed. He believes it would also be subject
to funding from private sources, maybe with a combination of Service Authority resources.
Mr. Bowie asked if there were public utilities at the Shopping Center, if it would expand
jobs for low and moderate income people. Mr. Way responded that it wouldn't be that major of
an expansion. Mr. Agnor said staff has looked at that aspect as well, and it doesn't have
the appropriate zoning for those kinds of uses.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Ms. Theresa Tapscott, Director of AHIP,
was present. She stated that AHIP would like to take $500,000 of the money and use it to
hire additional field staff to perform rehabilitation work. In addition, they will take a
portion of the money to help low income families finance the cost of materials needed to
accomplish rehabilitation on their homes. There would be $200,000 left that could possibly
be used to assist the County with its moderate rehabilitation program. It is her under-
standing that many landlords have been reluctant to get involved with the program because of
the high cost of materials and labor, AHIP proposes to take the $200,000 and hire additional
field staff to perform the labor part of the rehabilitation at no cost to the landlords of
230
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
these low-income units. They would still be expected to finance the cost of materials and
and subcontractors needed. She stressed that this idea is still in the planning stages and
will depend on whether there are any extensions for the mod rehab program. Regardless of
what happens with the moderate rehab part of the project, AHIP is quite prepared to take the
owner-occupied part of the project. They currently have 50 names on their waiting list with
calls coming in daily. In addition to that, with the help of the County Planning and Real
Estate Departments and the Planning District Commission, they are conducting an in-depth
survey to identify families throughout the County who are both interested in and in need of
their services.
Mr. Fisher asked what was accomplished with the Community Development Block Grant which
was received earlier. Ms. Tapscott stated that by the end of April, AHIP will have completed
55 rehabilitations in three strategy areas of the county.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if AHIP has the ability to leverage the paid employees with volun-
teers. Ms. Tapscott said that before AHIP had major funding, it was a task to keep the
volunteers busy because they need skilled supervision on site. She said they have used
approximately 2,500 hours of University of Virginia student volunteers per semester as
compared to only 1,000 hours before. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many volunteers can be handled
for every field person hired. Ms. Tapscott said that is a hard question, but volunteer crews
are sent out daily, even on Saturdays, to perform labor intensive work. They clean up, seed
septic fields, paint, etc.
Mr. Fisher asked how many houses they have identified that still have to be brought up
to standard. Ms. Tapscott stated that they are in the process of conducting a survey to
identify that. In March of 1986, the County conducted a housing quality survey,
county-wide, and identified 1,400 substandard units. Their survey will identify who those
people are, exactly where they are, what they need, and if they are interested in working
with AHIP.
Ms. Rellen Perry spoke in support of the AHIP Program. Mr. Frame also supported the
AHIP Program. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said that there is a continuing need for this type of project, and if
AHIP's track record will help them to receive the funding, then he will support that program.
Mrs. Cooke said AHIP has demonstrated that they can do, and has one of the most positive
projects in the community. She gives it her support and congratulates them on a job well
done. She said it is heart warming to see what they do for these people and she is for them
100 percent.
Mr. Bowie concurred with Mrs. Cooke. He asked if there is a deadline for a project in
the old Scottsville School. Mr. Horne answered that it is April 3. Mr. Bowie said he wants
to support the AHIP request, but he doesn't want to slam the door on the Scottsville School
project. Mr. Lindstrom said he gathered from what Ms. Tapscott said that there was money in
that grant that would allow AHIP to help the County with its Mod Rehab Program, which he
assumes would include Scottsville School. Mr. Bowie asked if that is a possibility, and Ms.
Tapscott said, "yes."
Mr. Horne said he would encourage the Board to endorse the maximum concept which would
be owner-occupied and the rental rehabilitations, realizing that the rental rehab proposal is
less certain at this point. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board sets a policy direction today, if
the details can be worked out between now and next month. Ms. Tapscott said the owner-
occupied proposal is ready now, but she isn't sure about when the rehabilitation proposal has
to be ready. Mr. Horne said the proposals have to be ready by next month. Mr. Fisher
suggested that approval of a grant proposal be set on the Board's agenda for March llth.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to support requests by the Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program and to set a public hearing for March 11, 1987 on these proposals. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed: At 12:01 P.M., motion was made by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to adjourn into executive session to discuss property matters and personnel. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:33 P..M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Semi-Annual Report.
Ms. Theresa Tapscott said that it had actually been nine months since they had done
their last report due to the fact that they had a change in administration at AHIP. She
showed the Board slides of some of the houses that have been upgraded and described some of
the ways in which improvements were made. Included in the slides was a project that Ms.
Tapscott said was the most extensive and costly rehabilitation of any AHIP has ever done.
She mentioned that they had a group called the Legacy International Youth Volunteers from
Bedford County, an international youth camp that meets for 12 weeks every summer, come and
paint two projects entirely for them.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if AHIP has met its goals, and Ms. Tapscott responded that they have
not met them yet, but barring weather catastrophes they plan to meet them by the end of
April. They did have to ask for a three-month extension of their funding to complete the 55
units. She said over the duration of the CDBG grant they have completed 42 of the 55 units.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to repeat what Mrs. Cooke said earlier, and thanked AHIP
for their work.
Agenda Item No. 15. Update: School Building Projects.
Mr. Andy Overstreet, Division Superintendent, reviewed the status of certain school
improvement projects. The four projects that are about to be underway, or already are
underway, are the Meriwether Lewis replacement school, the Burley Middle School renovation
project, the Stone-Robinson Elementary school renovation project, and a study of the
Crozet-Brownsville area.
Mr. Overstreet said the Meriwether Lewis project is essentially ready to go. The School
staff is working with the Planning Commission staff to resolve the site access problem. They
have received the bids, with J. S. Mathers having the low bid of $3,899,000. They are
negotiating with the general contractor on that bid to try to reduce it even more. They hope
to be able to award the contract by the first of March. If that is the case, they would be
able to open that school in the Fall of 1988. That is the replacement school for Meriwether
Lewis and will house 600 pupils, and according to the design plan should run about 85 square
feet per student at a cost of $57 per square foot for base construction.
Mr. Fisher questioned the square footage per student, and Mr. Overstreet explained that
when they calculate for a comparative basis, they have to use the state standards, which are
twenty-five pupils to a room. Albemarle County builds its schools to reflect the local
School Board policy which is twenty-two pupils to a room.
Mr. Overstreet said the design for the Burley renovation project has been completed 'and
work has begun on the detailed drawings and bid documents for submission to the state and for
local approval. He mentioned that on the Board's agenda later today there is a funding
request for accelerating some of the phasing of the project, but it wouldn't change the total
cost of the project. If the project stays on schedule, the school would be ready to open in
the fall of 1987. He said that is true, whether or not that phase is accelerated.
Mr. Overstreet said a feasibility study of the Crozet-Brownsville area was conducted,
and it has been recommended that the Crozet Elementary School be replaced with a new 400
pupil elementary school. They hope to accommodate additional enrollment growth at
Brownsville by moving some of the regional special education projects that are housed at
Brownsville to Crozet. This would free some space at Brownsville leaving things in good
shape for approximately ten years. The current plan is for the new school to be built on the
present property, with students staying in the old school during the construction of the new
school. Students would be moved into the new school in the fall of 1989, and the old school
building would then be demolished. It has been suggested that they look at property across
the road from the existing building, but that has not been done yet. He said the advantage
of locating the new school on the existing Crozet School property is that the students will
not have to be located elsewhere for a year. Mr. Overstreet said staff did a comparison of
building a new school versus renovating and adding to the old school. The cost estimates
came out very close, with a $2.9 million figure for a replacement structure and $2.8 million
for renovation. He said that some of the reasons a new school was selected are: there is a
longer life expectancy, decreased operating costs, improved energy costs and better handi-
capped accessibility. This study is being reviewed by the School Board, but has just been
received. After review, the project will be updated, and then incorporated into the next CIP
planning cycle.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Crozet School now has approximately 400 students, and Mr.
Overstreet responded that there are not quite that many. He said that no expansion was
calculated in that study. He said they looked at Brownsville and Crozet together, and the
assumption was that there could be expansion at Brownsville. He stated that if there are
significant enrollment increases in that area of the County, it will probably come more in
the Brownsville area than the Crozet area, and the study indicates that Brownsville is a good
school for an addition. It is relatively new, in good condition, and has plenty of property.
The last project Mr. Overstreet discussed was the Stone-Robinson Elementary School
renovation project. He said that they have completed the schematic designs on their version
of a 600 pupil school. This would essentially accommodate the student population that is
there now, and what they foresee for the next year and the year after, and special education
students. They have approximately 500 now, not counting special education students. They
are currently bussing 18 special education students to other schools. He reminded the Board
that special education students require more space than regular students. He said that their
plan calls for growth of about 75 students which they think will occur within the next five
years. He stated that the scope of the project has changed significantly since the recom-
mendations from the consultants. The KDA report called for only 500 students there as
compared to the current recommendation for 600, which means more classrooms. In addition,
when the KDA study was done, there were two trailers there. There are four trailers there
now. The programs that are in those two additional trailers have to be incorporated back
into the school. So, in the schematic plans, there are two self-contained special education
classrooms, a learning disabled resource special education classroom and a Chapter I remedial
classroom~ two of which were not considered in the KDA report. This brings the total to five
regular c'iassrooms, one classroom for remedial students, and three for the handicapped. This
is four more classrooms than were recommended in the KDA report. Mr. Overstreet mentioned
that this project also involves some extensive site work. It is a difficult site, triangular
in shape, with the only possible location for expansion being on one side. The building is
only 100 feet from the public road, and in the mornings buses and cars are intermingled
trying to get to and from the school. He mentioned situations where children have to cross
traffic areas to get to playground areas, which they are trying to correct in this plan.
232
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page ~
Mr. Overstreet said some energy efficiencies such as window reductions and replacements
and a complete replacement of the heating and air-conditioning units have been incorporated
into the plan. As a result of meeting these needs, and because of the increased and pro-
jected growth in the area the school serves, the cost will increase from $1.5 million to $2.7
million. However, the increased cost can be almost totally offset by funding from the State
Literary Fund. Mr. Fisher said he had heard that unless there are some substantial changes
in funds going into the Literary Fund, that by 1990 there will be a three-year waiting
period. Mr. David Papenfuse replied that right now the waiting period is 18 to 20 months.
If Albemarle County can get their application in within the next month or so, the waiting
period should be shorter. He said they are in a good position, because their drawings are
ready.
Mr. Overstreet said it is hoped that the Stone-Robinson project will be finished and the
building ready to open for the school year 1988-89. They had targeted July to take bids, but
because there has been a change in scope of the project which requires a different level of
authorization, if the project has to go back through planning cycle revisions in June, it may
move the project back so far that date cannot be met. He asked if the Board would consider
giving the School Board a commitment to go ahead with the design drawings. These will take a
few months to prepare. Mr. Fisher said he thought it was bad planning to proceed with the
design drawings for a project that may not ultimately be approved. Mr. Overstreet said he
would prefer that the Board go ahead and approve the project, and Mr. Fisher replied that the
School Board already has authorization for a project costing $1.5 million. But to do some-
thing different, they will have to justify it.
Mr. Bowie said that what he had seen on Monday night, where slides were used, was more
in perspective than what was just told to the Board. But, he questioned the completion date
for the project. He mentioned that the highest figure that anyone on the Committee had ever
heard was $2.2 million. He had heard the $2.7 million figure mentioned on Monday night, and
although~it had come up some time ago, it included items that the Committee did not feel
are needed'. He said he certainly would like justification for the added money, but he would
not be able to support a year's delay in the project to go all the way back through the
process.
Mr. Fisher suggested holding a joint meeting with the School Board to sit down and look
at that project. He said there needed to be justification for that much of an increase. He
asked Mr. Overstreet to present at the same time, information to show that if total dollars
for school projects is not increased, what project would be deferred, or deleted, and for how
long. That may well be the School's only option.
Mr. Overstreet said he needed some time to work with Mr. Agnor and his staff to analyze
funding and cash flow requirements and the impact of these changes on the CIP. He said this
information could be presented at the joint meeting along with details on the Stone-Robinson
project. Mr. Overstreet said his staff is looking beyond the projects that are in the near
future to see where they stand in terms of scope. He feels that when the the full report is
received, the Board will understand how conditions have changed, and also that there were
issues that the KDA report did not address. He does not want these issues to repeat them-
selves throughout the CIP process.
Mr. Fisher said the Board is willing to look at the report, but will need something in
writing before that meeting. He also asked that the Board's staff present a recommendation
as to how this request should be handled and how it will be funded.
Mr. Bowie agreed and said that considering the projected surplus for this year, the
balance in the School Fund, and Literary Fund loans, it appears that the money is available.
He wants to get on with the project. But, he also knows the Board wants to see where the
money is going. He asked at what point it holds up the project. Mr. Overstreet said he
hoped to get the two Boards together in early March, with a decision being made soon thereaf-
ter. If that occurs, he does not think it will hold i~".up the project. Mr. Fisher asked
that the Board of Supervisors not be put in the position of holding up the project. He said
the School Board already has authorization for a $1.5 million addition. He said if every-
thing has changed, that is the school system's problem. The Board of Supervisors will try to
deal with it as quickly as they can. Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Overstreet that the Planning
Commission should be involved in this process.
Mr. Overstreet the School Staff is working on four projects at one time, and have about
15 others coming later. Mr. Bowie commented again that he did not want the Stone-Robinson
project held up. If it cannot be done for $1.5 million, then they need to get on with the
process. He asked if it is approved in MarCh, if it will then be on the same schedule. Mr.
Overstreet said he had been concerned about the schedule, and it will be very tight.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Overstreet felt reasonably confident that problems with the
Meriwether Lewis site plan can be worked out with the Planning Commission without having to
go back through the whole process. Mr. Overstreet said he is reasonably confident in the
planning status. He said that project had not been stopped, either. He said they were
moving right along with their planning and working with the contractor.
Mr. Way said this conversation has been helpful to him.
know where these things stand.
He felt the Board needed to
Agenda Item No. 16. Request re: Burley Middle School Project.
The following memorandum from the County Executive dated February 4, 1987, was received:
"The above project was included in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program
for funding in two different fiscal years as follows:
FY 86/87 (Air Conditioning & Office Area Renovation) $1,500 000
FY 89/90 (Modernize Facility) 1,300,000
Total $2,800,000
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
to\~'' I
On January 12, 1987, the School Board reviewed the project with their archi-
tects and amended their request to:
FY 86/87
FY 89./90
$2,200,000
600,000
$2,800,000
Staff of the County Executive's office and the Finance Department have re-
viewed the above request and see no problem with the change if:
(1)
The County continues to provide the $1 million per year
from Operating Budget to the Capital Improvement Program
budget for at least the next four years.
(2)
The estimated costs of other planned projects in the Five-
Year Program do not incur significant increases.
(3)
The delay of Literary Loan reimbursements does not exceed
18 months.
Staff believes these conditions can be met.
that the School Board request be approved."
It is therefore recommended
Mr. Agnor said the School Board is asking that $700,000 of the 1989-90 allocation be
moved forward to 1986-87 in order to phase that project differently. His staff looked at the
request from a cash flow perspective to be certain the financial impact can be handled. He
then pointed out several things that need to be done if this change is made. He then recom-
mended that the School Board request be approved.
Mr. Bowie said that apparently there is some misunderstanding about the costs for
heating, air conditioning, etc. He understood that a new architect'~.~roposal came in with
lower figures, somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000. He said th~"-is being asked to shift
the money without reducing the total. It seems to him that money could be saved somewhere.
Mr. David Papenfuse was present. He said the total is usually based on the number of
square feet for construction costs. Design fees and other fees associated with the project
are not included in those numbers. This is the difference between the brick and mortar cost
and the full blown project cost.
Mr. Bowie said that he didn't understand why it did not include all the costs, when that
is supposed to be the figure in the Capital Improvements Plan.
Mr. Fisher said that any project on which the estimate was made five years in advance
will most likely have a healthy inflation factor built into that estimate. Moving that
project up to the current year probably should incur a considerable amount of savings. He
said moving it up is all right, but there is not an unlimited pool of funds. If money can be
saved on this project, maybe it could be used on another school.
Mr. Bowie said in order to let the School Board get on with these projects and maybe
accomplish something, he would move that $700,000 be transferred in the Capital Improvements
Program from FY 89-90 to FY 86-87 for the Burley Middle School Project, but of the $2.2
million in FY 86-87, $300,000 shall be transferred into a Capital Improvements Reserve
Account until details are given to the Board of Supervisors on the cost of the project. He
said this would allow the Schools to go ahead, but would also keep some control.
Mrs. Cooke said she had a hard time with that motion. Mr. Agnor said when the bids on
the project are taken, the School Board will have to come back for another appropriation.
Mr. Way said it would keep the Board more closely informed, so he seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowie if the intent of his motion was to authorize a project at
Burley of $2.5 million today. Mr. Bowie said that was correct. This would make a total of
of $1.9 already appropriated, with $300,000 being held in reserve for that project.
Mr. Ron Broadbent, Principal of Burley, said it sounded to him as though the Board is
going to delay the Burley project. Mr. Fisher responded that this Board is not slowing
anything '~'~'~'~'i'~'"".~
down~.~.~4~: ........ ~:m~ because the Board meets many times a month. An appropriation request
can be made at any meeting. Mr. Broadbent stated that the project has already been delayed
until October. He said he is already wondering what he is going to do with 425 children
during the month of September. He said concern has been expressed about other school
projects being delayed, but no one seems concerned about Burley. He raised that as an issue.
Mr. Bowie commented that the Burley project has actually been accelerated by three years. He
feels that when a program is accelerated, the cost should be less than what it would have
cost if it had been done in 1990.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried with the following recorded vote
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Report: 1985 Assessment/Sales Ratio Study.
dum from the County Executive, dated February 6, 1987, was received:
The following memoran-
"Each year the Virginia Department of Taxation conducts a study in every
county and city comparing the selling prices of real estate property to the
assessed value of the property. The results of the study are used to (1)
determine the effective true tax rates throughout the State (which is one
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page~
factor in the County/City Revenue Sharing Agreement), (2) measure the level
of uniformity of assessments within and among local jurisdictions, and (3)
to assess public service corporation property in each locality, which is
assessed by the State Corporation Commission.
Two of the recognized measurements used in the study are the median ratio
and coefficient of dispersion. Without going into the technicalities of
those measurements, I wanted you to know that the results of the most recent
study, which compares 674 sales in Albemarle County with the 1985 assess-
ment, show that Albemarle has one of the best results of any county and city
in the State. Albemarle's median ratio is 95.5 percent (100 percent would
be perfect) and coefficient of dispersion is 5.7 percent (10 percent indi-
cates a good assessment, and a dispersion below 10 percent is even better).
No other county or city has both a higher median ratio and a lower coeffi-
cient of dispersion.
More importantly, these two measurements have been steadily improving in the
County over the past several years, as follows:
Year
Median Ratio
1979 81.0%
1981 87.9%
1983 94.1%
1985 95.5%
Coefficient
of
Dispersion
8.8%
7.7%
6.6%
5.7%
It is recommended that the staff of the Real Estate Assessment Division of
the Finance Department be recognized at your February 11 Board meeting for
their continuous and consistent improvement, and for their accomplishment in
placing Albemarle County in a top position of local jurisdictions in the
most recent State study."
Mr. Agnor said the sales and assessment ratio has been of serious concern to the Board.
He said there has been criticism of the assessment process over the years. Assessments are
now made with all County staff instead of through a contractual arrangement.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that this is one reason why the Board can look at reducing the
tax rate this year, because it's the product of the tax rate and the appraisals that give
them the revenues to run the County. When the County/City Revenue Sharing Agreement was put
together, it was assumed that there would be an 86 percent ratio throughout this entire
period and that the tax rate would go up a little bit each year to make up for that. Since
the appraisals have been above 90 percent for the last two appraisal years, it has generated
more revenue than could have been predicted. He said the Real Estate Assessment Division
personnel have done a good job, and "his hat is off to them."
Mr. Bowie commented that he knew of some people who were going to appeal their reassess-
ment this year, but they had nothing but the highest comments for the professionalism and
courtesy of the staff with whom they had come in contact.
Agenda Item No. 18. Report: Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Requirements for
Subdivision of Original (or Parent) Parcel.
The following memorandum from the County Executive, dated February 5, 1987, entitled
"Application of Zoning Ordinance Requirements to Subdivision of Land - Facilities Required of
New Parcel and Parent Parcel" was received:
"Forwarded herewith is a staff report on the application of the provisions
of Zoning Ordinance Sections 4.2 (Building Site Requirements) and 10.4 (Area
and Bulk Regulations) to the subdivision of land as regards to whether or
not the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were being met by the proposed
parcel, the parent parcel, or both. This matter, you will recall, arose
from the recent discussion of the Red Acres Preliminary Plat.
The report includes examples of four typical small subdivisions approved
weekly by the staff and Commission. Additionally at your February 11
meeting, examples of some typical, relatively large-scale or commercial
subdivisions will be presented, for your information. It is estimated that
of 233 lots created in the Rural Areas district in 1986, 80 lots in sub-
divisions ranging from 10 to 20 lots had the principles applied to them that
are the subject of this report."
The following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated February 2, 1987,
was also received:
"During the discussion of the Red Acres Preliminary Plat some members of the
Board of Supervisors discussed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance to require
all provisions of Sections 10.4 and 4.2 to be satisfied and actually located
on lots derived from parcels as they existed at the time of the adoption of
the ordinance (December 10, 1980). In the past, staff, on approval of the
Planning Commission, has applied an interpretation of the Board of Supervi-
sors' 'Hopewell Subdivision decision' which has not verified that all
provisions of these sections were being met on the original parcels. The
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
/_R~ge 27)
235
Commission instructed the staff to look at those things which could be done
'in-house' when verifying that the minimum building area for each proposed
lot was being derived from the parent parcel. The Commission felt that this
was consistent with the original idea of the rural area regulations, which
was not to require large amounts of data for the submission of a special
permit or subdivision application. The staff has, therefore, been looking
at slopes, building area, floodplain, and stream location when reviewing
preliminary plats and special permit applications for their consistency with
the Hopewell decision. The Commission felt that to require full verifi-
cation of septic field location, hypothetical road layouts, and hypothetical
yard requirements would cause an applicant to produce two full subdivision
plats and soil studies, one for the division of the parent parcel as it
existed in 1980, and one for the actual proposal.
A change in the administration of this ordinance would not only effect
relatively large-scale divisions such as Red Acres, but would also effect
relatively innocuous small divisions. The staff and Commission approve 100
to 150 of such small scale divisions which embody these subdivision
principles each year.
At the February 11, 1987, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the staff will
present examples of relatively large-scale or commercial subdivisions which
have received preliminary or final approval under this interpretation.
(Forwarded) are some typical examples of smaller subdivisions which are
approved weekly by the staff and Commission.
Example 1 - A redivision of two parcels, each of which is located on both
sides of an existing road. This plat simply combines the portions of the
lots on each side of the road into one parcel. If a later subdivision of
the resulting 95.5 acre and 77.75 acre parcels were required on each
'original' parcel, any new road would have to be placed along the old 1980
parcel lines. On many roads this would possibly be a location which was
less safe or less environmentally sound than a new location. Also a full
application of Section 10.4 would require that all future yards be satisfied
from the original 1980 property lines.
Example 2 - A plat which simply adds 2.362 acres to a 10.332 acre parcel.
The 10.332 acre parcel did not contain any lawful road frontage in 1980,
therefore, had no actual development rights. A full application of Section
.4 would not permit an owner of a landlocked parcel who is adding acreage to
obtain road frontage to obtain any credit for the new frontage. The 1980
landlocked parcel would remain undevelopable.
Example 3 - The 0.309 acre parcel is nonconforming because it does not meet
the requirements of Section 10.4. The existing dwelling did not have a
drainfield. A full application of Sections 10.4 and 4.2 would not allow the
additional acreage to be used for a drainfield because it was not part of
the parcel in 1980. A similar situation would result if the 0.309 acre
parcel did not have a structure in 1980. The new acreage could not be used
to satisfy Sections 10.4 or 4.2 because it was not part of the parcel in
1980.
Example 4 - The rear 3.877 portion of a parcel is being subdivided from the
front 2.525 portion and added to Tax Map 29-XX. If a subdivision of the
resulting new Tax Map 29-XX were to be submitted in the future, access to
the 3.877 acre portion would have to be through the 2.525 acre lot because
this was the access which existed in 1980. That access is now on a severe
curve which may not be a safe location.
These four examples are typical of the many small divisions which are
approved annually by the staff and Commission. Many are simply done for the
convenience or safety of an individual lot owner. Many do in fact add
development potential to a lot or to a relatively large residue parcel.
The principles used on these plats are identical to.those used by large-
scale commercial developers. The staff may fully agree that the original
intent of the Rural Areas District was not to allow for large-scale develop-
ment. Through the use of legal transfers of property some developers are
using the necessary ordinance provisions to enhance the development 'poten-
tial of certain parcels.
The dilemma, however, is how to allow the small individual to legitimately
enhance his parcel for health, convenience, or safety reasons and prohibit
the exact same provisions from being used for what may be perceived as
commercial development purposes. The staff cannot identify any legal basis
for such a deferential application of the regulations.
Finally, the staff offers four observations from our daily administration of
the Rural Areas District and experience with other zoning and subdivision
provisions.
There is always the dilemma of fair applications of a set of regula-
tions when they are being used for different purposes by different
property owners.
To date, the use of the Rural Areas regulations for divisions such as
Red Acres has been relatively infrequent and has not resulted in a
large total number of lots compared to the total lots approved in the
236
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
__ (Page 28_1
Rural Areas District. During 1986, preliminary or final approval was
granted by the Planning Commission to approximately 80 lots in
subdivisions ranging from 10 to 20 lots in which these subdivision
principles were applied. This number is significantly higher than
previous years. A total of 233 lots was created in the Rural Areas
District in 1986.
The 'commercial' uses of the regulations do, however, tend to be more
dramatic and visible because of the concentration of new lots in a more
visible subdivision 'development.'
The current Rural Areas District, with its use of 1980 conditions to
evaluate current development potential, is very complex to administer
and extremely difficult to describe to most property owners. Further
changes to the ordinance which would add more complexity should be
carefully considered to ensure that the benefits of such changes
outweigh the cost of additional administrative expense and additional
confusion to the public."
Mr. Horne replied that the Rural Areas District of the Zoning Ordinance was designed for
the noncommercial developer. But, there is also the person who will look at the fringes of
the ordinance and to work an arrangement, through perfectly legal transfers, that will
accomplish totally different objectives than what are anticipated by the Board. Mr. Horne
said the staff has thought about the question being discussed today, has talked to the County
Attorney's Office, and have tried to decide on the effect on these various plats. However,
staff is not sure how to change the ordinance without eliminating some of the small scale
itemswhich staff does not feel are really in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the information forwarded, and studied the plats attached
therefore, and he understands the staff's dilemma. His concern has to do with the number of
divisions being processed on an annual basis which the staff says embody the principles that
were raised during discussion of the Red Acres subdivision. He went on to describe some
examples that he had studied relative to the increasing numbers. Secondly, he is concerned
because he knows the intent of the ordinance was to discourage rural area divisions, yet
there is a continuing proliferation of divisions in the rural areas and most of these occur
through the by-right provisions in the ordinance. Also, under new State law, the family
division provisions are a bit more liberal than the County's interpretation of them, so he
feels there will be more use of those provisions.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the staff where there is clearly a safety hazard
imposed by requiring all the requirements to be met on the parcel generating the rights. He
thinks that determination is something that can be reasonably definite and made by staff. He
said his problem has to do with "convenience areas", because that's not clear. He would
favor an amendment to the ordinance which specifies that all things are to be met on the
parcel, and then staff would have the opportunity to waive that requirement if there were a
danger to the public safety by imposing that requirement. As to applicants being required to
make a duplicate effort on their plat work, they will have to do that anyway for a subdivi-
sion. He does not mind eliminating the two-step procedure by allowing the applicant to come
in with the subdivision plat and show the staff where things are going to be placed. He does
not sense that the Board members are interested in reducing the number of development rights
in the ordinance, but he does think the original intent should be more clearly implemented by
the language in the ordinance. He does not feel the intent is ambiguous.
Mr. Bowie commented that Mr. Lindstrom had obviously given more thought to this than he
has. He said he would hate to have a property owner who is only trying to get a driveway on
his land or only trying to locate a drainfield have to come in with a subdivision plan. It
seems to him the examples are properly handled. It seems logical to him unless there is some
problem that he doesn't foresee.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the problem came about because the ordinance is very
specific. He said he has a problem with a lot where a drainfield cannot be located being
used for a residence. He does not think property lines should be "wrangled around" so the
lot can get that drainfield. He thinks the requirements of the ordinance ought to be met
within the confines of the parcel generating the development rights. If this is waived, the
impact of the by-right provision is being exaggeratedl and as people catch on to this there's
going to be even more of it. He thinks the parcel should meet the requirements of the
ordinance with respect to roads, frontage, side yards and setbacks on the property that
generates the road.
Mr. Horne posed a question for the Board members. If a citizen has a two-acre parcel
and can verify that all requirements can be placed on that parcel, but he wants to add
acreage to that and put the road on the added land, would he be allowed to do that? Another
problem arises by having to provide all of those facilities on the two-acre parcel when it is
the road that has created the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand why that example is different. Mr. Horne
stated that he tried to make it clear that staff is not verifying everything, such as a soil
study or septic field permit.
Mr. Lindstrom said his point is that everything should be placed on the parcel and if
that makes economic sense, fine. If it doesn't, then why should the numbers of rural divi-
sions be exaggerated. However, if there is a safety problem, then a waiver could be consid-
ered. Mr. Horne said he understands that is the intent of the ordinance, but he thinks it is
going to be extremely difficult to administer the ordinance that way. Mr. Lindstrom said he
did not see the difficulty, and Mr. Horne responded that there are numerous examples he could
show the Board where this application of the ordinance would have created difficulties.
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 29)
237
Mr. Fisher said it seemed to him that the effect of the staff's interpretation is to
increase the zoning density of the rural areas district.
Mr. St. John said the question today is whether to go further and draft an amendment to
the Zoning Ordinance for the Board to review. He takes no position as to whether there
should or should not be an amendment. He thinks that Mr. Horne and his staff will have to
show the Board what can happen under the amendment that is being considered now. He said the
staff would face a fundamental difficulty if such an amendment is enacted, and it had to be
defended in court, and he described the reasons behind his statement. He said that the Board
would be accused of using the road requirements as a subterfuge.
Mr. Lindstrom responded that he disagreed with Mr. St. John one hundred percent, because
if the requirements can only be met by adding another parcel that doesn't have those develop-
ment rights, then he thinks the whole principle of the density provision has been violated.
Mr. Henley stated that it has always been his understanding that if a parcel had enough
acreage, you could get five lots, but he did not understand that you had to have road front-
age. He did not think land could be added to make enough.
Mr. St. John said it would be very difficult to defend, when you say to a person that
you have enough acreage to get five lots, and you have the building sites, but we're not
going to let you add another sliver of land so that you can have access to the road. Al-
though he has these rights on paper, it is going to be economically infeasible for him to use
the rights by preventing his getting frontage on a public road. Mr. Lindstrom responded that
the rights don't exist independent of the ability to meet the requirements. If another
parcel has to be added, then the basic premise of the ordinance has not been met.
Mr. St. John and Mr. Lindstrom continued to argue the legalities of the ordinance. Mr.
Fisher commented that it is going to be hard for the staff to respond to this concern,
unless there is language drafted, and then compared to see how it would apply in certain
cases. He asked Mr. Lindstrom to draft the language that he thinks would address the issue.
Mr. Lindstrom replied that if no other Board me~er is interested in seeing such an amend-
ment, he didn't want to waste time. Mr. Fisher~e does not think everybody understands all
of the issues. He would like to see what the implications are without committing himself.
Mr. Bowie commented that the danger of a two person conversation is that the people who
are not saying anything seem to be concurring. He said, speaking for himself, that is not
the case.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he will not pursue the issue because he does not think
there is a serious concern on the part of other Board members. He does not feel there were
enough people interested in it for him to work with Mr. Horne, Mr. St. John and spend a lot
of time when there's no momentum to follow through on it. Mr. Fisher suggested taking a
straw vote to see whether anybody was interested.
Mr. Henley commented that he would like to understand the whole thing better. He feels
that he could have understood some of the examples better if they had been explained to the
Board.
Mrs. Cooke said she this is a matter of two different legal opinions. She would like to
have it clarified so that the Board is doing what was intended by the original ordinance.
She stated that she did not know yet if she wanted the ordinance amended.
Mr. Henley said he has problems when land has to be added to a parcel to get the five
lots. He said that is not the way the ordinance was intended. He thinks every parcel has to
stand on its own. But, he doesn't have a problem adding land if it otherwise meets the
requirements. He said he did not realize there had to be road frontage for each lot.
Mr. Horne said the staff would draft something for the Board to review. He thinks one
thing that might be helpful would be to identify in the requirements those things that truly
affect the underlying intent. He said that acreage is not being added to get a buildable
area. He said there are some things that staff verifies and some things that they do not
verify.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mrs. Cooke asked for a copy of the Street Light Policy and the Dog Leash ordinance for a
constituent.
Mr. Bowie announced that the Building Committee is not ready to make a report to the
Board today.
Mr. Fisher stated that the Board had not completed its work on Agenda Item No. 11,
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program.
Mr. Bowie said the staff had asked for guidance on whether or not to proceed with 100
units in a central location, and that is all they want to know. Mrs. Cooke said she has a
couple of questions before she can make a decision or give any guidance to proceed.
Mr. Fisher wanted to announce to the Clerk and the news media, at this time, that this
matter was not discussed in detail in the Executive Session. Upon advice of counsel, no
decision was made, and no identification was made of the property, so the Board is back
almost to where it was this morning.
£38
February 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
P~qe 303
Mrs. Cooke said the Board's policy, or concept, has been to spread this type of housing
throughout the community. If there is a concentration of 100 units allowed within a building
dedicated to this kind of housing, then the original purpose of what the County wanted to do
is being defeated. Before she can make a decision, she would like to know how many
low-income units are already in that particular area of the County. Mr. Horne asked if Mrs.
Cooke was inquiring about this particular complex? Mrs. Cooke replied that she meant the
complex in question and the entire surrounding area. She said she would like to know, within
the area, if there are any more units dedicated to low-income tenants, and the crime rate in
that particular area. She thinks these factors should be seriously considered before concen-
trating 100 units in one particular area. She also mentioned that when you are dealing with
low-income units, it would seem to her that there has to be some sort of public transporta-
tion available. She also wants to know what other kinds of services are available to that
particular area.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he certainly defers to those questions, but he personally
feels the staff should go ahead and do it. He said he is interested, also, in the informa-
tion that Mrs. Cooke requested, but he is willing to change the policy because he feels it is
necessary under these circumstances. He stated that he does not like to change it, but it
may have to change to make the units available.
Mr. Agnor said the information will be given to the Board as quickly as possible, and
before it is asked to vote on whether or not to change the policy.
Mr. Fisher referred to a meeting that the State Highway Department will be holding in
Culpeper on March 3, 1987, at 10 00 A.M. Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Bowie will attend. Mr.
Bowie wanted to know what specifically will be discussed, and Mr. Fisher said he did not
know. No indication was given in the letter of invitation.
Mr. Fisher announced that a notice had been received from the Board of. Zoning Appeals in
Greene County that they have a case scheduled for February 25th for a Special Use Permit to
locate a tower and buildings for a radio station (WKTR). He said it is 6.6 acres and must be
located on the Greene County line. Miss Neher has noted that Albemarle County also has a
request for a Special Permit for a radio station on the agenda for March 18th on the east
side of Route 743 north of Advance Mills near the Greene County line, so the two petitions
are kin. Mr. Fisher said he did not think the Board has any particular interest in speaking
to the Greene County B.Z.A.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjournment.
the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
At 3:36 P.M., with no further business to come before
CH~I R~M~d~/