1987-06-034- 81
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 3, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Way, to approve Item 4.7, and to accept the remaining items as information. 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.
Item 4.1. Copy of Tentative Allocation of Fund, Fiscal Year 1987-88, Interstate,
Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and Airports; Six-Year Improvement
Program, Fiscal Years 1987-88 through 1992-93 was received as information, along with notice
from the Highway Commissioner that a public hearing will be held in Richmond on June 19,
1987. Mr. Fisher asked that this be placed on the June 10, 1987 agenda for discussion.
Item 4.2. Copy of Allocation of Highway Funds, Fiscal Year 1987-88; Critical Highway
Improvement Program Primary, Urban and Secondary Systems from the Enactment of Senate Bill 79
was received as information.
Item 4.3. Notice from the Albemarle County Service Authority dated May 18, 1987, of a
public hearing scheduled for June 30, 1987, on proposed rate and fee changes was received as
information.
Item 4.4. Notice of Public Hearing on proposed Industrial Development Revenue Bond
financing of the Virginia Small Business Financing Authority held on May 19, 1987, in Rich-
mond for VAS of Virginia, Inc. was received as information.
Item 4.5. Copies of Minutes for the Planning Commission for May 12 and May 19, 1987,
were received as information.
Item 4.6. Letter from Ray Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, dated May 19, 1987, on the
proposed Virginia Byway Designation of portions of Routes 601, 676 and 614 was received as
follows:
The Department of Conservation and Historic Resources on May 8 voted to
recommend that the Commonwealth Transportation Board designate portions of
Routes 601, 676, and 614 in Albemarle County as a Virginia Byway.
The designation begins at Route 29 Bypass at Route 250 and extends to the
intersection with Route 810 at the community of Whitehall.
The local governing body and the local Planning Commission of Albemarle
County should know that the Commonwealth Transportation Board is willing to
hold a public hearing concerning the proposed designation.
In accordance with Section 33.1-62 of the Code of Virginia, a county or
municipality, wherein such proposed Virginia Byway is located, may request
that a public hearing be held by sending a written request to Mr. R. L.
Hundley, Environmental Engineer, Department of Transportation, 1401 East
Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, within 30 days from the date of this
letter. In the event such a request is received, a hearing will be held in
the county or municipality where the~proposed Byway is located, and the
local governing body of the respective county or municipality will be so
notified as to the time and place.
Item 4.7. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and the Regional Jail for the Month of May, 1987, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: To receive comments on the appointment of a member
of the Albemarle County School Board. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19, 1987.)
Mr. Fisher said that on July 1 new legislation will go into effect which states that "no
nominee or certified applicant whose name has not been considered at a public hearing shall
be appointed as a school board member." The Board has decided-to follow this new legis-
492.
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
lation. Mr. Fisher said those persons applying for this position before the 'advertised
deadline for taking same are Louise Carrel Ward, Charles Steven Martin· William Boston
Craddock, Sarah O. Vale, Howard W. Allen, and Elly Tucker. He then asked for public comments
on these six people.
Mr. Fisher asked first for public comments on the appointment of Mr. Howard W. Allen.
There was no one present to speak.
Mr. Fisher then called for public comments on the appointment of Mr. William (Pete)
Craddock. There were no comments received.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments on the appointment of Mr. Charles S. Martin. First
to speak was Ms. N. H. Scott. She said that he is an employee of the court services unit for
the 16th Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, working as an after-care counselor. She said
that he has worked with the families of the children who are in placement and is an advocate
for the child and the family when the child has returned to the community. He has served on
the Rape Crisis Task Force, the Board of the Rape Crisis Center· and as a member of the
Thomas Jefferson Child Advocacy Group. He has a genuine interest in the needs of the
children of the community. She said it is a pleasure to recommend Mr. Martin for this
appointment.
Next to speak was Mr. Don Nobles from Newtown. He said they have met with Mr. Martin a
few times and he seems to be very interested in children and school actions. They recommend
Mr. Martin.
Ms. Brenda Koontz said she is a neighbor of Mr. Martin. She thinks he would be a
responsible member of the School Board. She then asked that others in attendance who would
like to see Mr. Martin appointed stand (approximately 20 people stood).
Mr. Steve Deeton said he is an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in the City. He has
worked with Mr. Martin in the Juvenile Court and he would like to second the things said.
His role on the Child Advocacy Group has been important, and he feels this would give Mr.
Martin a unique perspective on school issues. His work as a counselor has allowed him to
work with children on the other side of the issues, and that would be important to bring to
the School Board. Mr. Deeton said that Mr. Martin is a person of integrity, intelligence,
and of compassion. He feels that Mr. Martin would be a good member of the School Board.
Mr. Fisher then called for comments on the appointment of Mrs. Elly Tucker as a member
of the School Board. Mr. Charles Hamner said he was educated in the school system of
Albemarle County so he has seen, and is familiar with, the remarkable changes in that system
over the past fifty years. He worked with Mrs. Tucker on a number of issues involving
education, such as the 4-H Clubs, the Extension Service Advisory Board, and the Board of
Directors of Camp Albemarle, Inc. He said that she was a dynamic force and a motivator as an
extension agent working with the school children of the community. During her seven years of
work with the 4-H Clubs, membership increased from less than 500 to over 2·000. While
working with the students, she fostered wholesome family living· the importance of good
nutrition, and exercise and health habits. In the community itself, she worked with numerous
civic clubs, community groups and businesses to support the schools and their programs. He
said that Mrs. Tucker has a deep interest in school children, and their education, and she
has experience working with advisory boards. He urged that the Board give her appointment
serious consideration.
Mr. Jeff Kirwan said he is an extension agent with the VPI-SU Service and worked with
Mrs. Tucker for over seven years. She has the ability to work with a broad range of people.
It is remarkable to be able to take parents, teachers, kids· adult volunteers, even prin-
cipals and administrators and get them all to work together on an educational goal. She has
that ability. He said that an extension agent is really an at-large educator for the county.
As such, Mrs. Tucker has worked on programs in every county and city school in the area, as
well as private schools, so she has a feel for the school buildings, and knows many
principals and teachers. When the School Board discusses parity, that would be an asset.
Most important is that Mrs. Tucker has expressed a love for children. Since she ended her
employment two years ago, she has worked as a volunteer· so she is still actively involved in
4-H Club work. For all of these reasons, Mr. Kirwan said he feels Mrs. Tucker would make an
outstanding member of the School Board.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments on the appointment of Dr. Sara Vale as a member of
the School Board. There was no one present to speak.
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments on the appointment of Mrs. Louise Ward as a member of
the School Board. There were no comments received.
Mrs. Lyndly Goff, President of the Albemarle Education Association, said they support
the appointment of a member who has the following qualities: some knowledge of educational
issues, have an inquisitive attitude, make decisions for educationally sound reasons and not
just for what is financially expedient or to quiet a single grievance. The School Board
someone who knows what is best for the whole system, and not just for one geographical
, one educational level, or one small group. They also feel the School Board should be
of the entire population, and they are concerned that at the present time
is neither a black representative nor a woman on the School Board. They appreciate
open hearing process.
Mr. Fisher said he had not introduced the candidates who are present.
who said he had no comments to make.
He introduced Mr.
Mr. Fisher introduced Mr. Martin. He said he is not seeking the appointment to the
Board because he has a burning issue, or a drastic change he wants to see take place.
· before he feels that he is part of a community, he needs to participate in the
and give the community some of himself. In that spirit, he has belonged to various
anizations and clubs sznce coming to this area in 1982. Currently, he is the chairperson
the T. J. Child Advocacy Group, and Vice-President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rape
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
4,93
Crisis Center Board. He is interested in education because he is a father, and is interested
in the education of all of the children in Albemarle County. He has a strong commitment to
getting all of the information from the various sources including the School Board, and the
Board of Supervisors, parents, citizens, as well as the various task forces of those groups.
He believes the most important things he has to offer are the organizational skills, desire
and the ability to make each and every decision based on a thorough knowledge of the facts
in the best interest of the School system and the citizens of Albemarle County.
Mr. Fisher introduced Mrs. Tucker. She said that she believes in the value of educa-
tion. She thinks that the youth of the County are its future, and she believes it is up to
us to insure the best possible future by insuring their education. Mrs. Tucker said she
hopes that if she is appointed, she will have the opportunity to do that. She has a broad
range of knowledge of the people, and the schools in the community, and she would appreciate
the opportunity to serve this Board and the people in the community.
Neither Dr. Vale, Mrs. Ward nor Dr. Allen were present. Mr. Fisher said the Board spent
this afternoon interviewing the six people who applied, and the Board has a difficult deci-
sion to make. He thanks everyone who had participated in this part of the process, and said
the Board will try to make a decision at the June 10 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: 1987-88 Secondary Highway Improvement Budget.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1987.)
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, went over the review process and
explained each project included in the budget request (see minutes of May 13, 1987, for full
presentation).
At the end of the presentation, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr.
Ed Bauer from Crozet. He said most of the undeveloped land in Crozet planned for industrial
development is located between ConAgra and Snead's Trailer Park on Route 240. There is no
road providing access from Three Notch'd Road (Route 240) to this land. He feels that an
access road should be built to help industry create new jobs in Crozet. Also, the Crozet
Community Association has voted to support building a new road from Three Notch'd Road across
the existing grade crossing of the railroad ~i~acks along the eastern edge of Crozet Park to
Park Road. Mr. Bauer requested that funds be included in this budget to plan for such a new
road. He said that the County's Comprehensive Plan shows a road in the area but on a
somewhat different route. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on this request.
Mr. Roosevelt said the route they are recommending is not the line in the County's
Comprehensive Plan. It is too much of a change to be considered an approved road by the
County. There are two steps which must be completed before any money could be put in the
budget for this project. The County would need to include this route in its Comprehensive
Plan, and then include this road as a priority in the Six-Year Highway Plan. Mr. Roosevelt
said when the Charlottesville Area Transportation Plan is updated, he believes it is the
intent to include the Crozet area in that updated plan.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne for his comments. Mr. Horne said the staff has questions
about many of the roads shown in the Comprehensive Plan as to their eligibility for state
funding. It would be helpful to know the eligibility of a road for funding before it is
included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said it will probably be easier to decide on
an alignment, then to decide who will pay for the actual road.
Next was Mr. Bill Spradlin speaking on behalf of concerned citizens living on Route 620
in the Woodridge area. This route goes from Route 795 past Ash Lawn to the Fluvanna County
line. The problem is with bridges, the main problem being with a one-lane bridge. They feel
this bridge is unsafe. He called the County School Transportation Department to ask if a bus
could come across this bridge to pick up his children, rather than a bus coming from the
opposite direction. The answer he got is that the bridge is not wide enough, nor safe enough
for a school bus to cross. There are four other bridges which are referred to as "suicide"
or "Russian Roulette" bridges. Mr. Spradlin said there have been four fatal accidents in the
last 14 months on a stretch of about four miles of Route 620. He thinks there are 6,000 cars
a day that cross this bridge and then travel this curvy, crooked road. Mr. Spradlin said
that this road is 22 miles in length, and 17 of those miles are in Albemarle County. There
is no passing anywhere during those 17 miles. As to road maintenance, the foliage must be
cut back and the potholes fixed immediately. He said that snow removal is a pet peeve of the
citizens along this road. He asked for those persons present who agreed with his remarks to
stand (about 25 people stood). Mr. Spradlin handed to the Board some pictures which are a
part of the record.
Mr. Way said he has traveled over this road a~um~ of times, and has ridden over the
road recently with Mr. Spradlin. He asked what determines the kind of surface which goes on
the road. He said it is frustrating to the people who drive over Route 795 which has a good
surface, onto Route 620, and then to Fluvanna County where they are in the process of putting
plant mix on the road. Mr. Way said he can sympathize with the citizens who live on the road
in between these two sections.
Mr. Roosevelt said economics has a great deal to do with it. Plant mix costs five to
seven times what surface treatment costs. They try to stretch the budget as much as possi-
ble. There have been some projects included in the construction budget for plant mix. This
section of Route 620 is not one of those projects. Mr. Roosevelt said this route was resur-
faced two years ago, and plant mix was considered because it does have a traffic count high
enough to warrant plant mix, but until this year there has been little or no money in the
construction budget for plant mix. Mr. Roosevelt said he hopes to do some plant mix projects
during the next two years.
494
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Way said the other problem is with the one-lane bridge which is fairly lengthy, and
is approached coming down a hill. He asked if there are separate bridge replacement funds.
Mr. Roosevelt said the only money available to improve bridges is the same money that is
available to improve roads. Route 620 was considered during the revision of the Six-Year
Highway Plan two years ago, but the plan ended up with 60+ items in it, of which only 33 were
adopted in the final plan. The next time the plan is revised, this bridge at Buck Island
Creek should be considered for inclusion.
Mr. Ron Hoover asked about the location of the project for Route 727. Mr. Roosevelt
said this is the gravel road which goes up over the mountain by the Blenheim house itself.
Mr. Hoover asked how long plant mix lasts. Mr. Roosevelt said approximately eight years,
about twice as long as surface treatment. Mr. Hoover asked how many times plant mix has been
put on the road to Ash Lawn during the last eight years. Mr. Roosevelt said it has just been
applied, and was applied approximately six to eight years ago. A gentlemen in the audience
interrupted to say it had been done three times during the last eight years. Mr. Roosevelt
disagreed, and asked if anyone would say it was not needed this year. The gentlemen in the
audience said it was done for this tourist attraction, while the residents have to ride over
a "pig path". Mr. Hoover said he lives in the area and has a problem with snow removal.
They had a one-lane road pushed out in front of Mr. Spradlin's house, which is about a 90
degree turn going uphill, for five days after the big snow. He called the Highway Department
and got no response. Mr. Fisher said he did not want to cut off this conversation about snow
removal, but the topic tonight is the road improvement budget.
Mr. Andy Copehatchy asked about the traffic signal for the corner of Route 743 and
Commonwealth Drive. He feels that $50,000 is a high price for a traffic signal. As to Route
620, he does not think an improvement can wait another two or three years. The road surface
is in bad shape. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment.
Mr. Roosevelt said that eight years ago when Fashion Square put the traffic signals in
front of the mall, those cost about $70,000 each, so he feels that $50,000 now is a bargain
price. The equipment in the traffic signal is sophisticated.
Mr. Herbert Spradlin said he lives on Route 620. He thanked Mr. Way for his help. He
suggested that the Board might want to check up on Mr. Roosevelt. He does not believe that
the County or the state "is getting the right justice". Check the Highway Department and see
what is going on there. A gentlemen in the audience said he would second those remarks.
Ms. Georgia Black said she has lived in Woodridge for about twelve years. Although she
does not know anything about the Highway Department, Mr. Roosevelt just said that surface
treatment of the road lasts only about four years. Instead of just plunking down gravel, she
thinks it would be better to take that money and put it into plant mix for whatever portion
of the road it would complete. When the Highway Department cleans out the ditches, there are
tons of gravel. She said the gravel does help some, but not that much.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Mr.
Fisher said if the map is studied, you would find that most of the projects county-wide are
for converting gravel roads into a hard-surfaced road. There are so many roads in the County
which do not even have a hard-surface that that has been the emphasis of the General Assembly
for the last fifteen or so years. Mr. Fisher said he can understand the frustration of the
residents. He is concerned about the question of fatalities, but he said there are a lot of
gravel roads to be converted, and that will probably continue to be the emphasis for some
years into the future.
Mr. Spradlin said that in the Scottsville District there are as many unpaved, dirt roads
as in any area. Mr. Fisher said the Board realizes this. Mr. Hoover said he lives on one of
those dirt roads, and the Highway Department promised him several years ago that this road ~-~
would be improved, and they are doing a good job by cutting about three stumps a week.
Mr. Way said it was good that the residents appeared at this meeting to let the Board
know their concerns. He believes they have accomplished their mission in letting the Board
know of the problems that exist on Route 620.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members would like to discuss the plan as proposed. Mr.
Lindstrom mentioned the project for the widening of Rio Road from Route 29 North to Route 650
at a cost of $1,200,000. He has heard that the City Planning Commission remarked if the
Meadow Creek Parkway is not built immediately, they do n6t feel there is any need to
four-lane Rio Road from Route 29 to the Vo-Tech Center. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if this
project is dependent on the Meadow Creek Parkway, or whether there is an independent need for
this improvement.
Mr. Roosevelt said there is an independent need based on the traffic count. From Route
29 to the railroad tracks the traffic count goes from a high of 19,007 to a low of 14,005.
When there are over 8,000 cars a day, the Highway Department considers going from a two-lane
to a four-lane highway. Rio Road in this section is the second highest volume carrier in the
county. The traffic is already there, and will continue to be there. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the Vo-Tech Center is a logical spot to cut off the improvement. Mr. Roosevelt said there is
a second motive involved. The project is not being pressed forward based solely on need.
There is a lot of money flowing into the Secondary Road Fund. Between now and July, 1988,
there will be over $8,000,000 available for distribution and the money needs to be spent, and
be spent on projects which are in the adopted Six-Year Highway Plan. The budget recommended
for '87-88, and the current '86-87 budget, allocates money to every project in that plan in
an amount equal to an amount that can be spent between now and July, 1988. Mr. Roosevelt
said that section of Rio Road could be deferred, but where else would the money be spent?
Mr. Lindstrom said there had been one strong suggestion at tonight's meeting. Mr. Roosevelt
said if the Board would like to go to a total improvement, the Six-Year Plan can be modified
to include that route.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is a project that would have been recommended if Meadow
Creek Parkway were not a consideration. Mr. Roosevelt said if the Meadow Creek Parkway were
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pa~_~ 5)
not in the plans, an improvement to Rio Road from the City line out to the Vo-Tech Center
would have to be considered. The traffic count at the County/City line is 12,363 vehicles
per day.
Mr. Lindstrom said that, without commenting on the process that the City Planning
Commission used to get the information to the Board, he thinks that on transportation
matters, there are a number of substantial projects on which the two governing bodies must
work together. The City has taken the position on the Meadow Creek Parkway that it will not
give the go ahead on that project until after the environmental impact study has been seen.
If the Board has asked the City to hold off on some big projects pending completion of that
study, it works both ways. If there are other ways to spend that money now, and if the
improvement is logical assuming the building of Meadow Creek Parkway, the Board is actually
prejudicing the case in terms of the study. Unless something drastic happens to the State
road budget in the next couple of years, there should be money for this improvement.
Mr. Fisher said that this project has been part of the County's planning process for
some time. Mr. Horne said this past year is the first time that the County Planning
Commission took a good, hard look at the Six-Year Plan. When the comment by the City hit the
newspapers, it was prior to the Planning Commission review of the budget this year. The
Planning Commission felt this project is needed independent of the Meadow Creek Parkway
because Meadow Creek Parkway is not a replacement for, or logically connected to, the need
for some improvement to the Route 29 corridor. The Planning Commission supported moving
ahead with this project.
Mr. Bowie said no matter what the City read into the County's Six-Year Plan, there is
tremendously heavy traffic all day long on that section of Rio Road. If there is no other
solution, Mr. Roosevelt is right, something has to be done to Rio Road. As far as pulling it
out tonight, the Board just heard a well-orchestrated plea for improvements to Route 620. If
the Board is looking for new projects, he could have 150+ people in here next week making a
plea for roads in the Rivanna District, as could most supervisors. He does not see taking
out the biggest project which has been in the plan for years, and start spreading the money
around. There are projects in all districts that have not been included because he feels the
members realize the importance of total area communication in terms of the Rio/Meadow Creek
Parkway/and northern part of the County.
Mrs. Cooke said she would have a hard time supporting a change at this point because of
the expectation of the people who live on Rio Road who have to deal with this traffic. There
is high residential development in this area. Mrs. Cooke said she could not support a change
in what is already proposed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the Board must adopt all or part of this plan. Mr. Roosevelt
said it is already five days late, so he needs a decision as soon as possible. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if it would be possible to approve the budget without this one item for a couple of
weeks while the Board asks for someone from the City Planning Commission to come to next
week's meeting to discuss their statement. Mr. Roosevelt said it is possible to revise a
budget at any time. This budget could be adopted, and the $1.2 million for Rio could be
moved later.
Mr. Lindstrom said if there are no other changes, he would suggest that the budget be
adopted as presented, but that the Board invite the Chairman of the City Planning Commission
to come to next Wednesday's meeting to discuss this, and if it appears that an amendment
should be made, that could be conveyed to the Highway Department after that meeting. Mr.
Horne suggested that the Board might want to hear comments from the Chairman of the County
Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said he would be willing to hear from both planning commis-
sion's although he thinks it may be frustrating.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is a matter of principle. It should be clear that both the City
and County will lose unless they talk to each other about these projects. He then offered
motion that the Board adopt the 1987-88 Secondary Road Improvement Budget as proposed, and
that the Chairman of the City Planning Commission and the Chairman of the County Planning
Commission, or a designee, make a presentation at next Wednesday's meeting on the widening of
Rio Road.
Mr. Way said he did not object uo that, and gave second to the motion. Mr. Way said he
would like to ask about Item No. 8, uwo bridge projects on Old Lynchburg Road. He had a
constituent call who could not be present tonight, who wanted to comment in favor of this
project.
Mr. Bowie said he has trouble with this because the Board spent considerable time
developing this budget, and this list of projects. He is willing to talk to the City and the
County Planning Commission. He wants to support the budget, but has trouble tieing a lot of
conditions to the approval.
Mrs. Cooke said she supports the first one-half of the motion. She has a problem
because her constituents living in this area do not know what is going on here, and they did
not come because they felt comfortable with what was proposed. She would like to give her
constituents an opportunity to review this conversation. Mr. Lindstrom said the budget could
not be amended without another public hearing.
Mr. Roosevelt offered the Board another option to consider on the Route 620 situation.
If the Board so directs, he could put plant mix on that section of Route 620 from Route 795
near Ash Lawn to the Fluvanna County line for approximately $350,000. If that amount of
money were taken from the Rio Road project and it were put into the budget as an additional
amount for plant mix, he would have no problem with doing that project. He agrees with the
comments that the road is out of shape. It is difficult to maintain, even though it carries
only 1200 - 1300 cars a day instead of the figure quoted. Mr. Roosevelt said no project can
be picked that does not appear in the Six-Year Plan, but the money available for preliminary
engineering could be increased by about $20,000 with an indication from the Board that some
investigation of Route 620 be made. He said he also has three other routes which could be
added to this list, and then when the Six-Year Plan is revised next Spring, all of these
projects could be added to the list.
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr.-Fisher said that is an interesting idea, but $350,000 for plant mix for a single
roadway is more than has been allocated for all roads in the County next year. He thinks
that the Rio Road project is important since it is a part of long-range planning, and he will
support that project. He is not looking for a way to spend the money in another way.
Mr. Lindstrom said that procedurally, he feels that to move $1.2 million would require
some input whether it is legally required, or just a matter of courtesy.
There were no further comments.
ing recorded vote:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follow-
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
(Note: The budget as adopted is set out in full below:)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1987-88 SECONDARY HIGHWAY I~gROVEMENT BUDGET
PROJECT
Plant Mix Schedule:
Route 9655 - Albemarle High School Entrance
Route 743 from Jacobs Run to Route 641
Route 660 from Route 676 to Route 661
Route 854 from Route 1419 to Route 1428
Route 1427 from Route 631 to Route 854
Route 1428 from Route 631 to Route 854
Route 768 from Route 631 to Dead End
Route 738 from Route 250 to Route 679
Subtotal
ALLOCATION
3,000
14,000
86,500
50,000
65,000
79,600
16,000
21~800
335,900
New Pipe
New Signs
Seed and Fertilize
Traffic Signal at Route 743 & Commonwealth Drive
Operate the Hatton Ferry
Survey & Preliminary Engineering
10,000
10,000
7,000
50,000
10,000
10,000
Route 631 (Rio) at Route 659 (Woodburn)
Route 631 (Rio) at Agnese Street
Route 654 (Barracks) at Route 656 (Georgetown)
Route 631 (Rio) at Route 768 (Pen Park entrance)
Route 656 (Georgetown) - right turn lane
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) - two bridges
Route 727 from Route 627 to Route 795
Route 678 (in Ivy) from Route 250 to 0.1 mile north
Route 652 (Old Brook Road)
Route 671 (Bridge at the Moorman River)
Route 631 (Fifth Street Extended)
Route 631 (Rio) from Route 29 to Route 650
Route 777 from Orange County Line to Dead End
Route 693 from Route 635 to Route 695
Route 660 (Bridge at South Fork Rivanna River)
Total
62,000
23,600
24,900
88,400
100,000
24,700
517,000
414,100
146,100
15,000
275,080
1,200,000
15,000
10,000
30,000
$3,378,780
(Note: The Board recessed at 9:23 p.m., and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-87-04. Blanka S. Rosenstiel petitions to amend Section 10.0,
RA, Rural Areas District to include HEALTH RESORT by special use permit and to amend 3.0
Definitions to include health resort. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and
May 27, 1987.)
Mr. Horne noted that the applicant has requested deferral of' this public hearing. The
date of August 5, 1987, has been agreed to by applicant and staff. Motion was offered by
Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to defer the hearing on this petition until August 5, 1987.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-25. Virginia Land Trust. To allow a residential development
in the rural area. Proposal is to increase total potential number of lots on these parcels
from 11 to 56. Located on west side of Rt. 600 approximately two miles northwest of Stony
Point. Tax Map 33, Parcel 22A, and Tax Map 47, Parcel 42. Rivanna District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 27, 1987.)
Letter dated May 26, 1987, from Virginia H. ~D. Gardner, Virginia Land Company, was
received requesting that this application be withdrawn. Motion to allow the petition to be
withdrawn without prejudice was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 7,.) ~
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-87-04. Colonnade Associates. To rezone, with proffer, a 30,864
sq. ft. parcel from HC to C-l, and an 18,357 aq. ft. parcel from R-15 to C-l, for office
and/or retail complex use. Located on east side of Colonnade Drive south of Route 250. Tax
Map 60, Parcels 40C2 and 40C3. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in. the Daily Progress on
May 19 and May 27, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the following staff report:
"Petition: Colonnade Associates petitions the Board of Supervisors to
rezone 0.42 acres (Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C3) from R-15, Residential to C-i,
Commercial (PROFFER) and 0.71 acres (Tax Map 60, Parcel 40C2) from HC,
Highway Commercial to C-1 Commercial (PROFFER). These adjoining properties
are located on the west side of Colonnade Drive about 200 feet south of U.S.
Rte. 250W.
Character of the Area: This property is adjacent to University Heights
Apartment complex and undeveloped commercial property across Colonnade
Drive. The apartment complex office is directly adjacent to the south on
Colonnade Drive. St. Anne's School to the rear of the site is currently
screened by a tree line along the boundary (a 20 foot drainage and utility
easement exists along this boundary. Adequate screening for St. Anne's
School will be required for development of this site). Between this site
and U.S. Rte. 250W are a gasoline service station and property recently
approved for a drive-in bank.
Applicant's Proffer: (See following letter from Hall Brownfield dated
March 17, 1987.) The applicant has proffered to exclude certain uses from
the C-1 zoning. The applicant has verbally stated intent to construct
offices on the site but is unable to commit that to proffer. The staff
does, however, feel that the application could be improved by additional
proffers limiting retail usage.
Staff Comment: The 0.42 acre lot zoned R-15.is of such dimension that an
apartment building of the scale in University Village could not be located
on the site. This is not to say that a reasonable use of the property could
not be realized under existing zoning. Certainly a smaller apartment
structure could be accommodated on the site.
Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that: 'The request to
rezone from HC to C-1 would probably result in less traffic volumes and the
request to rezone from R-15 to C-1 would result in greater traffic volumes.
The Department feels that overall this request would result in a net in-
crease in traffic volumes compared to what is currently allowed by the
zoning. Any increase in traffic on these properties will add to the conges-
tion along this section of Rt. 250W. Colonnade Drive is not in the state
system. This section of Rt. 250 is currently three (3) lanes with the
center lane marked as a left turn lane for Colonnade Drive. However, there
is no right turn lane for Colonnade Drive and the Department recommends that
a right turn lane be constructed, should this ZMA be approved.'
Staff agrees that, given the limited proffer, a net increase could occur
(staff has roughly estimated a potential increase of 150 vehicle trips per
day). Colonnade Drive is a private road. Historically, staff has not
endorsed mixing of residential and commercial uses on a private road. In
this case, commercial zoning already exists along Colonnade Drive and the
residential uses are rental apartments. Since Colonnade Drive is not a
public road, improvements at its intersection with Rt. 250W can be required
at time of site plan approval.
The Comprehensive' Plan reflects commercial and high-density residential uses
in the area. The Plan is general in nature and specific properties are not
identified. Commercial depth shown in the Plan appears arguably consistent
with the applicant's request. Staff recommends approval and acceptance of
the applicant's proffer."
The applicant's letter of proffer follows:
"March 17, 1987
Mr. Charles W. Burgess, Jr.
Zoning Administrator
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Dear Mr. Burgess:
We have applied to rezone certain lots known as parcels 40C3 and 40C2 on
Albemarle County Tax Map 60 to C-1. We have in mind to construct a pro-
fessional office building and/or retail complex with supporting parking, and
would proffer that the parcels would not be utilized for the following uses
presently allowed under C-1 zoning:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
churches, cemeteries
lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic uses
funeral homes
indoor theatres
libraries, museums
automobile service stations
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
7) automobile, truck repair shops
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me anytime at
971-5830. Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
Hal Brownfield"
Mr. Horne said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1987, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board, but instead of accepting the
proffered C-1 zoning, the Commission recommended that the Board approve rezoning to CO,
Commercial Office, for both parCels. Mr. Horne said the Commission felt that the proffers
for C-1 zoning were not limiting enough, for example many high traffic uses would still be
allowed. The Commission suggested that the applicant might be able to improve the posture of
the request for C-1 zoning by amending the proffer prior to the Board meeting.
Mr. Fisher asked about the recommendations for this area in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Horne said the frontage along Route 250 West is shown as a commercial designation, but the
depth is vague, and could arguably take in these two parcels. The difference to the
applicant in the CO and the C-1 is the retail intensity that is allowed. Only a limited
amount of square footage in a structure in CO can be devoted to retail uses, where in C-1 it
is essentially totally a retail zone, but offices can also be built in that zone. The
Commission was most concerned about the retail usage that might be generated on the property.
There were a number of uses remaining in the C-l, even after the proffer, that are high
traffic generators.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that at the present time, these parcels are the dividinq, line
between commercial and residential uses. Mr. Horne said that is correct. Mr. Fisher~%~s
change would extend the commercial back from Route 250. Mr. Horne said that is correct.
Mr. Horne said there was an amended proffer received dated May 27, 1987, which requests
that Parcel 2C which is currently zoned HC be withdrawn from the proffer, and essentially
accepts the recommendation of the Planning Commission that Parcel 3C which is currently zoned
R-15 be rezoned CO. Mr. Fisher said the requested reoning is now more intensive than what
the Planning Commission recommended. Mr. Horne said the net effect would be more intense
zoning. The proffer reads as follows:
"May 27, 1987
Ms. Lettie E. Neher
Clerk of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
RE: ZMA-87-4 Colonnade Associates
Dear Ms. Neher:
Pursuant to Mr. Keeler's letter of May 22, 1987, I am writing to request
that the above referenced zoning request be amended as follows:
1)
Parcel 40C2, Tax Map 60 shall be deleted from this rezoning
application and shall remain under its existing Highway Com-
mercial (H-C) zoning.
2)
Parcel 40C3, Tax Map 60 shall remain as the Planning Commission
approved with rezoning to Commercial Office (C-0) from its
existing Residential (R-15).
In our original application we had asked for a Commercial (C-i) zoning with
proffer which the Planning Commission did not feel was acceptable because
of the higher traffic uses adjoining the Residentially zoned University
Heights Apartments. By going to the C-0 zoning on Parcel 40C3 we would be
removing all retail uses with the exception of a possible accessory use of
twenty percent (20%) or less of any proposed structure.
We feel that our proposal would be consistent with the County's policy that
specific uses of property taper back from a more intense commercial zoning
on State Route 250 to a less intense office zoning adjoining the apartment
complex.
If you have any questions or comments please call me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Hal Brownfield"
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. A1 Brownfield of HB Associates was present to speak for the applicant. He said the
reason for the letter of May 27 is because staff recommended that the petition be amended in
this way. Mr. Brownfield said when they offered to take the HC parcel down to C-1 that was a
proffer as such, but the Planning Commission evidently did not see it that way. The appli-
cant would be happier with two C-1 parcels, but he was under the impression that/~ot a
possibility. He said that the structures which adjoin on the south are not actually
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
residential units, but the shop, maintenance area, and rental office. Mr. Fisher asked if
that is an auxiliary use to the residential zoning. Mr. Horne replied that it is.
There was no one else from the public present to speak for or against the petition, so
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has four possibilities as far as this request is concerned:
the original request with the proffer, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the new
request from the applicant, or leave the existing zoning as it is. He asked what procedure
the Board wanted to follow; take action tonight, or send the request back to the Planning
Commission for its review of the May 27 letter.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not object to the proposal in the May 27 letter. It seems to
be consistent with what the Comprehensive Plan indicates. He does, however, hesitate to call
the May 27 letter a proffer. Mr. Fisher said it is not a proffer, and if the Board acts on
this without its having been reviewed by the Planning Commission, the Board is encouraging
applicants to do more switching after the Planning Commission has acted. He would prefer
that the application be sent back for review. Mr. Bowie said usually he would support that
suggestion, but this is essentially what the Planning Commission thought should be done. Mr.
Fisher disagreed with that statement. Mr. Bowie said the applicant is just changing the
request for one of the two lots. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission is suggesting that
the intensity of commercial development on Lot 2C be reduced, and in return they could extend
lower density commercial usage on Lot 3C. Mr. Fisher said he does not think the Planning
Commission would be willing to leave 2C as a higher density and also extend additional
commercial zoning.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the Planning Commission discussion of this request. Mr. Horne
said he does not believe this is something the Planning Commission thought about. Most of
the discussion centered around intense retail use further up Colonnade Drive closer to the
residential zone. They were mostly thinking about use of the property nearer the residen-
tial. Mr. Lindstrom asked how long it would take to recycle this request. Mr. Horne said
probably two or three weeks. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no objection to asking the Planning
Commission for its reaction to the May 27 proposal since it is different from the proposal
they reviewed.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to send this
request back to the Planning Commission for its review and recommendation of the letter from
Mr. Brownfield dated May 27, 1987. 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.
Agenda Item No. 10. G. Benton Patterson. To amend the Albemarle County Service Author-
ity service area boundaries for sewer service to include the Triangle Mobile Home Park on the
corner of Hydraulic and Rio Roads. Tax Map 45, Parcel 22.
Before beginning discussion-of this petition, Mr. Lindstrom announced that he has just
learned that his firm has had a very minor role in this application. Although they do not
represent the applicant, they did some minor work, so for the sake of propriety, if not for
legality, he will abstain from participation.
Mr. Horne mentioned his memorandum of May 26, 1987, as follows:
"I have reviewed the request for amendment to the Albemarle County Service
Authority jurisdictional area for the Triangle Trailer Court in order to
provide sewer service to the existing mobile home park. That park is
located on Parcel 24 on Tax Map 45. Also included on this same parcel are
three businesses and two permanent residential structures (one occupied).
As correspondence from the applicant and Health Department will point out,
the mobile home units located off Rio Road (Rt. 631) are on actively
malfunctioning septic systems. The mobile home units located along Hydrau-
lic Road are on a separate system that has had problems in the recent past,
but is not malfunctioning at this time. The staff views this request as
one in which the land use policies and the housing and community develop-
ment policies of the Comprehensive Plan must be weighed and balanced by the
Board of Supervisors.
Land Use Policy: This property is outside the growth area boundary for the
urbanized area and within the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir.
The property was intentionally removed from the growth area when the land
use map was changed several years ago. The current Comprehensive Plan
would, therefore, not encourage urban growth on this property or other
properties outside the growth area boundary. The property is currently
zoned RA, Rural Areas, except for a small area at the corner of Rio and
Hydraulic Roads which is zoned C-1 and covers the three bUsinesses. The RA
district does not allow mobile home parks as a permitted use or a use with
special permit. The current mobile home park is a nonconforming use under
the Zoning Ordinance because it was in place prior to the adoption of the
current Zoning Ordinance.
In summary, the land use policy of the Comprehensive Plan and the current
Zoning Ordinance would strongly discourage the extension of the jurisdic-
tional area for sewer service to this or other properties outside the
jurisdictional area. Those policies would normally call for the gradual
removal of nonconforming uses in these kinds of areas. The emergency
health and environmental conditions surrounding this case could provide
some distinction for this request when compared to other possible requests.
5OO
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
If such a distinction cannot be found by the Board, approval of this
request may also set a precedent for future requests.
Housin~ and Community Development Policy: The Comprehensive Plan currently
encourages the provision of safe, sanitary, and adequate housing for County
resident of all income groups. In an effort to implement this policy, the
Existing Section 8 Rental Assistance Program prOvides rent subsidies to a
total of 37 persons (20 adults/17 minors) in 13 units within the Triangle
Trailer Court. Due to an overall shortage of mobile home park spaces, this
mobile home park along with others provides a link in the current housing
program in the County. A brief telephone survey of other mobile home parks
in the County has found that few, if any, vacant units or spaces are
available. The staff of this Department and the Inspections Department
have made a recent survey of the exterior condition of the park and units
and that survey has revealed significant deficiencies in the electrical
systems, access, tie-downs (one unit) and plumbing. All of these deficien-
cies are considered by the staff to be safety or health problems which
should be corrected. The current mobile home park also does not meet many
of the current zoning requirements for mobile home parks. These deficien-
cies are reflected in the suggested conditions for approval.
If the Board of Supervisors finds that the Housing and Community Develop-
ment Policy of the Comprehensive Plan should take precedence over the Land
Use Policy in this particular case, the staff would recommend that the
jurisdictional area for the Albemarle County Service Authority be amended
to provide sewer service to Tax Map 45, Parcel 24, under the following
conditions:
Sewer service is to be provided to the existing structures only. This
includes permanent residential structures, commercial structures, and
mobile homes.
Those mobile homes fronting on Rt. 743 are to be removed within one
(1) year of the Board of Supervisors approval of this request.
No more than fifteen (15) mobile homes are to be allowed on the
property at any one time.
Within ninety (90) days of Board of Supervisors approval of this
request the following shall be accomplished:
a. The existing unoccupied/damaged mobile home and other appliances
currently stored on the northwest portion of the site are to be
removed.
b. All mobile homes are to be installed or brought into compliance
with the Virginia Uniform and Statewide Building Code and the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance installation requirements.
c. One (1) eight cubic yard dumpster is to be installed with an
enclosure on the site. The site of the dumpster and the enclo-
sure are to be approved by the Director of Planning & Community
Development.
Within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Board of Supervisors
approval of this request, the following is to be accomplished:
a. Parking/roads within the mobile home park area are to be resur-
faced in compliance with Section 5.3.8.2(2) of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance.
b. Screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 5.3.8.7
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Horne said the areas which staff feels could be screened more adequately than they
are now would be on each side of the entrances off of Rio Road, taking into consideration
sight distance. The mobile homes are almost on the highway right of way at this time.
Screening is recommended in the same way that it would be required if this were a new mobile
home park. As concerns the mobile homes on Hydraulic Road, there is uncontrolled access
across most of the parcels, and the mobile homes are only 12 to 15 feet from the highway
right of way. His staff would recommend that the only access from Hydraulic Road be by way
of standard commercial entrances. Since this is not really possible, staff is recommending
that some of these mobile homes be removed from the property in order to relocate others.
There is a very large ravine directly behind these mobile homes, making the moving of the
homes difficult.
Mrs. Cooke asked if screening is not required for the back portion of the park. Mr.
Horne said if this were a new application, screening would be required along the periphery in
the vicinity of Squirrel Ridge. There is some existing vegetation in the area. Mrs. Cooke
said she has been told by residents in Squirrel Ridge that this property is visible. Mr.
Horne said that will be true even with the vegetation in place.
Mr. Fisher asked if the reason for these recommendations is to retain as much of the
existing housing stock as can be reasonably done, but to bring it into compliance with the
current zoning ordinance as if this were a new mobile home park. Mr. Horne said yes, but
there are a number of current mobile home park standards (as to density and spacing) that
cannot be met in this configuration. Mr. Fisher asked if there are enough trade-offs in
public health, safety and housing to warrant the extension of sewer into this area that is
not designated as a growth area. Mr. Horne said.in its current condition, while it may meet
some housing quality standards under Section 8, it is not meeting normal standards for safe,
sanitary housing under the zoning ordinance.
501
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Pag~ 11)
Mr. Horne said to mention how the actual extension would take place, there is a manhole
across Rio Road near the Four Seasons Mall area, and this would be an extension of a sewer
line under Rio Road to the northeastern portion of the site, and then collection systems
would go down through the parking area to serve the individual units. Sewage collection for
the units on Hydraulic Road would need to be above ground sewer lines due to the deep ravine,
or the sewage would flow down to a pump located in the ravine, and then be pumped up to the
collection system. Finally, the property in question is Parcel 24 not Parcel 22.
Mr. Fisher asked for the staff's recommendation. Mr. Horne said his recommendation is
to balance the two policies, and if the Board chooses to extend the sewer line, it would be
consistent with only the housing and community development policy; it would not be consistent
for full extension without conditions similar to those recommended by the staff.
At this point, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Bud Treakle was present to represent
the applicant, Mr. Benton Patterson. He said Mr. Horne has ably compared the two policies
which are in conflict in this matter. (He presented to the Board a memorandum from Sue Lane,
from the County Housing Office, re: Triangle Trailer Court.) Mr. Treakle said there are 26
trailers on this property, plus one house. There are 75+ residents. Mr. Patterson owns the
property but leases the individual lots to owners of mobile homes, and does not own any of
the mobile home units himself. Mr. Patterson will spend the necessary funds to acquire the
right of way and construct the sewer line. He recognizes that there is a health problem now.
He is concerned by the preliminary cost estimates and what some of the conditions would do to
the park itself. Mr. Mark Osborne, Engineer, is present, and will say that the entire park
can be served with gravity fed lines, no pumping is necessary. If the eight units on
Hydraulic Road are served, it will be necessary to have an above ground line. The
preliminary cost for extending the sewer line, removing the mobile homes, plus meeting all of
the conditions outlined is over $47,000. The sewer line extension would probably cost over
$20,000.
Mr. Treakle said they feel there are reasons that distinguish this application, and give
the Board grounds to grant this request. There are more than 75 people being provided with
housing, there are 37 individuals in 13 separate mobile home units who are receiving assis-
tance through the housing program. In reference to the eight units that the staff is recom-
mending be moved within one year, five of those units are occupied by people receiving public
housing assistance. Mr. Treake said that Mr. Patterson is aware of some of the shortcomings
in the trailer park, but he is not the owner of the individual units. They think there may
be other ways for the County to require correction of electrical hook-ups and the tie-downs.
That is something Mr. Patterson would need to address with the owners of the individual
mobile homes. The spaces for the eight units are rented at $65 a month, and if these spaces
are removed from rental, it will reduce the funds available to pay for the renovations. They
feel they can work with the staff on some alternatives. Mr. Patterson feels he is providing
a needed resource in housing, and he asks that the request be approved.
Mr. Fisher asked if the request is to approve the sewer service with no conditions. Mr.
Treakle said they accept Condition 91, but are concerned about Condition 92 which is removal
of the units along Hydraulic Road. The third condition, which was amended to read 18 units
instead of 15, would depend on the Board's ultimate decision. As to condition 4a concerning
the existing damaged mobile home, that mobile home is not owned by Mr. Patterson, but he may
be able to get the owner to remove the mobile home within a 90-day period. As to condition
4b requiring that the homes be brought into compliance, they feel there are other remedies,
or other ways that could be required since the mobile homes are not owned by Mr. Patterson.
There is no problem with Condition 4c. As to Condition 95, preliminary cost estimates of
those items is $17,500 which he feels is a significant cost. If the sewer lines are located
in the roadway, they realize that some resurfacing will be necessary, and the applicant
stands ready to do that, but they do not feel the surface required by 5.3.8.2(2) of the
Zoning Ordinance is necessary.
Mr. Fisher asked about the current surface of the road. Mr. Treakle said it is hard
surface gravel in disrepair. Mr. Osborne said the estimate is to bring the base, stone, etc.
up to modern standards, and no credit was given for what is there now. Mr. Fisher asked if
the ordinance only requires gravel. Mr. Horne said the requirement is for prime and double
seal. Mr. Fisher said that is an impervious surface. Mr. Horne said the existing surface is
essentially impervious, so he did not believe there would be much of a change in conditions.
With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher
asked Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority for his comments. Mr. Brent
said they believe it is possible to serve the existing trailers by gravity sewer. Mr. Fisher
asked if any of this would be above the ground service. Mr. Brent said that based on the
engineering work of Mr. Osborne there will be one aerial crossing of a drainage swale.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has a request to extend sewer service into the watershed of
the Reservoir which is something the Board has tried to avoid doing, and this trailer park is
a nonconforming use which is serving a housing need. Mr. Fisher said he knows that when
these units were placed on Hydraulic Road it was rural road with not much traffic, and it is
now a major link to Earlysville. He feels that the recommendation of the Planning Staff for
removal of those units is sound. This is really a congested area.
Mr. Bowie agrees that where these mobile homes are located is dangerous and he would not
want to leave them there. There was a suggestion that the owner find a way to relocate some
of them. If some units can be relocated, he has no problem with that. Instead of saying get
them out in a year, he might support the applicant coming back with a plan to do something
else with them.
Mrs. Cooke said this area is of great concern to her and her constituents. She has no
problem with extending sewer service to the main mobile home unit, but she is concerned about
the units on Hydraulic Road. If there were some way to relocate those units within the
existing main area, she would have no problem doing that. She thinks there should be some
way that anyone who owns an area like that could require residents to bring their units up to
some sort of standard. These are major safety concerns involved. Mr. Horne said he
understands that the mobile home units are owned by one individual who manages the park. The
5O2
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 12)
mobile home units are rental units.
and also all of the units.
There is one individual who is in control of the spaces,
Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Horne was indicating that the person who owns the land does not
own the mobile home units. Mr. Horne said that is his understanding. Mr. Treakle said that
Mr. Patterson has had the park run by Mr. Stacy for a number of years, and it is his under-
standing that Mr. Stacy owns the 13 units which are part of the rental assistance program.
They understand the others are owned by individuals, and not all by one person.
Mrs. Cooke said she is inclined not to approve this application unless somehow the
owners of the units can be made to bring them into compliance with the standard requirements
for mobile hOme units. This is a prime location in the County. There are a number of
permanent residents who have built around the back of this property who have complained to
her about the problems of this particular mobile home park. She has no problem with the park
being there, but she does have a problem with it not being in compliance with safety and
aesthetic concerns. She thinks the Board should require the proper screening all the way
around the back of the property. Mr. Horne said the Board can do that, it was not included
in the staff's recommendations.
Mrs. Cooke said given the location of the park, and in consideration of the neighbors
who have invested a tremendous amount of money in their properties, if the trailer park is
going to be there, it should be brought into compliance.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if it is within the Board's power to approve this applica-
tion with the conditions recommended. Mr. St. John said it is within the Board's powers.
Mr. Bowie said he does not particularly care how it is done, but if it needs to be brought up
to standard within 90 days, it should be done. However, he asked if the units on Hydraulic
Road could not be lined up perpendicular to the road instead of parallel, and screening
installed. Mr. Horne said the condition did not contemplate screening along Hydraulic Road,
but current mobile home standards would require screening. Mr. Fisher asked if the zoning
ordinance section quoted requires screening all the way around. Mr. Horne said it would in
theory.
Mrs. Cooke said with the increased traffic and development on Hydraulic Road, she would
be inclined to support the staff's recommendation about moving the units along Hydraulic
Road. She also thinks the rest of the park should be brought into compliance as listed in
the conditions. She has no problem with supporting the extension of the sewer line.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees that the screening should be provided, but there is not enough
room to do it along Hydraulic Road. He would like to allow them to move as many of the eight
trailers as they can and still comply with screening. Mr. Horne said because of physical
limitations, they can not meet current spacing requirements, but might be able to get two or
three of the units on the other portion of the park. Mrs. Cooke said she realizes there is a
possibility the trailer park will lose some units. The area is so congested and unsafe, she
feels someone will have to "bite the financial bullet" and do what has to be done to save the
whole area. She is not willing to approve anything unless the park can be brought into some
kind of compliance with current requirements for mobile home parks.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Conditions 92 and #3 be combined into the same paragraph, and
third sentence be added reading: "provided, however, that the Board of Supervisors will
consider a plan for relocation of the mobile homes fronting on Route 743, if such a plan is
submitted within three months of the date of approval;" He said that would give the Board a
chance to review the plan for relocation and if that is approved, there would still be time
to relocate the trailers within the year. If not, the trailers would have to be removed.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with that suggestion. Mr. Bowie said that seems fair.
Mr. Fisher asked for a motion for approval with Condition ~2 to stand but with 93 being
added to the end of 92, thus stating: "No more than 18 mobile homes are to allowed on the
property at any one time; provided, however, the Board of Supervisors will consider a plan if
submitted within three months of the date of approval for relocation on site of some of these
units. Mr. Bowie said he wants to clarify that the screening will have to be in compliance
with the current ordinance requirements. Mr. Horne said that is essentially on all property
boundaries in this case. Mrs. Cooke said She would make such a motion. Mr. Bowie gave
second and said he knows there are a lot of requirements, and normally this request would not
be approved at all, but it meets such a housing need, that he wants to meet that need. He
also realizes that once the sewer is in place, that is the Board's last chance to bring the
property more into compliance with what it should be.
Mrs. Cooke said there are numerous problems existing on that site. She thinks that to
bring something good to all involved, there must be trade-offs. If some units are lost in
order to bring better living conditions to a few less people, that is important. For that
reason, she made the motion.
Mr. St. John said he had a procedural question. If the Board intends that these condi-
tions not be severable from the approval itself, that should be stated now. Mr. St. John
asked if the Board intended that the conditions be met before the sewer extension is actually
made, or does the Board intend to allow the sewer extension to be made now, and have these
conditions as a force of law to insure compliance.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks the sewer would need to be put into place before these things
can be complied with. Mr. Horne said it was the intent that the sewer be extended as soon as
possible because of the health hazard involved. If the conditions are not complied with on
the timetable given, it was his intent that the approval be rescinded. Mr. St. John said the
County might go to court and get an injunction ordering that the conditions be complied with,
but he questions whether the approval can be rescinded after the sewer lines are in the
ground. Mr. Fisher asked if this improvement should be bonded. Mr. St. John said he was not
5O3
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
sure, but that is the reason he raised the question. What would haPpen if the owners of the
land changed, and a new person refused to meet these conditions? Mrs. Cooke asked if another
condition could be added requiring that the conditions be met in some time frame. Mr.
St. John said that is what the Board is doing, but how would that condition be enforced if
the sewer were in the ground and in use?
Mr. Fisher asked if this could be done by contract. Mr. St. John said that is a promise
that can be enforced, but how is it enforced? You can't turn off the sewer simply by writing
a letter saying the approval for sewer is rescinded. Mr. Fisher said this would normally be
handled through bonding. Mrs. Cooke asked if such a condition can be added. Mr. St. John
said it can. If the Board intends that these conditions be inseverable from the approval,
that should be so stated. That is a legalism which means that by accepting the approval, the
applicant necessarily accepts the conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to suggest some language. Mr. St. John said to say that
"we deem the apProval for the extension to be inseverable from the conditions attached to
that approval." Mrs. Cooke asked if that would be condition No. 7. Mr. St. John said to
place that statement after all of the conditions. Mrs. Cooke said that Condition No. 6 would
concern a bond. Mr. St. John said that the actual extension should not be made until a bond
has been posted to assure performance of all the conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Cooke if she accepted those two suggestions as part of the motion.
Mrs. Cooke said she did accept those suggestions.
Mr. St. John said he feels the Board should get the applicant's response to these
suggestions, and have on record his acceptance of this mechanism if he is going to accept it.
If he will not accept this mechanism, the Board will have that before it when voting on the
motion.
Mr. Fisher asked the applicant to speak. Mr. Treakle said that without conferring with
his client, in principle they agree, but it will be a question of "crunching the numbers" to
see if it is possible. At this time, he is not in a position to comment as to what Mr.
Patterson would say, it may not be economically feasible. Mr. St. John said if this approval
passes, Mr. Patterson is not mandated to do the improvements.
Mr. Treakle said he would like an opportunity to review the letter from Mr. Horne, the
minutes, or confer with his client. Mr. St. John said he did not think the Board should vote
until "you state whether it is acceptable to you". Mr. Treakle said he has no problem with
the conditions not being severable from the approval. He does not believe there is any
trouble with the bonding condition. It is not clear to him as to where they came out on the
road improvement under the motion now before the Board. Mr. Fisher said that condition
remains as recommended by the staff. If Mr. Patterson is going to accept the right to extend
the sewer, the question is whether he also accepts all of the conditions.
Mr. St. John said if the Board extends the jurisdiction of the Albemarle County Service
Authority and sewer is put on this property, even with these conditions, there is no condi-
tion that this trailer park will exist forever, and there will be an area zoned RA that has
sewer and water services. This is grounds for an application to rezone to a higher density.
Mr. St. John said he is not against this motion, there is a health hazard here, but the Board
has not articulated its thinking in this case. There is a clear and present health hazard
here which normally takes precedence over any other kind of consideration. Mr. St. John said
that sewer has been extended before into the watershed for that reason; there is precedence
for this, that was also to pre-existing uses in the watershed area. When the sewer is
extended into this area, it will stay there, it will not leave when this trailer park goes
out of existence. The trailer park may not be there indefinitely, but the sewer and water
will be there permanently. Mr. St. John asked what would happen if the Board did approve
extending sewer services to the trailer park and six months later someone requested rezoning
on the grounds that there was water and sewer service to this property. The Panorama site, a
high-density, multi-family area, is right next to the trailer park. Bigger changes than the
Board anticipates could result from furnishing sewer services to 18 mobile homes.
Mr. Bowie said he did think about it that way, but there is a public health hazard, and
a specific housing need, and he personally would have no problem to vote against a rezoning.
This action is to meet a current need. Mr. St. John said there is a letter from the Health
Department about the health hazard. Mr. Bowie said he assumes that is in the record.
Mr. Treakle said "we will accept the conditions with the approval". Mr. Fisher noted
that there was someone else present who had not spoken tonoght. Mr. Gary Rice said he is
with the Health Department so if there is any question related to the particular question
about the health hazard, he has some information, and in particular the diagram showing where
the leakage is going into the watershed area.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowie, as the seconder of the motion, if he would accept the
amendments to the motion. Mr. Bowie said he would.
Mr. Fisher said he will vote for this only because he feels there is a need for mobile
homes in this area, and like Mr. Bowie, he makes no commitment to, in fact would oppose, any
change in zoning on this property. He does not want this action which is designed to help
both the public health and the housing needs to be used against the county in any future
action or rezoning.
At this time, roll was called on the motion to approve this request and amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for sewer service to include the
Triangle Mobile Home Park, Tax Map 45, Parcel 24, subject to the following conditions with
the stipulation that approval of this extension of sewer service is inseverable from the
conditions attached to this approval. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
(Note: The conditions of approval are as set out below:)
0
Sewer service is to be provided to the existing structures only. This
includes permanent residential structures, commercial structures, and
mobile homes;
Those mobile homes fronting on Rt. 743 are to be removed within one
(1) year of the Board of Supervisors approval of this request. No
more than eighteen (18) mobile homes are to be allowed on the property
at any one time; provided, however, that the Board of Supervisors will
consider a plan if submitted within three (3) months of the date of
approval for relocation on the site of some of these units;
Within ninety (90) days of Board of Supervisors approval of this
request the following shall be accomplished:
a. The existing unoccupied/damaged mobile home and other appliances
currently stored on the northwest portion of the site are to be
removed;
b. All mobile homes are to be installed or brought into compliance
with the Virginia Uniform and Statewide Building Code and the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance installation requirements;
c. One (1) eight cubic yard dumpster is to be installed with an
enclosure on the site. The site of the dumpster and the enclo-
sure are to be approved by the Director of Planning & Community
Development;
Within one hundred and eighty (180) days of the Board of Supervisors
approval of this request, the following is to be accomplished:
a. Parking/roads within the mobile home park area are to be resur-
faced in compliance with Section 5.3.8.2(2) of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance;
b. Screening shall be installed in accordance with Section 5.3.8.7
of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
The actual extension of the sewer line will not be made until after a
bond has been posted to assure performance of all of the conditions.
(Note: At 10:58 p.m., Mr. Henley and Mr. St. John left the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-87-01. To amend the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3.0, Defini-
tions, by the addition of a new definition of "inoperative motor vehicle"; and repealer of
the current definition of "inoperable vehicle." Purpose of amendment is to bring the
definition into agreement with Code of Virginia definition. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
ZTA-87-01 INOPERATIVE MOTOR VEHICLE
Origin: Zoning Department
Public Purpose to be Served: Bring County definition into conformance with
Code of Virginia definition to improve compliance/ enforcement provisions.
Staff Comment: The Zoning Administrator and County Attorney's office have
developed proposed zoning text amendments regarding inoperative motor vehicles.
Enforcement of current regulations has been a problem consuming large amounts
of staff time often with repeat violation or other unsatisfactory results.
Note that the proposed amendments authorize the Zoning Administrator after due
notice to cause removal of an inoperative motor vehicle without seeking other
remedies, and to charge the property owner for costs incurred for removal
and/or disposal. The amendments to accomplish this, are as follows:
(1) In Section 3.0, DEFINITIONS, add a new definition of "inoperative motor
vehicle," as follows:
Inoperative Motor Vehicle: Any motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, as
such are defined in Virginia Code Section 46.1-1, which is not in operat-
ing condition; or which for a period of sixty days or longer has been
partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and wheels, the
engine, or other essential parts required for the operation of the vehicle
or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates nor a valid
inspection decal.
(2) By repealing of the present definition of "inoperable vehicle" which read;
wh~eh-~s-~egu~e~-B~-~he-S~a~e-ef-V~§~n~a-~e-~s~aM-e~e~-~ee~se
p~a~es-a~e~-mee~-sa~e~y-s~a~a~s-as-ev~e~ee~-By-~s~aM-~-a~-app~e~
~mspee~m-s~e~e~7-wh~eh-~eh~e~eT-~a~e~-e~-a~aehmem~-~he~e~-~ees-~
(3) By amending and reenacting Section 4.13.2, as follows:
4.13.2
LIMITATION ON PARKING/STORAGE OF ~NSPERABAE-WEH~SAES INOPERATIVE
MOTOR VEH1CLES
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
No ~n~pe~aB~e-veh~e~e inoperative motor vehicle shall be located ~
in any agricultural or residential district, including the RA Rural
Areas district, except within a fully enclosed building or structure
or otherwise shielded or screened from view ss-as-~8-Be-v~s~B~e from
a public road or adjoining property. Not more than two (2) such
vehicles shall be located on any such lot regardless of location.
4.13.2.1
The owner of any parcel in any such district shall remove from such
property any such inoperative motor vehicle promDtly uDon the order
of the zoning administrator to do so, within such reasonable time as
may be prescribed in such order.
4.13.2.2
Any person who shall fail to comply with such order shall be deemed
to be in violation of this section.
4.13.2.3
Whenever such owner has failed to remove any such inoperative motor
vehicle, after reasonable notice, the zoning administrator shall have
the authority to do so. In the event that the zoning administrator
removes any such motor vehicle, after having given such reasonable
notice, he shall dispose of the same after giving additional reason-
able notice to the owner of the vehicle. Such additional notice
shall be given to the last owner listed upon the records of the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. The cost of any such removal
and disposal shall be charged to the owner of the premises and may be
collected as taxes and levies are collected. Every such cost with
which the owner of the premises has been assessed shall constitute a
lien against the property from which the vehicle was removed, the
lien to continue until actual payment of such costs has been made
to the county.
The public hearing was opened. With no one to speak for or against this amendment, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer an action on this
amendment until June 10, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Agenda Item No. 12. ZTA-87-02. To amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 30.3, FLOOD
HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT to incorporate revisions to the National Flood Plain Management
criteria: (1) to define "start of construction;" (2) to require fully enclosed structures to
be designed to allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters to equalize hydrostatic flood
forces; and (3) to require reasonable usage of any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from a Federal, State or other source. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
May 19, and May 26, 1987.)
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
Origin: Planning staff
Public Purpose to be Served: Maintain Albemarle County eligibility for
National Flood Insurance Program.
Staff Comment: As a condition of continued eligibility for participation in
the National Flood Insurance Program, Albemarle County is required to revise
its flood management regulations to conform to recent revisions in Federal
regulations (i.e. - final rule).
ae
Definition of Start of Construction: The final rule modifies the
definition of "start of construction" to eliminate inconsistences in
treatment between pile and column structures and other types of foun-
dations and to incorporate revisions regarding "manufactured homes.''
(The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance prohibits dwellings of all types
including manufactured homes within the FH district, therefore, no
ordinance changes regarding manufactured homes are necessary).
Recommendation: Amend 30.3.2.1, DEFINITIONS - GENERALLY, to include
definition of "start of construction" as follows:
30.3.2.1 DEFINITIONS--GENERALLY
f®
Start of construction for the purpose of this section only
includes substantial improvement, and means the date the
building permit was issued, provided the actual start of
construction, repair, reconstruction, placement, or other
improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The
actual start means either the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of
slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction
of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation.
Permanent conStruction does not include land preparation,
such as clearing, gradinq and fillinq~ nor does it include
the installation of streets and/or walkways~ nor does it
include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or
June 3, 1987 (.Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it
include the installation on the property of accessory build-
ings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units
or not part of the main structure.
Bo
Use of Available Flood Data~ Use of Openings in Enclosures Below a
Structure's Lowest Floor: The final rule requires localities to make
usage of available flood data in development reviews. Also, fully
enclosed buildings are required to be designed to allow automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters to equalize hydrostatic flood forces.
Recommendation: Amend 30.3.3.2 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; BUILDING PERMIT;
GRADING PERMIT as follows:
30.3.3.2 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT; BUILDING PERMIT; GRADING PERMIT
In order to comply with the requirements of the regular program of
the National Flood Insurance Program, no construction or other
development shall be undertaken without prior issuance by the
zoning administrator of a development permit. The purpose of such
permit shall be to determine the effects of the proposed con-
struction or development on the flood carrying capacity of the
watercourse. No development permit shall be issued for any use,
structure, activity, fill, new construction, substantial impro-
vements or other development which in the opinion of the county
engineer would result in any increase in flood levels during the
occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge. In making such
determination, the county engineer shall obtain, review, and
reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from a Federal, State, or other source and may request
assistance from the Federal Insurance Administration, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers and such other qualified agencies
and persons as he deems appropriate.
Where buildings, and structures and substantial improvements
thereto are permitted under the terms of this section within any
subdistrict of the flood hazard overlay district, the same shall
be designed and/or modified to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement as a result of flooding and shall be constructed
only in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code for potential hazards. In addition,
materials and utility equipment employed in such construction
shall be resistant to flood damage. For all new construction and
substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest
floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to auto-
matically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by
allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for
meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the
following minimum criteria: a minimum of two (2) openings having
a total net area of not less than one (1) square inch for every
square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be pro-
vided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one (1)
foot above grade. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers,
or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the
automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
For purposes of the regular program, the zoning administrator, at
time of issuance of a building permit for new construction, shall
make and maintain record of: the one hundred year flood elevation
on the lot or parcel on which the building or structure is to be
located; the elevation of the lowest floor of such building or
structure, including basement or cellar; and where flood proofing
of the building or structure is proposed, the elevation of the
finished flood proofing.
No building permit, including special footings and foundation
permits, or grading permit, shall be issued within any subdistrict
of the flood hazard overlay district until the applicant for such
permit has demonstrated to the reasonable satisfaction of the
zoning administrator that all necessary permits and/or other
approvals have been received from those governmental agencies from
which approval is required by fe~e~a~-e~-s~a~e-~awT-~e~~
See~en-484-~E-~he Federal Water Pollution Control Acts Amendments
of 1972, 33 U. S. C. 1334.
The public hearing was opened. With no one to speak for or against the amendment, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to defer any action on this
amendment until June 10, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Paqe 17)
Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: Victim Witness Program. Mr. Agnor said a State
grant for the Victim Witness program for expenditures of travel and supplies was received
earlier this year and has not been incorporated into this fiscal year's budget. The travel
expenditure is used to reimburse the volunteers for local travel in the program. He
requested that the Board approve an appropriation of these funds.
Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriation: River Heights Storm Drainage System. Mr. Agnor
said an appropriation of $1500 is requested so the staff may expend the funds to repair a
storm drainage system at River Heights. Funds for these repairs are from a $5000 defaulted
bond of River Heights Limited Partnership.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolutions:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,827.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Victim Witness Fund for expenditures of this program; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,500.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the General Fund for repairs to River Height Storm Drainage
System; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriation: Burley Middle School Renovation Project.
Agnor said the following letter dated June 2, 1987, had been received from Mr. Andy
Overstreet, Superintendent of Schools:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Guy B. Agnor, County Executive
N. Andrew Overstreet, Superintendent
Burley Middle School Renovation Project
June 2, 1987
As you are aware, the Board of Supervisors approved the subject project at a
funding level of $2.2 million, but held $300,000 in reserve pending receipt
of bids.
On May 28, 1987 we received only two bids for the project. The low bidder,
R.E. Lee of Charlottesville bid $2,355,000 against a construction budget of
$1,900,000 or approximately $450,000 over budget.
We are currently negotiating with the contractor in hopes of bringing the
project within budget. If this can be accomplished we will need to secure a
contract immediately so as not to delay construction. The contractor will
need to begin his work the day school ends for summer vacation if the school
is to be open for fall classes on time.
It is obvious that we will need the full release of funds in order to
proceed. I would appreciate your efforts in securing this release.
Preliminary discussions have revealed that the absence of more bidders and a
higher than anticipated cost is the result of a very limited time con-
straint. Without alternatives for relocating students we cannot negotiate
occupancy.
Mr.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve a transfer of
$300,000 from the reserve of the CIP. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:07 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; February 19, March 5 (After-
noon), December 3, December 10, 1986; March 4 (Night), March 9, 1987.
Mr. Fisher said he had read the minutes of February 19, 1986, pages 10 to the end, and
found only two typographical errors. Motion to approve these minutes was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
June 3, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None,
ABSENT: Mrl Henley.
Agenda Item No. 15.
Public.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from th~ Board and the
Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Jack Hodge from the Highway Department will be present at a
meeting here on June 16, 1987, at 3:30 p.m. in Meeting Room 7 to give a report of the Highway
Commission oh the geometric study of the expressway idea for the Route 29 North improvements.
Mr. Fisher said the 5 C's Committee will have a meeting on June 8, 1987, and
Commissioner Ray Pethtel will be in Charlottesville at noon in the Caplin Auditorium of the
University of Virginia Law School.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for a report from the staff on a tire store or tire operation on
Hydraulic Road across from the Triangle Trailer Court. Mr. Lindstrom also asked about the
flea market on Route 250 East which is in operation every Saturday. Mr. Bowie said he has
heard three times that the County is taking this matter to court, and nothing has happened.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 11:15 p.m., with no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
~~ir~man-