1986-07-09July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1 )
111
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
July 9, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, 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 Lindst~om and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:01 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve 4.1 and 4.2
and to accept the remaining items as information. 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.
Item 4.1. Street Signs for: Whippoorwill Hollow, Carrsbrook and Canterbury Hills.
Letter was received from Mr. James H. Hill of Virginia Land Company requesting a replacement
street sign for Bobwhite Court in Whippoorwill Hollow and a sign for Gloucester Court in
Carrsbrook Subdivision. A letter was received from Mrs. Sally W. McGetrick, a resident of
Canterbury Hills Subdivision, requesting a sign. The following resolutions were adopted by
the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Thrush.Road (State Route 1616) at its intersection with Bobwhite
Court (State Route 1617);
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Gloucester Road (State Route 1424) at its intersection with
Gloucester Court (State Route 1325);
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Westminster Road (State Route 1404) at its intersection with
Barracks Road (State Route 654); and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
Item 4.2. Contract: Piedmont Virginia Community College Bus Route. The following
memorandum from the County Executive dated July 3, 1986, was received, and authorization to
execute the agreement as request was given by the vote shown above:
112
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 2)
"The annual agreement that grants Charlottesville contractual authority to
operate a bus service to the Community College within the territorial
jurisdiction of the County has been forwarded for my signature. The agree-
ment allows the City to operate without obtaining a certificate of conve-
nience and necessity from the State Corporation Commission.
The agreement reads identically to the current agreement, with the addition
of an annual automatic renewal clause each year on July 1 unless the City or
County gives notice of termination by March 1 preceding each renewal date.
As you recall, there are no County funds involved.
Authority to execute the agreement is requested."
Item 4.3. Letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated June 27,
1986, accepting roads in Fieldbrook Subdivision into State Secondary System, was received as
follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 21, 1986, the following additions
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
June 30, 1986.
ADDITIONS
FIELDBROOK SUBDIVISION
Route 652 (Old Brook Road) - From 0.80 mile NE
Route 631 to 0.03 mile West Route 1441
LENGTH
0.09 Mi.
Route 652 (Westmoreland Road) - From Route 1441
to 0.03 mile West Route 1441
0.03 Mi.
Route 1330 (Bixham Lane) - From Route 652
to South cul-de-sac
0.09 Mi.
Route 1331 (Redington Lane) - From Route 652
to South cul-de-sac
0.11 Mi."
Item 4.4. Letter from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, dated June 27, 19'86,
regarding "Experimental Tree Trimming Project", was received as information:
"Thank you for your letter of June 19 concerning the tree trimming project.
It is apparent that you have the same interests as expressed by the Town of
Ashland, Virginia.
The Highway and Transportation Board Sign Committee, considering all the
correspondence for and against the project, invited persons that represented
all such interests at a meeting on April 16, 1986. The following organiza-
tions were represented: The Garden Club of Virginia, The Virginia Federa-
tion of Garden Clubs, The Council on the Environment, The Virginia Municipal
League, as well as: The Outdoor Advertising Association of Virginia, The
Virginia Retail Merchants' Association, Mamie Vest and Associates, and
Virginians to Outlaw Drunk Driving. Each of these groups' representatives
stated their position relative to supporting the pilot project. The Virgin-
ia Municipal League adequately represented the cities and towns of the
state.
Based on this input, the Highway and Transportation Board on May 15, 1986,
approved an experimental policy allowing a limited amount of cutting in
front of conforming billboards and businesses. The Board felt this was the
most reasonable compromise to respond to both industry and those who oppose
tree trimming.
I am enclosing a copy of the experimental policy that was passed by the
Board on May 15 for your information. Again, thank you for taking the time
to let me know your feelings on this matter."
Item 4.5. Resolution received from City Council re:
way, was received as follows:
McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Park-
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
presented the City with a draft environmental impact statement for the
proposed widening and extension of McIntire Road, State Project Nos.
U000-104-102, PE101 and 0631-002-128, C502; and
WHEREAS, that draft environmental impact statement includes several
alternative alignments for the extension of McIntire Road or "Meadowcreek
Parkway"; and
After reviewing the proposed alternatives, City Council has concluded
that one of them is unacceptable; now therefore be it
RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, that
the Council shall advise the Department of Highways and Transportation it
deems Alternative Alignment B, proposed in the December 1985 draft environ-
mental impact statement for the McIntire Road project to be unacceptable
because of the dislocation of existing residences and other disruptive
effects it would have in the Park Street neighborhood.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
Item 4.6. The County Executive's Financial Report for MaY, 1986, was received in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602, along with the following, memorandum from Mr.
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance:
"A review of the County's financial reports for the period of July 1, 1985
through May 31, 1986, reveals that actual revenue in most cases will meet or
exceed budget projections and with a few minor exceptions, all expenditures
will be within approved appropriations.
Current projections show three General Fund departments with possible
overexpenditures. All would be for minor amounts and we are monitoring this
closely to avoid overexpenditures if possible. The appropriation for
refunds will be overexpended by $15,000 to $20,000. This results from under
budgeting of Land Use Deferrals in the amount of $41,548.49.
Discussions with David Papenfuse show no significant concerns in the School
Fund. Projections through June 30, 1986 indicate that the School Fund
Balance will be adequate for funding of 1986/87 appropriations as projected
in the 1986/87 budget.
Three activities listed under Other Funds are currently showing over-
expenditures.
The 1984/85 TIPS Grant shows an overexpenditure of $589, however
revenue from this Grant exceeded projections by $598. Several
matters need to be finalized to close out this Grant and a request
will be made for an additional appropriation in the near future.
The Community Education Program which is a self-sustaining activi-
ty shows a current overexpenditure of $50,216. Revenues have
exceeded projections by $41,424, a difference of $8,792. I have
been assured that June revenues will make up this difference and
that the School Board will be requesting an additional appro-
priation for this program.
The Textbook Rental Fund is currently overexpended by $4,175. The
School Board is aware of this and plans to request an additional
appropriation to be funded from the School Fund Balance.
The Finance Department will continue to monitor the above situations and
request corrective action as needed. However, I feel that any corrective
action should be deferred until the latter part of July in order to be sure
of the final amounts required."
Item 4.7. A copy of "Employment and Wages in Virginia, Third Quarter, 1985" prepared by
the Virginia Employment Commission, was received as information and is on file.
Item 4.8. A copy of "Economic Analysis of Travel in Virginia, 1985" as prepared by the
State Division of Tourism, was received and is on file.
Item 4.9. A copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for its meeting on June 24, 1986,
was received as information.
Item 4.10.
as information.
A copy of the Annual Report of the Sheriff dated July 1, 1986, was received
Item 4.11. The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive,
dated July 2, 1986, entitled "Sheriff's Approved Compensation Board Budget for FY 1986-87"
was received as information:
"The State Compensation Board did not approve the additional position
requested by the Sheriff and only approved $1500 in overtime. The $1500
would have been adequate with the new position. Frequently, the Courts
extend beyond 5 p.m., most of the mental patients are transported in the
evening hours, and he has to send for prisoners being jailed in other
localities around the state. All of these situations create overtime for
his deputies.
Staff in conjunction with the Sheriff have requested the Compensation Board
to increase the overtime allowance from $1500 to $4500. This may be done by
the Compensation Board as a 'trade-off' in lieu of the additional deputy..
If approved, all of the overtime costs would be reimbursed by the state.
However, the new position, if allowed, would have required additional local
costs for a vehicle, radio, uniforms, and health insurance. So the overtime
option is considerably less costly.
Simultaneously with the amended request above, staff retained the appeal
option pursuant to the Code of Virginia. This was done to meet the 30 day
limitation from the time of notice. My conversation, as well as the Sher-
iff's conversation, with the Compensation Board staff, indicates a good
possibility that the appeal will not be necessary. If the appeal option is
necessary, two members of the Board of Supervisors will join the three
members of the Compensation Board to make a five member Board to consider
the Sheriff's request.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
Attached is an acknowledgment of the receipt of the staff's notice of
appeal. Hopefully, this type of action is not necessary. However, the
staff is very supportive of the Sheriff in his request for $4500 in overtime
to solve the problem. If approved, the Sheriff's budget will have to be
amended to incorporate the additional fundtng."
Item 4.12. Letter from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated
June 27, 1986, accepting Georgetown Court into the State Secondary System of Highways, was
received as follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated July 13, 1983, the following addition
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
June 30, 1986.
ADDITION
GEORGETOWN COURT SUBDIVISION
Route 1335 (Court Place) - From Route 656
to SE cul-de-sac
LENGTH
0.12 Mi."
Item 4.13. Copy of letter from the State Division of Historic Landmarks, dated June 26,
1986, notifying Mr. Peter William and Mrs. M. Jae A. Sushka that "High Meadows" has been
entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received as information.
Item 4.14. Copy of Planning Commission Schedule for Comprehensive Plan Revisions, was
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 26, October 9, October 16, November 6
(afternoon), November 6 (night), and November 13, 1985.
Mr. Bowie said there were some typographical errors on the November 13, 1985, minutes.
Also, on Page 5, in the middle of the first paragraph, add the word "contractor" in the ninth
sentence between the words "whether" and "A". He also commented on the County Executive's
quarterly report on the merit system of last year. He said it was pointed out that 56
percent of the employees would qualify for a merit raise unless an adjustment was made, and
that is apparently what happened.
Mr. Lindstrom said that there were a couple of typographical errors on October 9, 1985,
minutes. Also, at the top of Page Nine add the word "said" to the first sentence so that is
will read: "Mr. Lindstrom said he feels .... "
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve minutes from November 13, 1985, Pages 1 - 10,
and October 9, 1985, pages 1 - 9. 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. 6a. Highway Matters. Road Study: Roads not a part of the Secondary
System. The following memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated July 3,
1986, entitled "County Attorney's Summary on Four County Roads Not in State System" was
received as follows:
"The attached letter summarizes the circumstance and current estimated costs
of getting four existing roads into the State system. It is recommended
that if action is taken to proceed with these road problems, that the Board
consider the procedure described in the last paragraph on Page 2 for financ-
ing, which would share one-half the construction cost between the County and
lot owners along each road, provided 75 percent of those owners agree.
Although these roads and others have differing circumstances involved in
their not being in the State system, that procedure for sharing the costs
appears to be equitable and applicable to most road situations, and would
seem to address the matter of any precedent being created for other unknown
road problems."
The following letter from the County Attorney to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, dated June 27, 1986, was also received:
"This letter is my report to the Board on feasibility of getting four roads
into the State System: North Berkshire, Peyton Drive, Milton Drive, and
Dunromin Road. I will discuss these roads separately in that order. I got
the information from the Engineering office, Planning office, and the Deed
Books in the Clerk's office.
1. North Berkshire: This road is part of Oak Terrace subdivision.
The plat of that subdivision was put to record October 19, 1960, having been
approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in April, 1960.
The developers were Harry D. and Mildred G. Faulconer. The plat is recorded
at Deed Book 363, page 99. There is no record of any bond having been
posted. Estimated cost of repair is $3,800.00. There is no record as to
whether the approval of the plat was conditioned on the road being in the
State System. The roads are dedicated to public use, but this does not
constitute a condition that they be either constructed to State standards or
put into the system.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
2. Peyton Drive: This road is in Westfield subdivision, the plat of
which was put to record August 15, 1968. Developer was West Realty Company,
by Dr. Charles W. Hurt. The plat is at Deed Book 447, page 258. Dr. Hurt
submitted a personal check for the bond, which was not accepted, and there
is a letter in the planning office file from him requesting that the bond
for Hollymead Phase I be transferred to Peyton Drive, that letter being
dated January 17, 1973. The Hollymead Phase I bond was released December 4,
1978. Estimated cost of repair is $32,050.00. There is no record of
approval conditions requiring this road be in the State system. Peyton
Drive, as opposed to the other three roads does not serve single family
residences but serves the Comdial parking lot, and the Jefferson Towne
Apartments.
3. Milton Drive: This road is in Milton Heights subdivision, the
plat of which was put to record September 19, 1958. Developers were John
and Fairy Geiger. Plat is at Deed Book 343, page 64. This subdivision was
created before the County had any subdivision, zoning, or other land use
controls, or any planning commission or planning office; land was developed
totally under the free market system meaning that the owner hired a surveyor
to lay off the lots and roads, and simply took the plat to the Clerk's
Office for recordation. It was up to the buyer of a lot, and his attorney,
to contracturally bind the developer to construct the road to whatever
standard they deemed appropriate, and get it into the State system. There-
fore, of course, there were no conditions of approval, and no bond. Cost of
improvements: $29,400.00.
4. Dunromin Road: This road is in Clearview Meadows subdivision, plat
of which was put to record March 19, 1973. Developers were J. Paul Martin
and wife and Richard E. Hurlbut and wife. Plat is of record in Deed Book
525, page 231 and notation in the planning and zoning files indicate con-
struction of the road was completed according to State standards, and the
bond released. However, the road was not put into the system because at
that time there were not three houses on it. Since then it has deteriorat-
ed. Cost of construction will be $5,555.00.
There is no way the County can require the original developer to contribute
to the upgrading of these roads nor will the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation contribute to this. If 75 percent of the owners agree in
writing, then all of the owners of each road can be assessed to provide a
total amount equal to half of the construction costs; the other half would
have to be provided by the County treasury. Unless this option is imple-
mented, then it will be up to the owners along each road to act individually
or as a group, to upgrade the road and get it into the system.
We are informed by staff that these four roads are typical of many other
similarly situated roads in the County."
Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a request from some constituents that this be sched-
uled for their ability to participate at an evening meeting. He suggested hearing Mr.
Roosevelt's comments, and then scheduling a summary for an evening meeting. He will see that
the people who have expressed interest get a copy of the report. He thinks they should
understand the details of how this will work.
Mr. Bowie stated that Milton Drive is in his district, and he would like to learn more
about what the options are and what can be done. Mr. Way agreed that if there are citizens
who want to have input, then they should be allowed to do so. Mr. Agnor commented that Mr.
St. John had prepared the summary of individual roads and that Mr. Elrod had prepared a
report on these roads earlier in the year. The roads were prioritized into three different
priorities, and these four roads that Mr. St. John has furnished information on are the four
that were in priority number one.
Mr. St. John said the report is self-explanatory. The staff was instructed to find
alternatives for getting the roads into the system. The staff was not pointed in the direc-
tion of vacating the right-of-way and possibly turning these roads into private roads with a
homeowners' agreement, but that is one option that is available. He commented that the money
has got to come either from the citizens or the County in some proportion among these two
sources. He said it is impossible in any of these four cases to go to court and require the
developer now to complete these roads and get them into the system.
Mr. Fisher said that in any event, this option would leave it to a vote of the property
owners, and unless 75 percent agree to the funding method, it is not going to happen anyway.
Mr. Way read the last sentence of the report which indicated that these four roads are
typical of many other similarly situated roads in the County, and he asked what the implica-
tions are. Mr. Fisher commented that an earlier staff report listed some priorities, but
these four roads were top priority, even though there are others.
Mr. Agnor stated that this is a list of fourteen roads which known to the staff. He
said that the report indicates that there could be as many as twenty roads that need assis-
tance, but they are unknown. He said that the anticipation is that if action is started on
some of these fourteen roads, there may be others that may arise of which the staff is
unaware.
Mr. St. John said the Board had asked his office staff to see if there is any remedy
against the developers because if there is, the longer you wait, the weaker the position you
are in when you try to get the developer to do the work.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 6 )
Mr. Lindstrom stated that a new piece of information had come to light through this
report relative to Dunromin Road which is in his district. He said that he ~nd the property
owners understand that the bond was prematurely released, and as a result the road was never
brought into the state system. He felt that this is a problem the County had created. He
learned subsequently that the reason the bond was released is because the County can only
hold the bond for a certain period of time, and there were not enough houses on the road at
that time to get the State Highway Department to accept the road for maintenance. He now
feels that the County is not responsible for any error under ~hose circumstances. He said
that these people, however, do have a problem and he asked that a time be set when they can
be present for a discussion.
Mr. Roosevelt said there are no State funds available to get these roads into the
system. Since the Subdivision Ordinance allows private roads, the County is not allowed to
use the section of the County's Code that was originally cited as a way of getting the roads
into the system. It means having to follow the state subdivision requirements to get these
roads into the system. He said that the County needs to be aware that this involves the
development of plans and the whole preliminary engineering procedure that any new subdivision
plan would go through. He brought out the fact that not only would cost of construction be
involved, but also the cost of development of plans and the review process.
Mr. St. John said that the Engineering Department had taken all of that into considera-
tion, and the estimates included that cost.
Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to suggest a time to have a night meeting concerning this
project, and it was decided that on September 3, 1986, discussion on this matter would
continue.
Mr. Bowie asked about setting a precedent when there could be more roads needing assis-
tance, and Mr. Fisher replied that a precedent had already been set several years ago. Mr.
Fisher commented that an unfinished road in a high volume traffic area in the Charlottesville
District was treated this way some years ago. He said that another one was done in the
Scottsville District. He said it is really hard for the people to come up with 50 percent of
the money in most cases.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, dated June
16, 1986, re: Road Construction Agreement - Mill Creek Subdivision.
"Attached is a copy of an agreement governing road construction within Mill
Creek Subdivision which was approved as ZMA-85-29 for Forest Hills by the
Board of Supervisors. At the time of approval the Board requested that when
the staff had finalized the wording of the agreement it should be submitted
to the Board for their review and approval. Since the approval of the PUD,
the staff of the County Attorney and this Department have been working with
Mr. Gilliam and Mr. Craig. This agreement is a product of those discus-
sions. I believe the agreement as it currently stands adequately protects
the interest of the County and the owners of the PUD."
Mr. Horne said that the Board had before it the current version of this agreement. His
office and the County Attorney's Office have reviewed the agreement and feel that it ade-
quately protect the interests of the County. He pointed out that they have received confir-
mation from the Highway Department that there is a mechanism available whereby a county can
enter into an agreement with an applicant whose intention it is to construct a roadway at a
standard lower than the ultimate design of that roadway. In this situation, however, there
would be a binding agreement that the County can enforce to require that if there is addi-
tional traffic through this development on the roadway, then the developer is obligated to
upgrade what would be a state maintained roadway. He said that is the concept that is talked
about in this agreement, although he does not think this agreement is specific enough now
about the East/West Collector Road shown in the Comprehensive Plan to tie that down. The
County Attorney's Office is looking agreements not only for collector roads, but also for
various other roads that would tie that concept into a separate agreement on construction for
the Collector Road. He believes another agreement will be ready shortly on that type of
roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom inquired about Paragraph Two of the agreement, and said there were two
ways to interpret it. One is that the construction by the developer of the first section
will be to those standards necessary to meet the traffic using that section of road. With
another section slated for construction, Mr. Lindstrom reads this as either the developer
will build that next section to whatever higher standard will be necessary, or he will build
not only that next section, but he will go back and improve the previous section to meet that
higher volume. Mr. Lindstrom wanted to know if it is the latter interpretation that is the
intent.
Mr. Horne replied it is intended that the developer will do both. The concept is that
the developer will not only build sections, but as traffic is added to various sections, the
developer will upgrade to the category needed for additional traffic areas. The additional
agreement that Mr. Horne talked about is needed from the Highway Department's point of view
to tie the developer specifically to the requirement that the County will enforce on him to
upgrade a portion of state maintained roadway.
Mr. Lindstrom read aloud part of Paragraph Two and focused on the words, "granted
access." He said that "granted access" means to him that they may not travel over a certain
section, but they have access to the Collector Road. He stated that when this is added to
the volume of traffic that previously existed that then sets the standard for the whole road,
including going back to a previously constructed section and upgrading that to the new
standard. Mr. Horne said they have spoken of both a section agreement and an upgrading
agreement. They will come back with an additional agreement on the upgrading, since that is
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7) -'
a very specific thing which the Highway Department needs to see in a very specific form,
because, potentially, it would be, in effect, a state maintained roadway to be upgraded,
instead of a private road.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if the County is patient enough and the developer builds the
whole PUD, the developer will have constructed the whole length of the Collector Road to the
ultimate design standard within the PUD. Mr. Horne replied, "yes," for the traffic generated
in that PUD, it will be built to that standard.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that this agreement only talks about the Reynovia Land
Trust and not its successors in title. He said it appears that this agreement can be obviat-
ed by simple transfer of ownership to a new entity. If that is the case, he feels it is not
worth the paper it is printed on. Mr. Lindstrom added that the agreement will be binding
upon the successors who sign it. Mr. Fisher stated that if the Board wishes to adopt some
such agreement, it needs to be included somewhere. Mr. Way agreed.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that under Paragraph Four, the Highway Department may say that it
will not take in a new section of road unless it is built to ultimate standards. This would
put the County in a position of having to agree to pay the cost of construction of the
Collector Road to the ultimate design standards. It would mean the difference between the
cost of building the road to the standard needed by the developer and what the Highway
Department says are the ultimate needs for that road; that could be a significant amount of
money. He does not think the County should enter into this agreement without being fully
aware that this may be a situation where no road will get into the State system unless the
County agrees to come up with a large sum of money.
Mr. Way said it is his understanding that one of the major things in favor of this
overall subdivision was the fact that the developer was going to be building this road,
because the other end of the road might have to be done at some point at County expense.
wants to be sure that it is very clear that the road is to be built at the developer's
expense. He thinks this was the consensus when the request was first presented.
He
Mr. Fisher commented that this agreement will have to be tightly drawn, because there
may be multiple owners in the future. He said he can see four or five people wanting to
develop with different ideas as to what are their obligations.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with the point of a binding agreement on the successors of the
trust. Although he supports the concept, he does not want the County to be put in a position
where the private road provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance have to be amended or the
County fund the entire construction cost to the ultimate design standards. He does not want
any County money going into anything but upgrading that road to the category that would be
necessary to handle through traffic with the difference between that and the total PUD
traffic being paid for by the developer.
Mr. Roosevelt mentioned that Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, had sent him a couple
of agreements. One agreement involved basically internal roads in the Mill Creek Subdivi-
sion. The question that was asked of the Department was if the Department would accept roads
built to less than ultimate standards if some mechanism was available to assure that they
would be upgraded to ultimate standards without using highway funds. The answer that was
sent back was that the Highway Department was willing to do this. They would take roads at
less than ultimate standards with the understanding that someone other than the Highway
Department would upgrade these roads in the future. He said the agreement on internal roads
binds the developer to improve the roads as traffic increases and probably protects the
County so that they do not have to put in additional money to upgrade the road. However, the
agreement that is being discussed at this meeting does not do that because he believes the
ultimate traffic on this through road is going to be considerably greater than the traffic
generated by the PUD. In fact, it could be greater to the extent that PUD will only have to
build a two lane road and ultimate traffic may require a four lane road. In that case, he
sees the County having to come up with half the ultimate cost of that road.~ He wants the
Board to understand that all the Highway Department has agreed to is to accept roads built to
less than the ultimate standard provided that somebody else pays for upgrading these roads to
the ultimate standard at some time in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what would happen if it gets to that point, and the County doesn't
want to spend the money? What will the Highway Department do then? Mr. Roosevelt answered
by saying that there would be two agreements involved in each of these cases. There would be
an agreement between the County and the developer to try to insure that the developer is
going to do what has to be done to upgrade the roads. There will be another agreement when
the road comes into the system between the County and the State. The County may refer to
this other agreement as a way of financing these ultimate improvements or at least part of
them. But when the State indicates to the County that this road has to be upgraded, then the
County will have to upgrade it. If the County did not live up to the agreement, then this
would be a basis for a lawsuit.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if this is an agreement that this Board can enter
into? Mr. St. John replied that the County cannot enter into that kind of an agreement, but
there is another alternative, if that point is reached. He thinks the Highway Department
would take into the State system what is now being called a through Collector Road, built
only to serve the PUD's traffic. Sometime in the future the County may decide that it does
not have the money to build this Collector Road and the concept will be struck from the
Comprehensive Plan. The fact that this roadway in the Comprehensive Plan is the only reason
the Highway Department is not going to take it in until it is built to the standards of a
through Collector Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the fact that it is shown as a through Collector
Road in the Comprehensive Plan would be the basis of the ultimate standard.
Mr. St. John commented that someone else, a few years from now, could conceivably strike
this road out of the Comprehensive Plan, get the PUD roads taken into the system, and then
readopt a Comprehensive Plan to show this road. But the Highway Department has remedies when
it runs into those kinds of problems. The alternative is to either build it or pay for the
118
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
difference between the road as a PUD road and a through Collector Road or strike it from the
Comprehensive Plan and abandon the idea of having a through Collector Road there. The Board
will have to make that decision at the time the road is to be taken into the system.
Mr. Horne disagreed. At the point when the road is to be taken into the system, there
will be an agreement stating that when and if there is a physical connection that loads the
additional traffic, then there is a mechanism to have the roads upgraded. The road would
have a cul-de-sac placed at that point, so there would be no additional traffic that would go
into the system, based on this agreement. They will not get into the through traffic con-
struction until they propose to physically connect the road to additional traffic.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that the point at which the Highway Department would say to the
County that this road needs to be built to the ultimate standards would be the time when the
County goes to the Highway Department and says that it wants a Connector Road through this
property to Fifth Street. When that road goes through, the rest of the road that is on the
system has to be upgraded to the ultimate standards.
Mr. Lindstrom discussed what would happen if the first section of this road serves 30
lots, but as the road goes into the development other sections that have been approved for
this phase are picked up. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he thinks the agreement has got to be
worded so that before the developer can sell any of the additional lots, he will have to
upgrade sections of the road. Mr. Lindstrom responded that the developer would have to
upgrade the sections of the road to whatever standards the Highway Department is requiring,
not to whatever standard may be applicable to the number of lots that they have actually
built.
Mr. Horne referenced a letter that the Highway Department has sent the County that seems
to be agreeing the lower standard could be built. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem is that
Highway Department policies can change from what they are agreeing to at this point unless
there is a binding agreement. Mr. Roosevelt suggested the solution would be that at the time
the County approves these roads to be built, an agreement should be entered into between the
Highway Department and the County. Mr. Lindstrom said as long as the County is not bound to
do something under the agreement now that the Highway Department might not agree to do at the
first step. Mr. Roosevelt stated that if it was a binding agreement, the Highway Department
could not back out of it. Mr. Lindstrom commented that the agreements need to be simul-
taneous so that the County does not agree with the developer to do one thing assuming that an
agreement will be made with the Highway Department, and then six months later when the
agreement is actually made with the Highway Department, it is different.
Mr. Horne said the first subdivision plat has been filed and is awaiting approval. It
does not affect the Collector Road, but it does affect the internal roadways which are
protected from the Highway Department's point of view with the agreement between Lake
Reynovia and Mill Creek which says if Lake Reynovia loads traffic on certain roads, then it
will be responsible for upgrading those state maintained roads. In order to proceed to the
point of signing the plat, the County will have to have an agreement on those internal
roadways. He has contacted the County Attorney's Office, and they are hoping to develop an
agreement. There are four or five other roadway situations like this, and they are hoping to
come up with a concept. He asked Mr. St. John if an agreement could be ready within 30 days.
Mr. St. John responded that he thinks they can have it much sooner than that.
Mr. Horne suggested that this first plat act as the impetus to get this issue with the
Highway Department settled. He said if the Board is uncomfortable with this concept, the
plat can be held until something can be developed.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that what Mr. Fisher suggested about making this agreement binding
upon successors in interest should be done. Secondly, he thinks that an agreement between
the County and the Highway Department should be reached at the same time the agreement is
signed with the developer.
Mr. Horne said the agreements between Reynovia and Mill Creek have been sent to the
Highway Department. He assumes they have been reviewed, due to the fact that a letter was
sent back suggesting some minor alterations.
Mr. Roosevelt commented that what has been reviewed are not agreements that involve the
Highway Department. They are between the County and the developer or between two developers.
All the Highway Department was asked to comment on was the concept for building these roads
in phases. They were asked if the Highway Department would accept the roads this way, and
the response was that it would. There still has to be a second agreement between the County
and the State. Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel uneasy about the County signing any agree-
ment before the agreement is signed with the State.
Mr. St. John said he thinks the State Attorney General, who acts as attorney for the
Highway Department, would have to see any such agreement. It would be a policy decision at
a higher level in the Attorney General's Office as to whether the Highway Department would
want to enter into these agreements. Mr. Roosevelt replied that it had been indicated to him
that the Department is willing to do this on a case-by-case basis. They will not enter into
an agreement with Albemarle County to cover every future road that falls in this case. Each
~ase will have to have an agreement submitted.
Mr. Fisher stated that Albemarle County is probably not the first jurisdiction in the
state that has been faced with this situation. He imagines that somebody has already run
into this problem and has tried to solve it. He suggested calling other planners and attor-
neys and find out what they are doing.
Mr. St. John replied that the starting point for this is the through road on the Compre-
Rensive Plan. The developer cannot be made to contribute any right-of-way, construction
funds or anything else beyond the standard of road to serve his PUD. That is the whole point
pf this agreement. The fact is that every problem cannot be predicted that might arise in
the future. He does not believe an agreement could be reached with that kind of assurance.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Fisher suggested that the agreement be amended to include "successors in title to
the trust," and that consideration be given to an agreement with the Highway Department.
Will they become a third party to this agreement, or will there be a separate agreement? He
asked the County Attorney's Office to explore how to handle that and to initiate review by
the Highway Department.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to have the agreement amended to include "successors in
title to the trust" and to have the County Attorney explore and initiate review of a third
party or separate agreement with the Highway Department. 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. 6c. Highway Matters: Report of Eastern Bypass Committee. Mr. Fisher
said that Mr. Bowie had asked that this item be placed on the agenda today for discussion.
The report of the Committee follows:
"In April, 1986, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the
Council of the City of Charlottesville appointed an eight-member committee
composed of two members of the Board of Supervisors, two members of City
COuncil, one member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, one member
of the City of Charlottesville Planning Commission, a Deputy County Execu-
tive, and the Deputy City Manager. The charge to the committee was to
develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the City Council
for the location of a route for a by-pass on the east side of the City of
Charlottesville agreeable to the City and County which would provide a
viable alternative to traffic travelling through the Charlottesville/
Albemarle area on U. S. Route 29. This study was undertaken in response to
statements by members of the transportation planning staff of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation and a member of the Governor's
Commission on Transportation in the 21st Century. These statements were to
the effect that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area should plan for a sub-
stantial increase in the amount of through traffic in the U. $. Route 29
corridor.
Beginning with the committee's initial meeting in late April, various
by-pass alignments were considered. A total of nine different routes were
reviewed. In addition, several alternate alignments were considered for at
least one of the proposed routes. During the past two and one-half months
the committee has undertaken the following actions:
Met eight times to develop its recommendations to the City Council
and Board of Supervisors;
2. Undertaken airplane flights over the possible routes;
3. Reviewed alignments proposed by both the City and County staff;
Reviewed alignments which have been studied in the past by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Metropolitian Planning Organization;
Met in Richmond with the Secretary of Transportation, Vivian
Watts, and Highway Commissioner, Ray Pethtel;
Met in Richmond with Transportation Planner, Richard Lockwood, and
his staff; and
Met with the local Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation.
As a result of its efforts, the committee concludes that there is no
present, nor perceived future, justification for the construction of a
by-pass around the City of Charlottesville, either east or west, based upon
present or projected through traffic. Furthermore, the committee does not
consider a by-pass to be feasible due to the limitations of topography, the
threat to parklands, environmental hazards, including hazards to public
drinking water impoundments and sensitive flood plain areas. One of the
most promising alignments was ruled out when the committee was informed by
representatives of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
that it would be virtually impossible to utilize federal highway funds to
construct any road which impacted public parkland or sensitive environmental
areas such as flood plains.
The committee believes that both current and projected future traffic
volumes in the'Charlottesville/Albemarle area can be adequately accommodated
through the construction of the following projects:
construction as currently proposed of additional north-south
lanes to U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville;
construction of the Meadow Creek Parkway between McIntire Road and
Rio Road as a limited access highway;
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 10)
replacement of Free Bridge over the Rivanna River and the four-
laning of U. S. 250 East from Locust Avenue in the City of
Charlottesville to its intersection with Interstate 64 in the
County of Albemarle;
construction of grade-separated interchanges on U. S. Route 29
north of the City of Charlottesville at both Rio Road and Hydrau-
lic Road;
construction of Rio Road to four lanes from the proposed inter-
section with Meadow Creek Parkway west to U. S. 29 north of the
City of Charlottesville;
construction of an interchange at the intersection of Route 742
(Avon Street) and Interstate 64 in the County of Albemarle;
construction of a limited collector road from the intersection of
the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and Rio Road to U. S. 29 North
of Route 649 (Airport Road) in the County of Albemarle;
construction of an interchange on the U. S. 250 By-Pass to serve
the north grounds of the University of Virginia;
The committee recommends the continued vigorous and joint support and advo-
cacy of the foregoing projects by the City and County in order to achieve
their earliest construction.
The committee believes that the construction of these projects will accommo-
date both local and statewide transportation demand for the foreseeable
future. Nevertheless, it appears to the Committee that the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation is under considerable political pressure
to undertake construction of a by-pass around the Charlottesville area at
some time in the future. The purpose of such a road would be to accommodate
alleged anticipated increases in U. S. Route 29 non-local through traffic
resulting from increased economic development in the Lynchburg and Danville
areas of the State, and the completion of other major improvements in the
U. S. Route 29 corridor which will, it is argued, attract more traffic from
existing crowded north-south routes through the State.
Because the committee does not believe that there exists a prudent and feas-
ible alignment, either east or west of Charlottesville for the construction
of such a by-pass, the Committee recommends that any consideration of
further transportation improvements beyond those listed above designed to
meet non-local through traffic needs be restricted to construction of an
elevated limited access roadway over the existing right-of-way of U. S. 29
North of the City of Charlottesville.
The committee recognizes that an elevated roadway would be both innovative
and costly. However, considering the cost of right-of-way acquisition,
grading for and construction of any of the other alignments reviewed by
the committee (which the committee believes encompass all of the possible
alignments which exist), together with the very real costs of the signifi-
cant environmental and neighborhood damage which would result from construc-
tion of a by-pass along any of the other alignments studied, the elevated
roadway concept is, in the opinion of the committee, the least costly
alternative.
An elevated roadway constructed over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the
City of Charlottesville would be able to utilize existing right-of-way,
thereby avoiding the rapidly accelerating cost of land acquisition, which
cost would inevitably be a significant and increasing portion of the costs
attendant to the construction of a road along any of the other alignments
considered. The impact of construction and the visual and environmental
impact of an elevated roadway would be confined to an existing transporta-
tion corridor, the character of which is already dominated by an existing
major highway and highway-oriented commercial development. Although disrup-
tion to existing commercial development and to transportation in the U. S.
Route 29 corridor from construction of an elevated roadway would be signifi-
cant, it would be primarily temporary. Damage to existing commercial
development would be compensable. On the other hand, construction of a new
by-pass, while resulting in relatively little disruption to the existing 29
corridor, would have a permanent and largely uncompensated impact upon the
territory through which it was constructed. The committee believes this
impact to be unacceptable.
In summary, the committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors and City
Council oppose the construction of an eastern by-pass and continue their
opposition to the construction of a western by-pass. The committee further
recommends that the road improvements listed above continue to be supported
by the City and County and advocated to the State as the solution for
existing and anticipated transportation demands in the area. Finally, should
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation determine that
additional improvements to the local transportation network are required to
accommodate additional non-local through traffic, the committee recommends
that the City and County advocate the construction of an elevated roadway
over existing U. S. Route 29 north of the City of Charlottesville.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 11)
121
This report and the recommendations contained herein represent the unanimous
opinion of the committee."
(Signed)
David P. Bowerman
Frederick R. Bowie
Elizabeth H. Gleason
Mary Alice Gunter
C. Timothy Lindstrom
Gary B. O'Connell
Donald E. Sours
Robert W. Tucker, Jr."
Mr. Bowie said he asked have this put on the Agenda because the report has been made
public and the Board has taken no official action on the report, and he thinks it should. He
mentioned that not only had the Committee had eight meetings, they also made two trips to
Richmond and met with the Secretary of Transportation, the Commissioner of the Department of
Highways and Transportation and also with planners in that same department and with the local
planning staff and representatives from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0). He
said that every solution was studied, and they had even flown over the possible routes. The
Committee concluded that there is no logical justification for the construction of a bypass,
and that both east and west bypasses be opposed because of the impact on the drinking water
watershed. The Committee recommends that improvements already in Highway plans would expe-
dite traffic, and if they did not, after the year 2000, this bypass should be an elevated
roadway built within existing State right-of-way.
Mr. Lindstrom added that the Committee did not see that a bypass was necessary to handle
traffic given all the information from the State planning people and local statistics and
projections, if the other projects on the list are built. The only reason that the Committee
could conceive that a bypass would actually be required was as a response to political
pressures that apparently being brought on the Highway Department to build a road to serve
the perceived needs by other southern communities. The Committee did not want to advocate a
bypass because they did not think it was necessary. But, if the Highway Department decided
to build this bypass, the Committee would support alignment along the existing Route 29
corridor with an elevated roadway. This has been done in other parts of the country. Almost
all of the right-of-way that would be needed is already there, and the inflationary costs
would be in construction. As the right-of-way costs go up, the benefit to this particular
road, financially, would increase. It is also the only route that did not affect existing
neighborhoods or have an adverse environmental impact.
Mr. Bowie stated that there is no logical route that does not impact on parks, residen-
tial areas, school zones, rivers, flood plains and watersheds. He said that everybody on up
to the Secretary of Transportation agrees that there are no traffic projections to justify
the bypass. There is only southern political pressure, and he feels it is important to get
this on record. If, after everything else has been done there is still a problem, then the
Highway Department should proceed with an elevated roadway. He made a motion for the Board
to accept the report from the Committee on the Eastern Bypass. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mrs. Cooke commented that if the ultimate proposals for the Route 29 North corridor ever
a become a reality or if this Board intends to support that, she hopes that they will look at
other places. She feels that it would be a nightmare for something like this to occur in
Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom responded that the costs and impacts of the options have to be evaluated.
There is a commercial character already established along the road. The impact on neighbor-
hoods in certain districts has to be taken into consideration as well as the severe environ-
mental impact. He said there are no routes that are desirable, and it is a question of
finding the lesser of evils.
Mr. Fisher said his reaction is this Committee has reported back that it is unable to
find an eastern bypass. It seems to him to be a reasonable response for the County to adopt
a position that it does not at this time support either an eastern or western bypass based on
the traffic projections that the Board has seen. But to recommend an elevated roadway is
something he is not ready to do. He is not sure that is a reasonable recommendation, because
he has no idea what the costs are or how it will be implemented. He mentioned that some of
the elevated roadways in some cities are ugly. He wonders if there is something else that
someone has in mind that would not be a blight upon the landscape.
Mr. Bowie commented that if the Board takes the position that there are three routes and
all three routes are rejected, and political pressures become great, then they will have done
nothing. If there is going to be a route, there has to be one solution that will have a
reasonable chance for support. Then if a bypass is built, at least there is something that
the County has studied that can solve the problem. If the Board says there is no solution,
then the Department of Highways may say they have a solution and the bypass will be built.
He does not think either the Board or the County will have much input when the decision is
made unless something is done now.
Mr. Lindstrom said from an engineering standpoint, the elevated highway can be built.
From a financial standpoint, the cost of an elevated roadway is within the same cost of the
Piedmont Corridor. He understands the uneasiness of Board members about a project that is so
different. But he thinks it is imperative that the City and County find a project they can
jointly support. This is a project the Committee jointly supported that clearly addresses
the through transportation problem, and it could be done. He mentioned that every bypass
incurs financial costs, aesthetic concerns, environmental and neighborhood concerns in
significant measure. The only one that doesn't is the elevated roadway within the existing
Route 29 North corridor. It incurs the aesthetic and financial costs, but it doesn't have
the same neighborhood destruction or the environmental impact. These were factors that went
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
into the Committee's consideration. Mr. Lindstrom went on to say that he is dubious that
the City and County are likely to get together again until they are faced with a project.
they want to be effective, they must get things in order before the Highway Department
announces its Plans.
(NOTE: Mr. Way left the meeting at 10:12 A. M.)
Mr. Fisher said that basically what the Board needs to do is to notify the Highway
Department officially that this is their position. Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to have the
City and County to support a common approach to the problem.
If
Mr. Lindstrom replied that it is the Committee's recommendation that these other
projects be built, and if they are built, then the elevated roadway is not needed. The
Committee did not support the elevated roadway ahead of projects, but only if the Highway
Department decides that that kind of road will be built. Mr. Bowie confirmed that the report
does not support the concept of an elevated roadway. The report states neither the bypass
nor the elevated roadway are needed. There will be impacts with anything that is done, but
the elevated roadway is the only one that does not have all four objectionable parts.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that what is on record with the Highway Department~and would be
pursued are the other projects which are already part of the Highway Department's plans and
which will take care of the problem. If it comes to this at some time in the future, and the
City and County have an agreed upon set of projects which solve the problem on paper, then he
feels they are in a much stronger position to oppose the Highway Department's construction of
the elevated roadway or bypass until the other positions have been explored. If there is not
a commonly supported position with the City, then he feels that the County will not have any
leverage with the Highway Department.
Mr. Henley stated that the last paragraph of the report says that the elevated roadway
will be supported. He does not want to agree to that because he does not know what it will
cost. But he would agree to something saying that the Board would like the Highway Depart-
ment to do the other five things and then see what happens, before an agreement is reached on
what else needs to be done.
Mrs. Cooke said she does not think the Board should agree to anything except for those
things they know are necessary to address the local problem.
Mr. Lindstrom again explained the position of the Committee by saying that if the
Highway Department determines that a bypass must be built for through traffic, and if that
construction is opposed and they still insist on building a road just for through traffic,
then the position the County should take is if they are going to do it anyway, then an
elevated roadway will be accepted. He feels the Board is making a big mistake if they don't
have an option that can be worked on with the City. He said the reason the Committee went to
Richmond twice was because all the information the Committee had told them a bypass is not
needed. Their perception changed radically when they met with Mr. Richard Lockwood's staff.
His staff told them that there would be a bypass built, and the Highway Department would be
pressured to build it. It would not be their desire, but the General Assembly would tell
them to build the road. The Highway Department will build it anywhere the County tells them
to build it, unless it is not in an appeasable location, and the Department did not think
anything to the east of the City would be an appeasable location. He said the message was
clear that the Highway Department was bent on building a bypass.
Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion because he thinks the Committee has worked harder
and faster than any other joint Committee and has tried hard to come up with a solution that
both the City and County could accept. Secondly, he thinks it is important that the City and
County have a combined, joint position with the proviso that the elevated highway is only
their suggestion for what happens if the Highway Department says something more has to be
done beyond the improvements that are already in the planning stages.
Mr. Lindstrom read from the report the Committee's recommendations and commented that he
did not know how else it could be said that the other projects will do the job and only if
confronted with political problems, would the elevated highway be supported.
Mr. Bowie said he feels that if the Highway Department should try to build an elevated
roadway or bypass two years from now, and the other projects had not been done, he thinks
there is some basis to fight it, as opposed to fighting each road that comes along. He
thinks the Board will have a legal position that everything has not been done to solve the
problem.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. St. John if the County does have a legal position? Mr. St. John
replied that he did not know, but he thinks it is purely a political question.
Mr. Lindstrom said all information that is coming from the Highway Department says that
a western bypass will be built. If the Highway Department gets to that point, if the City
and County jointly support an alternative, and if County citizens and County government make
a battle about it, then he thinks they have created some leverage with the Highway Department
that may cause them to consider an alternative. If there is no agreed upon solution to
suggest to them, then he does not think their minds will be changed.
Mr. Henley said it bothers him to advocate something that he does not know anything
about. He does not know what it will cost or what it will do to the County in the future.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this matter be deferred until Board members have a chance to
study sketches and plans that the Highway Department has prepared with projected costs, etc.
Mrs. Cooke inquired if the County has any assurances that the Highway Department will do
these other improvements that the County deems necessary before the construction of the
elevated highway. Suppose this is done, and then political pressure from the south takes
over before these other things happen?
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
123
Mrs. Cooke asked if these plans are forthcoming in the foreseeable future, and Mr. Lindstrom
said the Committee already has them, including information on the elevated highway. Mrs.
Cooke and Mr. Henley agreed that the sketches and plans needed to be seen. Mr. Lindstrom
explained that these plans were not prepared for the Committee, but were produced for the MP0
about a year and a half ago. Mr. Henley explained that he was not being critical of the
state, but it bothers him to advocate something on which he has not seen any information.
Mr. Fisher said August 13 would be good time for the staff to present these plans to the
Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not be at the meeting and he would like to be able to
participate. Mr. Fisher said the vote may be deferred if it becomes a divided question.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to defer to August 13, 1986 in order to receive sketches,
plans and costs for an elevated highway. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion and the motion was carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom. (Voted no because he will not be present at that meeting.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie said that the report on Agenda Item No. 6a said that 75 percent of the home-
owners agree to pay their share. What happens to the other 25 percent? Mr. St. John re-
sponded that the County can assess those property owners against their will providing there
are 75 percent in favor.
(Note: At 10:28 A.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 10:37 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: JAUNT Fare Structure.
Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Becky Graves has requested an opportunity to make a statement about
the JAUNT fare structure. He said a report was hand-delivered to the Board members yester-
day, so some of members have had a chance to look at it.
Mrs. Graves summarized the report and said the main area they are concerned about is the
urban ring around the City. If JAUNT accepts this new fare structure, the fare will be a
dollar in the urban ring which is much less than a taxi cab rate. She said that taxi cabs
provide over 40,000 trips a year in Albemarle County. JAUNT only provides 20,000. The
Charlottesville Taxicab Association feels that it needs protection in the urban ring. She
also said that the issue of a shuttle bus to Blue Ridge Hospital has not been resolved as
yet. She said the Taxicab Association has never been approached about where they furnish
transportation service in the County. She said it had been brought up in a JAUNT Board
Meeting that maybe they should check with UMTA to see if this was a new or restructured route
and if it followed the federal guidelines. UMTA responded that they would not check anything
out, but would take it to the arbitration panel again. She requested that it not be taken to
arbitration again, and asked the Board if they can have someone study this to see if it is in
accordance with federal guidelines.
Mr. Fisher said he was sorry that Mr. Way was not there because he is the Board's
representative on the JAUNT Board. He thinks Board members will have to ask for Mr. Way's
advice as to how to respond to Mrs. Graves' request. He does not think that the Board, as a
whole, really knows what all of the issues are, yet.
Mr. Bowie said he had not had time to digest all of the information, but he knew the MP0
had been involved.
Mrs. Graves responded that the MPO had decided not to comment. She said she would make
this presentation to them in the hope that they will look into it before they end up in
arbitration again. She does not think that is the way to go. She said since the County does
fund JAUNT, she thinks it would be disastrous if all of a sudden it had 40,000 extra people
to pick up.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the position of the MPO is limited to the controversy about
the Blue Ridge shuttle bus. Its position was that the arbitration panel which had been
requested by the Taxicab Association had been selected according to the outlines that the
Association had presented. MPO did not want to second guess the panel, and because it was a
sponsor of JAUNT, MPO did not feel it could be as fair and objective as the Arbitration
Panel. This panel was selected partly by the Taxicab Association and partly by JAUNT with a
third member selected by both parties. The MPO does not want to be the arbitration panel.
Mr. Bowie said he will make a philosophical statement. He has a lot of trouble provid-
ing tax dollars to an organization so they can compete with private enterprise. He has not
read the full report and would like to have the input from the members that are serving on
the JAUNT Board and also the MPO Committee.
Mrs. Graves said that the JAUNT Board is going to implement the new fare structure on
July 1. Mr. Way had made a recommendation that nothing be done until the Board had time to
look into it.
Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Bowie's philosophy, but said she had not had time to read the
information.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is a complicated subject. He agrees with what has been said about
competition, but on the other hand, he does have a concern about protecting JAUNT. JAUNT
provides service to a number of people who can't afford the taxicab service. He does not
want to jeopardize JAUNT's ability to provide that service. He thinks it is essential to the
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 14)
economic viability of a lot of poor people. He understands that JAUNT's purpose is being
expanded. He thinks they have to expand because their original source of money has been cut
back. It is difficult to sort out all of the new things that are being done with the public
interest things, and he does not see where the funds are going to come from without massive
local subsidy. He would rather not see that, but he said it is a complicated issue.
Mr. Fisher commented that he echoes some of the concerns, but JAUNT is providing some
service that the Taxicab Association cannot provide in the rural areas. He said it is stuck
with trying to serve the areas that have the least production of revenues per mile traveled,
and it is in a difficult situation unless it is able to provide some transportation along the
way to those routes. He thinks the Board will have to put this on a future agenda to have
time to talk about it and get input from various points of view.
Mrs. Graves said she would be available to provide any information that may be needed.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Piedmont Environmental Council to consider scenic river
designation for the Mechum and Rivanna Rivers. Letter from Ms. Kat Imhoff, dated June 16,
1986, brought this matter before the Board.
Ms. Imhoff spoke on behalf of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Scenic River Committee of
the Piedmont Environmental Council. She said are trying to give the Board enough information
on the Scenic River Program so that some time this summer the Board may consider adopting a
resolution supporting Virginia Scenic River designation. They would also like to request the
Board to begin consideration of County designation for the Mechum and Rivanna Rivers. Ms.
Imhoff described how the Scenic River Program was started, and said it is official recogni-
tion by the Virginia State Legislature of the scenic, recreational and other values of a
river system. She said the key to the entire program is its total reliance on the local
level, and explained that it is completely a "grass roots" effort. She stated that the
closest scenic river to Albemarle is the Rivanna River in Fluvanna County. They are seeking
an addition of about 62 miles, 22 miles of the Rivanna, 18 miles of the Moormans and 22 miles
of the Mechum Rivers. The Moormans is already a County designated scenic river. In the
Comprehensive Plan, the Mechum and Rivanna are shown as potential scenic rivers. The Commit-
tee feels the Moormans and Mechum Rivers are particularly important because they both serve
the South Fork Rivanna watershed area. The Rivanna River is important for its historical
significance but also because it would link these two rivers to an existing scenic river.
Ms. Imhoff explained the process for recognizing scenic rivers, and said that a part of the
process requires a resolution of support from the local government. They feel that people at
the state level are dragging their feet, so by coming before the Board at this point the
Piedmont Environment Council are trying to show significant public support for this designa-
tion process. They are hoping to get everything to the General Assembly by this coming
spring. The Committee thinks these rivers deserve the State designation.
Mr. Fisher asked if the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir has been included in what has
been proposed. Ms. Imhoff replied that during the evaluation process they will consider
including it. To date, no reservoirs have been included, but in this case, because it is a
complete system and because it is a drinking water reservoir, they may consider it.
Mr. Fisher asked what the citizen and landowner reaction has been. Ms. Imhoff responded
that it has been a very positive reaction from most people. She mentioned that people were
concerned mostly about the recreational use, especially from people on the Moormans River.
When they explained.the state program, most people said they wanted land use control. They
thought the state program was a nice thing to have but what was more important in their
estimation was the County's designation. They had about 50 people show up at a public
meeting, and Ms. Imhoff has received about 50 telephone calls. She has not had any negative
response, but most of the questions that were asked were whether people would be walking
across their property, etc.
Mr. Henley said that he will never vote for another scenic river because he has gotten a
lot of complaints from the people in his district about the Moormans River.
Mr. Bowie commented that as far as the part of the Rivanna River that goes through his
district, he has talked to individuals and groups, and they have had no objections. He has
heard general support for the designation. He asked the question of whether this will
increase accessibility to the river, does it increase the traffic, and will more people want
to use the river because it is now scenic?
Ms. Imhoff said that a study had been done, and they had found no increase in recrea-
tional use. The state does not print on any maps that these are scenic rivers. The only way
that you can find out where the scenic rivers are is through a pamphlet. That was deliber-
ately done because of people's fears that they could be found on a state highway map.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would expect to hear more from the Piedmont Environmental
Council committee that is working on this matter.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal of Administrative Approval of Subdivision Plat: Lot 8,
Pheasant Lane, Milkey Tract. The following letter dated June 26, 1986, from William A.
Edgerton, brought this matter before the Board:
"As an adjacent property owner, I wish to appeal the 'administrative
approval' for a subdivision that was granted to a Mr. Larry Wood on Lot ~8,
Pheasant Lane on March 12, 1986. Since this was handled administratively, I
had no way of knowing that it had been granted until a bulldozer arrived at
the site last week and started clearing the same.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
125
On checking withMr. Bobby Shaw at the County.Engineer's Office, I deter-
mined that no soil erosion plan had. been~submitted, no bond posted, nor a
permit issued, and only after appealing to Mr. Guy Agnor did Mr. Shaw agree
to enforce the Soil Erosion Ordinance since more than 10,~000 square feet of
grading had already occurred.
In my conversations with Mr. Agnor, I asked him to verify the statement that
Bobby Shaw had made concerning the fact that this property had been subdi-
vided into two separate lots.
I have just been informed by Mr. Agnor that the approval was granted admin-
istratively as a 'family subdivision' exempting it from all provisions of
the subdivision ordinance except Health Department approval for septic sites
and Highway Department approval for access to a state road.
I am surprised to learn that this could be done for two reasons. I was
assured by the County staff 5 1/2 years ago that as an adjacent property
owner, I would definitely be notified of any future attempts to subdivide
the property, and the subdivision plat that was approved on January 14,
1981, specifically noted:
'No further subdivision shall be made on this
property unless approved by the Albemarle
Planning Commission'.
I am also surprised that the Health Department was able to verify that there
are (4) four adequate septic sites as required on this six acre parcel for
two residences, because in 1980 the former owner, even with the assistance
of a soil scientist, was unable to locate the required (4) four septic sites
and was denied the right to divide this parcel into two lots. Because of
this denial, the parcel was shown as a single six acre lot on the subdi-
vision plat that was finally approved by the Board of Supervisors on Janu-
ary 14, 1981.
I know you and most of the Supervisors are aware of how deeply concerned I
have been over the development of this land, and hope that something can be
done to reverse this approval that, in my opinion, should not have been
granted in the first place. I hope it is not too late to have this added to
the agenda for the July 9, 1986, Board of Supervisors meeting. I look
forward to your response."
The following memorandum from the County Executive dated July 7, 1986, entitled "Appeal
of William A. Edgerton, re: Redivision of Lot 8, Pheasant Lane, Milkey Tract, Item 9, on
Agenda of July 9, 1986, was presented in lieu of a planning staff report:
"To assist you in considering this appeal, some background information may
be needed. This lot was one of 13 lots, known as the Milkey Tract, approved
for subdivision by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1980. Mr.
Edgerton appealed the Planning Commission's decision based upon his concern
that Lot 8 was unbuildable in its present form, that intermittent streams
existed that had not been taken into consideration, that there was con-
flicting information regarding parcels, soil studies, streams and topo-
graphy, as well as a threat to public health and safety with regard to the
neighborhood water supply and the reservoir.
After lengthy discussion, the Board approved the subdivision with the
Planning Commission conditions, adding a condition (1.h) that the County
Engineer review the Lot 8 area and determine if the lot is buildable as
platted, or if it should be combined into an adjacent lot.
The County Engineer completed a field survey using a grid system on Febru-
ary 5, 1981, and advised the Planning Department that there was sufficient
area on Lot 8 for a house site and two septic fields outside of 25 percent
slope areas. On March 16, 1981, the subdivision plat was signed by the
Chairman of the Planning Commission and the Board's Designated Agent. A
note on the plat stated 'no further subdivision shall be made on this
property unless approved by the Albemarle County Planning Commission.'
On February 18, 1986, an attorney for the present owner of Lot 8, James L.
Wood, applied for a family division of the lot, which is exempt from the
requirements of the subdivision ordinance including the note on the plat
requiring Planning Commission approval of further subdivision. Family
divisions do require Health Department and Highway Department approval,
which was obtained. The plat for redividing Lot 8 was approved March 12,
1986, by the Board's Agent.
The Health Department approval is a form memorandum which indicates the
property appears to be suitable for subsurface drainfields, based on soil
s~udies, to accommodate an average size building with an alternate drain-
f~ieid. It advises the applicant that if the property is in the runoff
control area, that ordinance will apply, and that each lot will be evaluated
on its own merit with possible further tests when a septic tank is applied
for.
As Mr. Edgerton's letter indicates, he contacted me concerning heavy equip-
ment clearing the site. Upon inquiry, I learned that an inspection had been
made from an earlier call by Mr. Edgerton, where it was determined that
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 16)
undergrowth was being removed by dozer and that a canopy of tree cover
existed which would protect the soil from rainfall impact and resulting
erosion. Additionally a vegetative strip, adjacent to the stream, existed
which would serve .sufficiently as a filter area for runoff problems. The
field inspector reported his findings to the County Engineer recommending
that the property owner be requested to voluntarily take preventive soil
erosion measures outlined by the inspector. The County Engineer ruled that
a soil erosion control plan and permit would be required due to the location
of the property in the watershed. The inspection and the Engineer's deci-
sion was made prior to my inquiry into the matter.
As I understand Mr. Edgerton's letter and my discussions with him, he
appeals as an adjoining landowner the administrative approval of the divi-
sion of Lot 8 on a basis similar to his earlier appeal, i.e., his concern
for the protection of the reservoir, and the ability to locate four adequate
septic sites on the six-acre parcel. Additionally, he requests reversal of
the administrative approval upon which the division was granted.
I explained that the runoff control ordinance will protect the reservoir,
that existing ordinances restricting construction on 25 percent or greater
slopes apply in addition to runoff control regulations, and that building
permits will notbe issued if two septic sites per lot cannot be located.
If this background information raises questions, please advise."
Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing William Mr. Edgerton, who is the property owner adja-
cent to the Milkey Tract, said that for several weeks Mr. Edgerton heard the sound of a
bulldozer across from his front yard at work on another property. He did some investigation
to find out if a soil erosion permit had been obtained and found that it had not. After some
discussions with the County officers in charge he learned that Lot 8 had been redivided
administratively. He said that five and one-half years ago the Planning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors approved this subdivision and this lot was one single, large lot. There
was a notation put on the plat that there shall be no further subdivision of this lot without
approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. He said that now through admini-
strative approval under the family exemption provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, someone
has sought and obtained approval of a plat administratively.
Mr. Gouldman said that five years ago the issue before the Board and Planning Commission
was whether that lot was too steep to put a house on. Requirements that govern that sort of
thing are in the Zoning Ordinance. He said a lot of studies were done at that time, and it
was finally determined by the County that Lot 8 was large enough, despite its steepness, to
put one house and two septic fields. Now it seems the Subdivision Ordinance has been circum-
vented. The basic reason for not having two homes there is still that it is too steep. He
urged that the Board review its own procedures to see what's wrong with the way they are
being administered. It seems to him that aside from the fact that it is discriminatory and
favors people from large families, it has a provision that says that a year after deeding the
property to a family member, it can be deeded to anybody by that family member. He and Mr.
Edgerton are respectfully requesting that this Board either rescind or suspend the admini-
strative approval of the creation of two lots out of one, that was approved March 26, 1986,
until the facts are straight. They are worried that the lots may be changed substantially
before it comes to the Board's attention. He stated that somehow the family exemption wiped
out the note that was on the plat. He argued that it should not have done this, because the
reason for putting the note on there was the Zoning Ordinance. That is where the slope
requirements are found, and they are not wiped out by the family exemption.
For the record, Mr. Gouldman handed in a letter dated January 20, 1981, from William D.
Rieley addressed to William Edgerton, concerning some studies that were done on the topo-
graphy. He also submitted the following plats: Plat of Lot 1 to Lot 17, being Parcel 32 on
Sheet 44, County Tax Map, dated September 15, 1980, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates;
Plat with same description dated October 21, 1980; Plat with same description dated Octo-
ber 27, 1980; Plat with same description dated November 24, 1980; showing how the lots in
question evolved. His third submission was a memorandum from J. Ashley Williams to Mason
Caperton dated February 5, 1981, stating the County finding that the lot was suitable for one
house and two septic fields. Next he had some overlays that were prepared by Mr. Edgerton
that showed what the buildable areas are on this lot and what the slope is and the septic
lines.
Mr. Gouldman's last submission was a memorandum from the State Health Department dated
March 5, 1986, to the Albemarle County Planning Department. He fears that somewhere along
the line someone will say that this is a Health Department problem. The Health Department
has said in its letter that the size of the lot and the type of soil there will probably
percolate and will probably pass their requirements. But he read the last sentence of the
Health Department's letter and said he believes that they have not been out there and checked
the slopes, and they are not administering the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked under what authority Mr. Gouldman thinks that the Board has the power
to suspend the administrative approval.
Mr. Gouldman said he had looked at that and what worries him is the section on appeal of
the administrative decision that says anybody can appeal within ten days of the decision. He
said his client did not know of the decision until he saw the bulldozers out there and then
stumbled upon the decision by investigating that. He Said the ten days are over, and he does
not know how to get around that unless it is in Section 18.4. He read this section to the
Board. He wondered if the plat has been recorded. He does not think that the staff knows.
He said that the procedures are frightening because there is not one certification in the
file that family members are going to be involved. There is only a copy of a deed not
certified as the one that is going to be recorded that is from a man to his wife. This
particular provision can almost emasculate the Subdivision Ordinance. He said the second
12 ?
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
part of Section 18.4 may give the Board authority to suspend the administrative approval or
maybe the County Attorney has got other ideas. He and his client came as soon as they found
out about it.
Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. Edgerton called him the day he found out about the prob-
lem, and it was set on the agenda for this meeting. He thought that would be the first time
that the Board could at least hear the concerns. He thinks that there has been due diligence
to respond as soon as Mr. Edgerton found out what had happened. He said that apparently
there was no notification by the County that the division was or had taken place. There was
nothing posted on the property that anybody is aware of. Mr. Fisher said that he felt that
this is a big loophole in ordinance requirements.
Mr. Bowie asked if the family division is between spouses?
Mr. Gouldman responded that the file would indicate that, but there is only a deed in
the file, and he does not know if it has been recorded.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he is familiar with this area, and there is a tremendous
temptation for people to do something like this because the land values are so incredible,
and they have inflated so rapidly. He is concerned about the statement in Mr. Edgerton's
letter that he spoke with a member of the County staff about the issuance of the soil erosion
plan, and he had to speak with Mr. Agnor before the staff member would agree to enforce the
ordinance. He asked Mr. Agnor to elaborate on that.
Mr. Agnor explained that when he learned that the site was being cleared, he inquired
about it. He learned during an earlier call from Mr. Edgerton that an inspection had been
made. The inspector reported back to his supervisor in the County Engineer's Office that a
canopy of tree cover existed as well as a vegetative strip adjacent to the stream so his
recommendation was that the owner be required to voluntarily take preventive soil erosion
measures outlined by the inspector. Mr. Armm did not agree with that and ruled that a soil
erosion control plan and permit would be required due to the fact that the property is in the
watezshed. This transaction had already taken place by the time he had made his call. It
was not a result of his call that the decision was made, but it was a result of the procedure
of making a field inspection and having a decision made by the County Engineer.
Mr. Edgerton then spoke stating that he called Mr. Robert Shaw, in the County Engineer's
Office, as soon as he saw the activity going on. He asked him if the permit had been issued.
He said, "no." He then asked him to go out and inspect the site. He did and called him back
the next day. He asked him if over ten thousand square feet of soil in his opinion had been
moved, and he agreed that it had been moved. At this same time, Mr. Edgerton was being
required to post a $14,000 bond on work further down the road and the inspector was holding
up the work until he got the money. When he said to Mr. Shaw that he thought the same issue
applied to this situation, Mr. Shaw replied that technically it did, but they were not going
to enforce it. Mr. Shaw said that, practically, they cannot enforce this ordinance on every
subdivision and that he will not require it on all the lot owners in the new subdivision.
Mr. Edgerton told Mr. Shaw that he wanted him to enforce the ordinance. Mr. Shaw then said
that it will not accomplish what Mr. Edgerton wanted and that was that Mr. Edgerton did not
want anybody to build up there. Mr. Edgerton answered that that was not the case at all, and
that he wanted the ordinance enforced. Mr. Shaw told him once again that he would not
enforce it, and at this point Mr. Edgerton called Mr. Agnor. Mr. Edgerton said Mr. Agnor had
called him back and said the County Engineer had decided to enforce the ordinance. Mr.
Edgerton does not think that it is fair to say they had decided this on their own, because
Mr. Shaw had told him twice that he would not enforce the ordinance. Mr. Agnor responded
that the process does not give Mr. Shaw the power to make that decision.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if Mr. Shaw is the lead man, and his attitude is that sometimes
he will enforce it and sometimes he will not then by the time the process superimposes itself
upon his decision, it may be too late. This concerns him.
Mr. Agnor replied to Mr. Lindstrom by saying that the work had already been completed,
and therefore Mr. Shaw was going to require voluntary compliance with the soil erosion
measures that will be needed but not the filing of a formal plan and posting of a bond. The
work did not disturb more than ten thousand feet, but it was clearing of the underbrush more
than it was moving the dirt in terms of actual grading. That was Mr. Shaw's opinion.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks what Mr. Edgerton has related today is very damaging as far as
enforcement of that ordinance, but it has taken place and is done. He will leave that to
staff to deal with for the future. Before the Board today is the question of whether the
Board can suspend or rescind the subdivision if it so desires and the long term issue of what
to do with the ordinance, itself, to prevent future recurrences. He asked Mr. St. John what
authority the Board has to consider taking action on the subdivision that has been approved
as a family division.
Mr. St. John answered by saying that the owner is not at the meeting today, and he
understands that he has been given no notice that this matter is being discussed except
insofar as it appears on the agenda. He feels that the Board's only possible action is to
give notice to this owner that it is going to take this matter up at a future date. He
thinks the Board has no authority to rescind the administrative action taken by the agent of
the Board. He does not think the Board can rescind, revoke or suspend the effect of the
approval that has already been given. He has an Attorney General's opinion dated June 20 on
the subject of family divisions, and he will ask the Clerk to put it in the Board members'
packets next time. He gave a copy of it to Mr. Gouldman because it answers some questions
that have been around for a good while as to what the Code means on family divisions.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he believes the staff was acting within its discretion
and within its legal authority to approve this subdivision. Mr. St. John stated he believes
that the staff approval was mandated by the existing statute and that the County's existing
ordinance is in some ways in conflict with that statute and is more restrictive against the
family division than the Code allows. He thinks that Mr. Gouldman is absolutely correct when
128
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 18)
he says that if this lot does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not
exempt from those requirements. It may not be able to get a building permit, etc., if those
requirements are valid.
Mr. Lindstrom said it looks like this is a situation where an appeal would be made to
the B.Z.A. and the owner would say, "Well, look, I've.done all of this work and I'm really up
against it, and I've got.to have some approval here." .Then they would go ahead and do it.
This is a minor thing in the overall context of the County, but in terms of impressing people
as to how ordinances are administered, it is a "black eye." Mr. St. John said the problem is
that this is a provision that can be abused.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that the adjacent property owner had no notice, and he has no
reason not to believe his statement that he was told by the County he would be notified of
any future attempts to subdivide the property. The Board cannot discuss this question in an
effective way at this meeting because the property owner is not here. The adjacent property
owner was not consulted about it either, so he is forced to a position where he cannot do
anything because of that concern. It is a very unpleasant situation.
Mr. Gouldman said he asked specifically, when he found out the meeting would occur, if
the property owner would be notified. He asked if it was clear that the owner had not been
notified. Mr. St. John asked how he was informed. Mr. Fisher stated that the Clerk has
indicated that the owner was not notified.
Mr. Bowie commented that he did not think this discussion should go any further without
hearing the property owner's side. He has some feelings about it however based on just this
half of the story. He has so far supported the family division, and he does not see how
there can be an ordinance without a loophole. He would like more information.
Mr. Lindstrom said this discussion could be deferred and the property owner notified if
there is some action that can be taken. However, he thinks it is futile to waste everybody's
time if the Board can do nothing. He has gathered from Mr. St. John that, as to this case,
there is nothing that can be done.
Mr. St. John replied that that is what he believes. He said that the Board may want to
hear from Mr. Gouldman and the arguments pro and con and then decide if Mr. St. John is
right. But he believes that legally the Board's hands are tied, and the remedy for the
problem of the adjacent owner has to be determined in court because of the way the state Code
sections are worded.
Mr. Fisher commented that there is nothing in the state Code that would preclude notice
to the adjacent owners. Mr. St. John replied that the Code does not require notice to the
adjacent owners. Once this permit has been given out and vested in the owner, the vested
right cannot be taken from him or rescinded or revoked unless there is some fundamental
procedural defect amounting to due process violation. Neither the federal standards nor the
state Code requires any notice, and that can't be used as the grounds for taking back a
property right that he now has as a vested right.
Mr. Gouldman agreed with Mr. St. John on the effect of the Zoning Ordinance. He asked
the Board to assume that Mr. St. John is right, and the Board cannot do anything to take back
or rescind the subdivision approval. He still sees some merit to having the owner come in
and telling him that the thing has been approved administratively, but the Zoning Ordinance
will have to be enforced, and it does require the slope requirement, so that he can't claim
later that the County misled him by giving him approval and that he has a vested right to
violate the Zoning Ordinance. He has a vested right to a subdivision, but not to violate the
Zoning Ordinance. If he has notice, and comes to the Board and is told face to face that
this is the problem, then this may do him a favor because he will not have gone out and spent
a lot of additional money on plans, etc., and not be knowledgeable of the situation as soon
as the Board learns of it.
Mr. Henley commented that he does not think the Board should have to tell anybody that
they have to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements, and Mr. Fisher agreed.
Mr. Agnor said this would have to be told to every subsequent owner, because the proper-
ty may be sold several times. He does not see any value in that. When the owner applies for
a building permit, it will be determined whether they will have to comply with the runoff
control ordinance. The specific sites for the septic system will have to be located, and the
slope problems will be dealt with at that point in time. He understands what Mr. Gouldman is
saying, but he can see where this gentleman may clear off the underbrush and turn around and
sell the property. What happens to the next owner?
Mr. Henley said that if the staff wants to tell the owner, it is fine. But, he does not
think the Board should call everybody in that is going to subdivide and tell them that they
have to meet the Code standards.
Mr. Fisher stated that this case is one that he knows something about, and he knows the
Planning Commission was concerned and this Board and adjacent property owners were concerned
about the divisions. If anything comes up about any kind of waiver or variance on anything
on this lot, he hopes the staff will notify this Board immediately, so that Board members
will at least have a chance to review it in a timely fashion. He does not see at this time
any other thing the Board can do.
Mr. St. John commented that that would include any application for variance because that
has to go through the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator would notify the Board
so they could appear at the B.Z.A. meeting.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 19)
Mr. Gouldman mentioned that the plat that was approved March 26 has a 50-foot access
easement on it, taking off from the cul-de-sac over to.the adjacent property. He said the
Planning Commission and the Board have not seen it, so he does not know what the implication
of that easement is. He said that was tried five years ago, and was thought of as a bad idea
at that time.
Mr. Edgerton said that five years ago the~Planning Commission denied this subdivision
because this piece of land was not big enough to support two lots. However, there is a note
on that plat stating that there is over 30,000 square feet of buildable area on each lot. He
does not believe it because he has done a lot of studies.on that .lot. He has paid profes-
sionals to do it. He said that when Dr. Hurt owned the land, he ~could not prove to the
Planning Commission that there were two buildable areas of 30,000 square feet, at which point
he dropped back and showed it as one lot in a subdivision. He then told Mr. Edgerton that he
would subdivide it later, and he said the way he would .do it was to build a guest house.
Then once it was built, he would apply for a subdivision. Mr. Edgerton says he knows the
process of building permits and septic permits too well to be~comforted by the thought that
they are protecting him or the watershed. He feels ~that a~house will be built and then they
will start to figure out where they will put their septic field. Then they will call the
Health Department, who will respond that there is a nice house up there, so the septic field
will need to go down here. At that point the site is no longer a reasonable facsimile of
what it was before. The process is at fault. This ordinance is the only protection that
landowners have. If the information on the plat is incorrect, would it not give the Board
the opportunity to rescind that plat? He inquired that if there is not more than 30,000
square feet of buildable area on each lot, wouldn't that be an invalid and illegal applica-
tion?
Mr. St. John replied that if that is the case, then the procedure by which the Board
would have to take action to revoke that plat would be to seek a judicial decision with the
County as the plantiff, They would have no authority to administratively revoke the plat.
He would feel better about doing it judically because~then there is discovery. The people
can be questioned under oath. There are a lot of other things in addition to the 30,000
square feet. What Mr. Edgerton is talking about is a case of fraud. You have to prove fraud
by clear and convincing evidence. He does not think these things give the Board grounds, at
this point, to revoke what's been done. He is assuming that the right is vested.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the Board could require the staff to hold up any further work
until this information is supplied. The man cleared more than 10,000 square feet without a
permit or a bond. He has broken the law. He thinks the staff should have the authority to
stop his activity until he meets the law. If the law is the Zoning Ordinance, then he needs
to fulfill those requirements. To suggest that there is no reason to be concerned about this
piece of property, as Mr. Shaw did, he thinks is stretching it a bit.
Mr. Fisher asked if this is the same property on which the Planning Commission and the
Board rejected the plat. Mr. Edgerton said it is exactly the same, but the plat that has
been submitted is a redrawn plat that was drawn by Dr. Hurt's surveyor with the same 160 foot
division line. It is to the inch what the Planning Commission turned down five and one-half
years ago. After slope studies that were done by Mr. Buddy Edwards, who was the previous
owners' surveyor, they could not demonstrate that this piece of land could support two lots.
Mr. St. John stated that if this permit is revoked and causes these people monetary
damages, and it is found out after this is done that there is room for two septic fields,
etc., he feels that the County will be looking at a federal civil rights suit for damages and
punitive damages. He said that Mr. Edgerton is assuming that the plat is fraudulent before
there is any concrete evidence or probable cause that it is fraudulent. He reminded the
Board that these people, according to the record, have no notice that this is being dis-
cussed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is frustrated because this is such a big issue. He asked Mr. St.
John if he can meet with Mr. Gouldman and his client, as the Board's representative, some
time today or tomorrow to look at the documents and files and see if there is not a blatant
contradiction of the action of the Planning Commission and the information that's in the file
and determine if there is substance to what has been said? Then, based upon that, he asked
Mr. St. John to see if there is anything that can be done to defer further action by the
developer until some of these things can be worked out. Mr. St. John said before he takes
any action or recommends any action to the Board to hold this matter up, he would want to
contact the owner or the owner's attorney. It does not matter to him if this is done at the
same time he talks with Mr. Gouldman, or after that.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that Mr. St. John take those investigative steps that have been
indicated as appropriate by the comments made at this meeting as quickly as he can. He wants
to include representatives of or the owner of the property. He feels that if they wait a.
week and everything is done, the effect of it will not be too great. He suggested that maybe
Mr. St. John could look at it over lunch break to see if anything can be done.
(NOTE: Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 11:23 A. M.)
Mr. St. John responded that the filings that Mr. Gouldman gave the Board are now a part
of the record, and he will look at them in the office. Mr. Lindstrom said he would leave it
to Mr. St. John as to how quickly he can look at it, but he thinks it would be good if he can
look at it some time today. Mr. St. John said it would depend on what else he is needed for
on the Agenda today.
Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom to request the County Attorney to take those investiga-
tive steps as quickly as possible with the representative of the owners of the property. The
motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Way said he had not been there for the discussion, so
he would abstain from voting. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Way.
130
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Agenda Item No. 10. Adoption of Capital Improvements Program 1986/87-1990/91 (continued
from July 2, 1986). The following memorandum, dated July 8, 1986, from the County Executive
was presented:
"Attached are revised Page 1 (Revenue Sources) and Page 2 (Proposed
Projects/Expenditures) as of July 8, 1986, of the Capital Improvement
Program budget summaries.
The revisions in revenue sources are as follows:
Add the net proceeds from the sale of the White Hall School in the
amount of $45,000 for FY 86-87.
Increase the repayments of the Volunteer Fire Companies by $17,100 per
year from FY 1987-88 through FY 1990-91 for a total of $68,400 increase
over the four-year period. This increase represents the payback
resulting from the recent $120,000 advanced allocation to the Crozet
Volunteer Fire Company.
The above increases to revenues make the Grand Total funds available
change from $18,638,215 to $18,751,615 over the five-year period.
The revisions in project allocations/expenditures to the Volunteer Fire
Companies by $17,100 for four years beginning 1987-88, or a total of $68,400
are shown as Item III on page 2. The Grand Total project cost estimates for
the five-year period changes from $19,633,888 to.$19,702,288.
Staff recommends your final action on the Five-Year Capital Improvement
Program and Budget including these revisions."
Mr. Fisher reminded everyone that a Public Hearing was held last week on this matter,
and it has gone through all the processes. He said that no changes were suggested by the
Board at last week's meeting. He asked if there are any amendments suggested by the staff.
Mr. Agnor mentioned only those revenue changes set out in his memorandum.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Capital Improvements Budget, as it now stands, is reflective
of the recommendation of the report on Crozet School. Mr. Agnor responded, "yes." He also
reminded the Board that two actions would be needed, one to adopt the program and one for the
appropriation of the 1986-87 budget. Mr. Agnor commented that information on the CIP Program
was available in the County Executive's Office which showed the Five-Year Program outlined
year-by-year listing the projects, the dollar value and the total fundings. He is asking the
Board to appropriate today the first year's funds of the Five-Year Program. He said the
Clerk only advertised the CIP Program, but he feels that it is one and the same thing. Mr.
St. John said that the Board could make the appropriations today.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the 1986/87-1990./91 Capital Improvements Program
amended this date, and the 1986/87 CIP Budget resolution, as set out on the following pages.
Mr. Way 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.
PRO3ECT ·
1. Automation 0£ COurt. Serv-{ces
2.
Sub-Total
II.
EDUCATION
1J Me~iwe=~her Lewis School =
new r~p!a-eement school
2. stone Robinson Elam. School -
ma3or ~enovation
3. Crozet Elem. School -
major renovation
a~ ~ and Parking
b. Roof
5. le SLhool:
a.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
c. Electrical/Mechanical
etectmech, library,
Stony Po~nt~iem. School -
major renovation
Woodbrook Elem. SchoOl -
b. Electrical/Mechanical
BroWnsville Elam. School -
eleCtrical/mechanical
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
YEARS 1986-87 THROUGH 1990-91
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
TOTAL
COUNTY PRIOR FUNDING
SHARE APPROPRIATION (5-YEAR PERIOD)
FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1986-87 1987~88 i988-89 1989-90 1990-91
$ 25.237 $ 25_.237
1,200,000 300.000
$ -0- $ 25,237 $ -0= $ 25,237 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
-0- 300,000 -0- 50,000 250,000 -0-
Z2&,O00 22~,000
125,000 125,000
$ 1,57~,237 $ 67~,237 $
-0- 22~.000
-0- 125,,000
-0- $ 67~,237
224,000 ,0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- 125~000 , -0-.
$ 22~,000 $ 75,237 $ 250,000 $ 125,000 $ -0-
$ 200,000
1,500,000 1,500,000 -0-
2,700,000 2,700,000 -0-
75~000 75~000 -0=
33,000 33,000 -0-
200,000 200,000 -D-
50,000 50.000 -0-
65,000 65,000 -0-
1,500~000 1,500,900 -0-
1,'300;0o0 ~,360;6o0 -o-
90)000 -0-
125,000 -0-
75,000 75,000 -0-
60.000 60,000 -0-
560,000 560,000 -0-
870,000 870,000 -0-
100,000 100,000 '0-
750,000 750,000 -0-
350,000 350.000 -0-
75,000 75,000 -0-
165,O00 165,000 -0-
3,863,000 $3,863,000
1,500,000 1,500,000
2,700,000 100,000
75,000 55,000
33,000 33,000
200,000 '0-
50,000 -0-
65,000 65,000
1,500,000 1,500,000
11300,000 -o-
90,000 -0-
125~o0o -o=
75,000 -0-
60,000 -0-
560,000 -0-
870,000 -0-
100,000 -0-
750,000 -0-
350,000 -0-
75,000 -0'
165,000 -0-
$ -o- $ -o- $ -o- $ -o-
-0- -O- -O- -0-
2,000,000 600,000 -0- -0-
20.000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -O- -0-
200,000 -0- '0 ........ 0-
50,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- -0- 1,300,000 -0-
90,000 -0- -0- -0-
-0- 125,000 -0- -0-
-0- 75,000 -0- -0-
60,000 -0- -0' -0-
-0- 560,000 -0- -0-
-0- 870,000 -0- -0-
-0- 100,000 -0- -0-
o0- 750,000 -0- -0-
-0- '0- 350,000 -O-
-0- -0- 75,000 -0-
-0- -0- -0- 165,000
Page 2
TOTAL TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR FUNDING
PROJECT COST SHARE APPROPRIATION
14. Greet Elem, School -
electrical/mechanical $ 85,000 $ 85,000 $ -0-
15. Jouett Middle School -
electrical/mechanical 75,000 75,000 -0-
16. Walton Middle School -
electrical/mechanical 80,000 80,000 , -0-
~17- Western Albemarle High School -
field development 36,300 31,300 -O-
Sub-Total $14,982,300 $14,977,300 $ 200,000
'III.
IV.
POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE AND SAFETY
1. Fire Service Training Center $ 288,975
2. Volunteer Fire Departments -
Advance Allocation Program 1,800,000
3. Scottsvilte Rescue Squad -
New vehicle 25,000
$ 2,113,975
Sub-Total
$ 125,000 $ 100,000
1,800,000 800,000
25,000 -0-
$ 1,950,000 $ 900,000
FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
(5-YEAR PERIOD) 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91
$ 85,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ 85,000
75,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 75,000
80,000 -0- -0- -0- -0- 80,000
31,300 31,300 -0- -0- -0- -0-
$14,777,300 $7,147,300 $2,420,000 $3,080,000 $1,725,000 $405,000
$ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ -0- $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
673,472 200,000 143,243 143,243 121,743 65,243
25,000 25,000 -0- -0- =0- -0-
$ 723,472 $ 250,000 $ 143,243 $ 143,243 $ 121,743 $ 65,243
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
1. Hydraulic Road Pathway $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 5,000 $ 45,000 $ -0- $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ -0- $ -0-
2. Route 678 Relocation 264,338 150,000 -0- 150,000 150,000 -0- -0- -0- -O-
Sub-Total $ 314,338 $ 200,000 $ 5,000 $ 195,000 $ 150,000 $ 25,000 $ 20,000 $ -0- $ -0-
V. LIBRARIES
No request.
VI. MISCF3.I.ANEOUS
1. County Computer Upgrading
Sub-Total
VII.
$ 673,317 $ 673,317 $ -0-
$ 673,317 $ 673,317 $ -0-
$ 673,317 $ 96,750 $ 124,750 $ 164,750 $ 226,750 $ 60,317.
$ 673,317 $ 96,750 $ 124,750 $ 164,750 $ 226,750 $ 60,317
PARKS kNDRECREATION
1. City-County Urban Park $ 2,658,780 $ 1,364,165 $ 396,900 $ 967,265 $ 370,100 $ 327,000 $ -0- $ -0- $270,165
2. Southern Regional Park 1,400,000 1,400,000 20,000 1,380,000 500,000 550,000 330,000 -0- -0-
3. Greenwood Community Center -
Outdoor basketball court 10,600 10,600 -0- 10,600 -0- -0- 10,600 -0- -0-
4. Mint Springs Valley Park -
Handicapped accessibility 50,000 50,000 -0- 50,000 -0- -0- 50,000 -0- -0-
5. Ivy Creek Natural Area -
Tenant house improvement 42,174 21,087 -0- 21,087 7,087 14,000 -0- -0- -0-
6. Crozet Pa~k - buildings
and grounds improvements 50,910 50,910 4,000 46,910 12,200 11,710 11,000 12,000 -0-
Page 3
PROJECT
7. Red Hill - baseball field
improvements
8. Scottsville Community Center -
roof repair
9. Western Albemarle -
TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY
COST SHARE
TOTAL
PRIOR FUNDING
APPROPRTATION (5-YEAR PERIOD) 1986-87 1987-88
FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1988-89 1989-90 1990~91
$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ -0- $ 5,000 $ 5,ooo $ -0- $ -0- $ -0-
30,000 30,000 -0- 30,000 30,000 -0- -0- -0-
tennis court resurfacing 10,800 10,800 -0- 10,800 10,800 --0- -0- -0-
~lO_We~tern Alb~ma~rle ~ ~
field development 36.300 31,~00 -0- 31,300 31,300 -0- -0- -0-
11. Beave~ Creek Park -
handicapped accessibility 25,000 25z000 -0- 25,000 -0- -O- 25,000 -0-
12. GreenwoodCommunity Center -
wooden playground 5,000 5~000 -0- 5,000 -0- -0-
$ 4,324,56~ $3,003,862 - $ 420,900 $ 2,582,962
VIII. UTILITIES--COUNTY PROJECTS -
2- Berkshir~RoadChannel $ 15,000 $ 15,O00 $ -0- $ 15,000
2- WoodbrookChann~l 18,000 18,000 -0- 18,000
3. Bennington Channel 20,000 20,000 -0- 20,000
4. King George Circle 11,000 11,000 -0- 11,000
5. Rio Heights 12,000 12,000 -0- 12,000
Sub-total $ 76,000 $ :76,000 $ -0- $ 76,000
Total $24,058,731 $21,55~,716 $1,525,900 $19,702,288
-0- 5,000
$ 966,~87 $ 902,710 $ 426,600 $ 17,000
$270,165
$ -o- $ 15,ooo $ -o- $ -o- $ -o-
-0- -0- -0- 18,000 -0-
20,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
-0- 11,000 -0- -0- -0-
12,000 -0- -0- -0- -0-
$ 32,000 $ 26,000 $ -0- $ 18,000
$8,866,537 $3,716,940 $4,084,593 $2,233,493
'0-
$800,725
'Education and Parks & Recreation will split the cost of this project.
Total project cost $72,600; County share is $62,600.
Approved by Board of Supervisors
July 9, 1986
Clerk, Board of
~o
'0%
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
135
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, that $10,598,497.09 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated from the
Capital Improvements Fund and coded as follows:
1-9000-12200-700700 Computer Upgrade
1-9000-32010-975803 Fire Training Center
1-9000-32020-975801 Volunteer Fire Departments
1-9000-32030-700500 Scottsville Rescue Squad Vehicle
1-9000-41100-702015 Route 678 Relocation
1-9000-43100-999999 County Office Building Contingency
1-9000-60623-999999 Crozet Elementary School
1-9000-60627-999999 Meriwether Lewis School
1-9000-60632-999999 Stone Robinson Elementary School
1-9000-60751-705000 A.H.S.-Paving
1-9000-60751-705010 A.H.S.-Roof Replacement
1-9000=60761-705020 W.A.H.S.-Field Development
1-9000-60771-705010 Burley-Roof Replacement
1-9000-60771-999999 Burley-Energy Improvements
1-9000-71000-702014 Crozet Park Improvements
1-9000-71000-702016 Ivy Creek-Tenant House
1-9000-71000-702017 Red Hill-Baseball Field
1-9000-71000-701018 Scottsville Comm. Center-Roof
1-9000-71000-702019 W.A.H.S. Tennis Court Resurfacing
1-9000-71000-702020 W.A.H.S. Field Development
1-9000-71001-999999 Southern Regional Park
1-9000-71002-999999 City-County Urban Park
1-9000-93010-596003 Transfer to Storm Drainage
1-9000-99999-999998 Unallocated Fund Balance
1-9100-41044-999999 Bennington Channel
1-9100-41045-999999 Rio Heights
96,750.00
25,000.00
200,000.00
25,000.00
150,000.00
224,000.00
100,000.00
3,863,000.00
1,500,000.00
55,000.00
33,000.00
31,300.00
65,000.00
1,500,000.00
12,200.00
7,087.00
5,000.00
30,000.00
10,800.00
31,300.00
500,000.00
370,100.00
32,000.00
1,699,960.09
20,000.00
12,000.00
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County budget
is hereby amended by the addition of $10,598,497.09 to the following Revenue
Codes:
2-9000-15000-189907 Sale of Property-McIntire
2-9000-19000-190304 Fire Dept. Repayments
2-9000-19000-190305 Rescue Squad Payments
2-9000-41000-410400 Literary Fund Loans
2-9000-51000-510100 Fund Balance
2-9000-51000-512004 Transfer from General Fund
2-9100-51000-512000 Transfer from Capital Imp.
$ 45,000.00
126,143.00
20,800.00
2,000,000.00
7,374,554.09
1,000,000.00
32,000.00
FURTHER, Jthat this appropriate is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 11. Personnel Policies, discussion of commonality of.
Mr. Agnor said this is a policy that the Board has already seen and he recommended that
it be approved or amended as needed. Mr. Fisher asked if there had been any feedback from
anyone in the school administration or the School Board. Mr. Agnor answered, "no sir."
Mr. Way said he would certainly like to have some feedback from the School Board.
However, when it was presented to the Board of Supervisors the first time they didn't take
any action at all. He feels that it is appropriate for the Board to take action on it so
that at least the Supervisors' action will be known concerning the matter. He does not have
particular problems with the statement as it is written. He feels that it has enough flexi-
bility within it to work, and he ~otally supports the basic concept.
Mr. Way then offered motion to adopt the policy as presented (and which is set out in
full below). 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.
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and School Board agree with the
principle that employees of the local government and school division are all
County employees, and, as Such, should be treated consistently, where
appropriate and consistent with local policies and State statutes, with
regard to salaries, benefits, and other personnel policies. The Boards hold
the County Executive and the Superintendent responsible for administering
such consistent policies, and for making joint recommendations, where
appropriate, to the Boards."
Agenda Item No. 12.
Employees.
Administrative Performance Evaluation Plan, General Government
The following memorandum, dated June 27, 1986, from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive,
was received:
"The current Performance Evaluation Plan for general government employees
rates job description factors specifically related to an employee's job
description, and also rate~ performance characteristics applicable to all
County employees. There h~s been no provision for evaluating leadership
characteristics applicable to administrative, supervisory personnel, and
I believe such a provision should be included for department heads and upper'
level administrators.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
The 'school division has used an evaluation plan for their administrative
staff, and has recently adopted a separate evaluation plan for their other
employees similar to that used by general government. Staff has examined
the school division's Administrative Evaluation Plan and has recommended it
for adoption for evaluating general government administrative employees.
The plan retains the Job Description section that is used for all employees,
and replaces the Performance Characteristics section with a Leadership
Characteristics section that contains factors that are both performance
oriented, and supervisory oriented, i.e., problem solving, decision-making,
supervision of operations, effective goal setting, etc.
Additionally, the Administrative Plan includes a section for establishing
written objectives which are mutually agreed upon by the administrator being
evaluated, and their immediate supervisor.
It is unclear to me as to whether or not Board approval is required to amend
a performance evaluation plan. It could be considered an administrative
responsibility of my office, or that of the Personnel Director. However, I
deemed it important to relate the change, and seek your approval, or your
concurrence in the concept, whichever is deemed appropriate."
Mr. Agnor stated he is not sure if this needs Board approval, but he wanted the Board to
be aware of the amendment. He asked for approval or concurrence with the plan. He said he
would be happy to copy and distribute the whole plan if the Board so wishes.
Mr. Way commented that he thinks it is just following through on what was just passed
which is getting everybody more and more on the same basis. He concurs completely.
Mr. Fisher said there appears to be no objections.
Agenda Item No. 13. Monthly Building Activity Report, discussion of.
memorandum, dated June 27, 1986, was received from the County Executive:
The following
"Periodically, staff reviews the format and necessity for cyclical reports.
In recent discussions, Mr. Tucker and I concluded the Monthly Building
Activity Report should be reviewed. Please consider the following ques-
tions, and provide staff with your conclusions:
1. Is the report needed?
2. If so, should it be monthly, or would quarterly be sufficient?
3. Would you favor the following changes in format?
a)
Discontinue the narrative portion. The information it con-
tains is distributed to individual Board members as appli-
cations are received from their districts.
b)
Reduce the number of the listings of statistical data to those
determined by the Board to be useful or needed, i.e., remove
the breakdown of housing units by school districts, or remove
the estimated cost of construction by magisterial district, or
remove the listing of erosion control permits.
c)
Where possible, would you prefer the remaining statistical
data be presented in graph or bar chart format for easier
reading?
Thank you for your discussion and response. Removing the data is not
intended to eliminate the collection of statistics needed to review building
activity by the staff or Planning Commission. It is intended to reduce the
paperwork that you peruse."
Mr. Fisher said he liked the information in the report, but he thinks a quarterly report
would be enough. Mr. Way and Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Bowie stated that some of it would be okay to receive quarterlY. But the only thing
that bothers him is the building permit issue. He said that is all on the first page.
Mr. Fisher then directed the staff to get the detailed information to the Board on a
quarterly basis, but the update on the building permits should be on a monthly basis. Mr.
Fisher said to staff members.that he does read these reports and spends time going through
them to see where houses are being built according to school districts. He feels the quar-
terly report may be more revealing as to trends. Mr. Horne said all of the information will
continue to be logged, so if at any time any Board member would like a specific piece of
information it will be available in the office.
Mr. Bowie offered motion to receive only a portion of the report on a monthly basis and
the remainder quarterly. 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.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
137
Agenda Item No. 14.
butions.
Report on School Classified Employee Evaluations and Merit Distri-
Mr. Overstreet said this is the first attempt at establishing any type of system that
includes merit or performance-related distribution among employees who are in classified
ranges. The evaluation was set up so all that was .needed was some kind of remuneration
system. Most of the comments that he got from people who had to evaluate classified person-
nel, such as principals who had a lot of classified personnel, was that the evaluation,
itself, was so time-consuming. He said it is lengthy and sometimes they found that it was
taking longer and more effort than the evaluation of the professionals. They are going to
look at it this summer to try to tone it down some. But it has been completed. Mr.
Overstreet next went over the figures and explained that this is a tier arrangement just as
it is for administrators. For those who received a satisfactory rating, they will receive,
effective July 1, a three and one-half percent salary increase which is vested. That was
accomplished by giving each person one step and sliding the scale one percent. The top
category of employees received a raise that qualified them for that level where they got
their vested increase and in addition to that they received a three percent non-vested salary
increase or bonus. This is a one-time payment made to them on July 1. It is not reflected
in nor is it part of this salary and does not become vested. He said he was pleased with the
merit system and thinks it was generally successful.
Mr. Bowie said he is pleased to see that the School system is doing merit increases,
because he has been pushing for that for three years. He said these should not be vested and
should be lump sum payments. He hopes it works and hopes it can be considered in the future.
He would support the greater level of award if it were not vested. He says a merit system
that finds 56 percent meritorious is not a merit system. It is a way to raise pay. He said
that the County general government also had 56 percent of their employees recommended for
merit pay. He told them the same thing so he felt that he should say it to the school
system, also. He thinks the way it is being handled, however, is excellent.
Mr. Way said he feelS that school classified employees and general government classified
employees should be basically on the same system and evaluated the same way. He mentioned
that since the school form is too long, that maybe assistance could be obtained from Mr.
Agnor, and maybe the two systems could be meshed together. His goal is to see them all
practically the same.
Mrs. Cooke supported Mr. Way's statement.
Mr. Overstreet thanked the Board for its assistance, and especially its financial
assistance for the opportunity to get the system in place this year.
Agenda Item No. 15a. Appropriation: Education Department. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Direc-
tor of Finance, summarized that basically there are four appropriations that he will present
to the Board some dealing with the last fiscal year and some dealing with the new fiscal
year. He discussed the actual figures .that were in the memos that had been given to the
Board of Supervisors and explained why adjustments were needed.
Mr. Fisher asked when the County's books will close, and Mr. Breeden answered that the
first run of the June 30 financial statements was finished this morning. He is anticipating
that by August 15 they will have all of the final closings.
Mr. Fisher separated items and asked for motions in each category.
The following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated July 2,
1986, was presented:
"Several activities in the Education system will require year end adjust-
ments and additional appropriations. The attached memorandum from the
School Superintendent outlines the adjustments required.
The School Board anticipated earlier in the year that fees from the sale or
rental of textbooks would not meet the budgeted projections and that it
would be necessary to transfer as much as $25,000 from the School Fund to
the Textbook Fund. The request for this transfer was delayed in order to
determine the actual amount required. At this point, it is apparent that
textbook revenues will fall short by $24,187.55. In addition, actual
expenditures will exCeed the appropriation by approximately $4,441.9'3,
resulting in a total shortage of $28,629.48. This overexpenditure amount is
slightly more than stated in the Superintendent's memorandum due to expendi-
tures made since his meeting with the School Board. Since it is very
possible that other minor expenditures or year end adjustments may occur in
the Textbook Fund, I am recommending an additional appropriation of
$5,191.98 in order to allow some cushion for this possibility. This
overexpenditure and shortfall of revenue can be funded by use of the current
Textbook Fund balance of $10,507.00 and a transfer from the School Fund in
the amount of $18,872.53.
Due to the expansion of the After School Enrichment Program to all elemen-
tary schools, and the addition of the Community Education Program at Walton,
the Community Education Fund will require an additional appropriation of
$72,180.00. This amount would be funded from the additional revenues
received in the amount of $59,841.00 and the transfer of $12,339.00 from the
School Fund. These programs are intended to be self-sustaining, however,
this was not possible due to the initial start up cost of the new programs."
Mr. Fisher interrupted Mr. Breeden's presentation of the appropriation for the After
School Enrichment Program by saying he remembered the school administration personnel
standing before this Board and saying if the additional appropriations were approved for the
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 28)
after school programs that they would be totally self-supporting and would not require tax
funds from other persons who are not participating in the programs. He thinks this indicates
that this promise has been broken. He is not happy aboUt it.
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Fisher and said that part of the reason he had supported the
original program was that it would be self-supporting.
Mr. Breeden said that he believes these programs will be self-sustaining and feels that
~ithin this current fiscal year or at least the next couple of years the revenue will be of
~uch a nature that this amount of money can be transferred back to the School Fund. However
this is the status as of June 30, 1986.
Mr. Fisher stated that this Board has made it very clear that it will not support day
care operations. He will not vote for this appropriation.
Mr. Overstreet asked how long the after school programs had been in existence and was
told it had been two years. Mr. Overstreet said that must be when the promise was made, but
that they were not self-sustaining last year, so the deficit was twice as much last year, and
it has been cut in half. He stated that Mr. Amory Stamp and he have concluded that by next
year the program should be totally self-sustaining. He said that participation had doubled
this year, and he thinks the programs are headed in the right direction.
Mr. Way asked if the programs are self-sustaining if that mean that each school is
self-sustaining, or is it an overall situation. Mr. Overstreet said he believes that it is
the overall program. He said one particular school may help fund another.
Mr. Breeden mentioned that the program is the Community Education Program which operates
at Walton. This is a new program and is basically for adults. Mr. Overstreet said these are
popular programs.
Mr. Way said the danger of this kind of program is that some of the elementary schools
that are located in some of the wealthier areas of the County can wind up having very exten-
sive kinds of programs and those schools that are mainly in the poorer sections could wind up
with things that were considerably less. He would rather see the programs administered
centrally so that they will be basically equal throughout the area rather than totally by
individual school. Mr. Overstreet replied that it is a centralized function, and it is
important to keep that balance.
Mr. Breeden commented the new program in 1984-85 was an activity that was included the
School Fund. Therefore, deficits of these activities were not as noticeable and did not
result in actual over-expenditure of the appropriation. Now funds are set up in separate
accounts for the 1985-86 school year, and that is the reason they are more noticeable at this
point.
Mr. Fisher made the point to everybody that if the revenues are not there, then the
money should not'be spent. He does not think there should be any transfer of general govern-
ment funds into this program. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Fisher and said that at a recent
joint meeting with the School Board it was indicated that there would be a surplus. Is there
still money left over? Mr. Breeden said, at this point, the School Fund balance will be
sufficient to support its funding of the 1986-87 budget as originally projected even after
covering this.
Mr. Breeden then discussed the appropriation for the Remedial Education Program ~for the
year 1986-87, as contained in his memorandum of July 2, 1986:
"Based on the attached memorandum from N. Andrew Overstreet the County will
receive an additional $215,229 from the State during Fiscal Year 1986/87.
The purpose of this additional funding is to provide a Remedial Education
Program.
Based on the decision that school funds would only be appropriated by the
Categories set out by State Code, you should note that the attached Appro-
priation Form contains substantially less information. Since more detailed
information is actually required for accounting purposes, I have also at-
tached the line item details for information only.
I respectfully request appropriation of these funds as outlined on the
attached appropriation form and as approved by the School Board."
Mr. Fisher said he is very much in favor of this program, and he is glad the state is
going to support it.
At this time, Mr. Way offered motion to approve the first set of requests as submitted
by adopting the following resolutions. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no
further discussion. Roll was called and the motion was carried with the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie and Mr. Fisher.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $5,191.98 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Textbook Fund and coded as follows:
1-7000-63070-541100
1-2000-60000-999999
1-2000-93010-591104
Books & Subscriptions
Contingency
Transfer-Textbook Fund
$ 5,191.98
-18,872.53
18,872.52
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $5,191.98 the following
Revenue Codes:
2-7000-16000-161203
2-7000-51000-510100
2-7000-51000-512000
Sales/Rental of Textbooks
Fund Balance-Textbook
Fund Balance-School
($24,187.55)
10,507.00
18,872.53
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $72,180 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Community Education Fund and coded as follows:
1-2300-60000-100135 Compensation-Teachers
1-2000-60000-999999 Contingency
1-2000-93010-596004 Transfer-Community Education Fund
$72,180
-12,339
12,339
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1985-86 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $72,180 to the following
Revenue Codes:
2-2300-16000-161201 Tuition
2-2300-51000-512000 Transfer from School Fund
$59,841
12,339
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Mr. Way next offered motion to adopt the following resolution for the Remedial Education
Program. 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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $215,229 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the School Fund, transferred to the Remedial Education Program, and
coded as follows:
17B Instruction $168,481
17G Fixed Charges 46,748
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $215,229 to the following
Revenue:
State Remedial Education
$215,229
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 15b. Appropriation: Social Services Department. The following memo-
randum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, dated July 2, 1986, was received:
"Notice has been received that Albemarle County has been allotted additional
State funds for several Social Services programs. These programs will
provide additional State revenues of $41,542.00 but will require local
matching funds in the amount of $5,413.00.
Details of the individual programs are as follows:
In-Home (Companion) Services - Additional State funding in the
amount of $8,132 with a local match of $2,033. This program will
not require the actual appropriation of additional local funds
since the County has already appropriated $72,000 for this program
in FY 1986/87 which meets the local match requirements.
Adult Day Care - Additional State funding in the amount of $3,197
with a local match of $800. This program requires that the funds
be used for new or additional services and therefore will require
additional local funds in the amount of $800.
Social Services Block Grant - Additional State funding in the
amount of $5,653 With a local match of $1,884. This is an exist-
ing Title XX program for which the State has been able to provide
additional dollars.
e
Child Care - Additional State funding of $24,560 with a local
match of $2,729. This is a new Title XX program which will assist
low income families in payment of child care services. Families
will be required to pay a portion of the charge directly to the
child care provider.
Local monies are available to fund the local match. Based on the request
from Karen Morris, Director iof Social Services, I have prepared the attached
appropriation form for your approval."
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
Mr. Breeden said these appropriations all apply to this fiscal year of 1986-87 and are
the result of additional funding being provided by the state for various Social Services
programs. He described the programs and amounts of money outlined in his memorandum t~ Mr.
Agnor and the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $800 under the Adult Day Care Program will come out of the
amount that has already been approved, and Mr. Breeden answered that this would require
additional local funding because it is for additional services.
Mr. Bowie asked if this happened after the budget was completed, and Mr. Breeden an-
swered that these are new programs or notices from the State that came in the latter part of
May or June after the original budget had been adopted.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know much about the details, but he will support the
programs. He said it is difficult to evaluate these things when they are out of the total
budget process. He feels uneasy because he does not have much information, and because it is
contrary to the position the Board has taken with agencies outside of the County government.
He gathers that the In-Home Companion Service is a program that has already been approved and
funded, and this is just extra money that the County can take advantage of. No loCal money
will be required beyond what has already been done. The Adult Day Care Program will require
$800 more than what was appropriated, but it is the same program for which funds were appro7
priated in this current budget.
Mr. Fisher asked if the last three items are just expansion of things that are already
in the budget. Ms. Morris said this is true except for the Adult Day Care Program. She said
the money was approved this year but was given directly to JABA. It was not in the Social
Services budget. The State Department of Welfare has known that a certain number of dollars
were available for each one of these things since the General Assembly's last session. It
took them until the end of May in most cases to find out how they would allocate these funds.
They went to the localities during the General Assembly and asked if they got the additional
monies, who would be interested. She Said that at the end of the budget process, she had
mentioned to the Board that there might be additional monies for Child Day Care which would
probably be used in the same way as the scholarships, and asked if the Board would be sup-
portive, conceptually at least, if they applied for these monies.~ Her best recollection of
that is that the Board said it would be supportive.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Adult Day Care Program now being handled through JABA, will
be a separate program administered through Ms. Morris' Office? Ms. Morris replied that her
office has to write the checks in order to access this fund. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would
be operated from JABA, or will it be a separate staff that will do this in Ms. Morris'Office.
Ms. Morris responded that the same services will be purchased from the Adult Day Care Center
as the money that this Board appropriated to JABA will be used for.
Ms. Morris was asked who runs the Adult Day Care Program, and she replied that the
program has its own staff.
Mr. Lindstrom said the concern is that there not be two programs going on simultaneously
that are separately staffed. Ms. Morris clarified the situation by saying that this money is
only for the purchase of services. It doesn't fund any salary.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Social Services Block Grant is a program that is currently
funded through Ms. Morris' Office. She replied, "Yes sir." Mr. Lindstrom said then it is
truly just an expansion.
Mr. Lindstrom then inquired if the Child Care Program is similar to the request from
United Way which was turned down by this Board even though he supported the program. Ms.
Morris said it could be. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is the same idea, and Ms. Morris
replied, "Yes sir."
Mr. Agnor tried to clarify the matter by saying that the United Way Scholarship Program
is a scholarship fund that United Way administers itself. This program will provide funds
only for clients of Social Services, and they will use a variety of child care centers
possibly, but it will be on a case by case basis and will be administered by the Social
Services Department.
Ms. Morris explained that this is a special appropriation by the General Assembly to
assist low-income, working parents to secure child care services.
Mr. Fisher said this is what the County has been asking for, and Ms. Morris responded
that it is the first time the State has done it. It requires the provider to have a fee
schedule with the State schedule being adopted, or the locality can establish its own. She
said they will probably use the same fee schedule used by United Way just for consistency.
Her office will be determining the eligibility requirements and administering the funds.
Mr. Bowie said he can see the difference between this program and the United Way Pro-
gram. He opposed the United Way Program, not because he does not believe in child care, but
because he believes that is a voluntary contribution and not a mandatory contribution. He
can support this.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has supported the concept in the past and will support it now. He
will support the appropriation that is requested because there is substantial leverage
involved. He understands the procedural reasons that have brought this to the Board after
completion of the budget session. He is still not comfortable with this, but he does think
that advantage should be taken of the leverage.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31).
141
Mr. Lindstrom moved that the request be approved by adopting the following resolution.
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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $46,955 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund, transferred to the Social Services Department, and
coded as follows:
1-1000-53020-571101
1-1000-53020-571003
1-1000-53020-571103
1-1000-53020-571104
Companion Services
Adult Day Care
SSBG-Purchase of Services
Child Care
8,132
3,997
7,537
27,289
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1986-87 County
budget is hereby amended by the addition of $46,955 to the following
Revenue Codes:
2-1000-24000-240102
2-1000-51000-510100
Public Assistance/Welfare
Appropriation from Fund Balance
$41,542
5,413
FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 16. Charge for Asbestos Disposal at Ivy Landfill. The following
memorandum from the County Executive dated July 3, 1986, brought this matter to the Board:
"Recent regulations imposed by the State Bureau of Hazardous Waste Disposal
to dispose of asbestos material will result in increased capital and operat-
ing costs for the Ivy Landfill. The regulations require a fenced, secure
area separated from other disposal areas, and specific handling methods
involving hand placement of the material in the disposal trench by employees
with protection masks.
Staff recommends an initial handling charge of three-cents per pound or
$60.00 per ton, with a minimum of $25.00 for each load effective this month,
until the volume and actual costs are determined by experience. City
Council has approved the imposition of this charge.
The only other material charged for disposal is the splitting and burying of
tires, currently 40 cents/tire or $26.00 per ton.
Your approval of the imposition of the charge is requested."
Mr. Agnor went over his memo to the Board of Supervisors and requested that the Board
authorize the imposition of these fees effective this month. Action today could conceivably
be put into effect by July 15. Mr. Fisher asked if this charge will cover expenses. Mr.
Agnor said it is estimated that it will.
Mr. Fisher wanted to know if Mr. Agnor thought that this would have the perverse effect
of encouraging some haulers to dump materials on road sides instead of bringing them to the
landfill? Mr. Agnor responded that he does not believe so primarily because of the attention
that asbestos removal receives in terms of the companies that are specializing in that field.
Their requirements are to see that it is properly disposed of as well as removed from the
construction site. They would be in jeopardy if they dump on road sides because of their
licensing process.
Mr. Bowie asked about the small hauler who just happens to have some asbestos? Mr.
Agnor responded that staff does not believe that there are people with just small quantities
of it. Most of them are afraid of it, and will have someone come and get it. He does not
expect homeowners to be trying to figure out how to get rid of it.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following resolution. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
Mr. Lindstrom.
WHEREAS, compliance with State regulations regarding the disposal of
solid waste containing asbestos has resulted and will result in increased
capital expenditures and operating costs for the sanitary landfill operated
by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle near Ivy, Virgin-
ia; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that users of the landfill desiring to
dispose of asbestos materials should pay a charge to defray added expenses;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, that all persons depositing materials at the
Ivy Landfill containing asbestos shall pay a handling charge of $0.03 per
pound or $60.00 per ton of such material with a minimum charge of $25.00 per
load; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Charlottesville is
requested to concur in the imposition of this charge."
142
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
Agenda Item No. 21. At 12:35 P.M., Mr. Fisher announced that the Board would need to
adjourn for lunch, and there had been a request for an executive session to discuss
acquisition of property and personnel matters. Motion to adjourn into executive session for
these purposes was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and 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 2:00 P.M. with Mrs. Cooke chairing the meet-
ing, and with Mr. Fisher and Mr. St. John being absent at this time.
Agenda Item No. 18. Gypsy Moth Report. The following memorandum from Mrs. Sandra R.
Markwood, Administrative Assistance, dated July 2, 1986, was received:
"Attached for your review and consideration is a copy of a report which
outlines the current status of the gypsy moth situation in Albemarle County.
As the report indicates, there have been five positive sightings of gypsy
moth larvae in the County in 1986. This reflects an expansion of gypsy moth
larvae activity in the County over 1985 when one gypsy moth egg mass was
found in a single tree in Barboursville.
The Virginia Department of Forestry estimates that it will be three years
before significant outbreaks of gypsy moths occur in the northern portions
of Albemarle County and five years before major infestations of the pest are
reported throughout the County. Due to the complex and often controversial
nature of the gypsy moth control problem, Federal and State agencies encour-
age localities to use this lead time to plan and develop their strategies
for dealing with the pest before infestation levels of the insect are
reached.
Included in the attached report is a brief analysis of the life cycle
characteristics of the gypsy moth; potential impact of the insect on the
County and its property owners; control options available; available funding
and technical assistance resources; and, recommended actions for the County
to take in order to determine the scope and design of its gypsy moth pro-
gram. Highlights of the recommendations follow:
Establish a Gypsy Moth Committee responsible for providing technical
assistance and developing the County's control program.
Initiate a cooperative agreement for gypsy moth suppression efforts
with Federal, and State agencies, the City of Charlottesville and other
adjacent jurisdictions.
Designate a Gypsy Moth Coordinator to serve as the liaison to the Gypsy
Moth Committee and other agency and jurisdictional representatives.
Establish a gypsy moth public education program.
Plan, develop and implement a cooperative gypsy moth control program.
Hold public meetings to discuss the gypsy moth situation, proposed
actions and costs of those actions."
Ms. Sandy Markwood gave a brief overview of the status of the Gypsy Moth in Albemarle
County. She said they have had two more sightings reported in Albemarle County since the
report was written bringing the total sightings of the Gypsy Moth to seven. Last year at
this time only one Gypsy Moth sighting had been reported. She commented that she would be
glad to answer general questions and Mr. Mark Reynolds, County Extension Agent, and Mr. Caleb
Morris, who is a Gypsy Moth expert and has been with the Department of Forestry, are also
available for questions.
Mr. Caleb Morris, recently retired from the State Division of Forestry, said he had been
associated with the Gypsy Moth for 30 years at the national and local levels and has been a
member of several advisory councils. He has worked with the State Department of Agriculture
in their efforts to come up with a practical, efficient and useful program to control the
Gypsy Moth in the Commonwealth. He made a few comments on Ms. Markwood's recommendations.
He said a committee should be established now. That committee would evaluate the situation
as it appears to develop in Albemarle County and suggest what measures could be taken. He
said there is a wide range of possible measures. That committee could be the guidance for
the coordinator who will have to be appointed if the County wishes to apply for cost-sharing
funds with the state program. He does not think, at this time, a full-time coordinator is
needed. He suggested that the County could employ a part-time expert on the Gypsy Moth such
as himself to assist the County in setting up the program and making recommendations and
making surveys. He stated that as soon as possible someone should look at some of the County
owned lands to see which ones are most vulnerable. A planned and developed cooperative
control program could get underway any time now. There should be public meetings this fall
because he suggests that the aid of civic groups be enlisted as well as others who might be
interested in helping to do surveys. That way they would be better able to deal with them on
a case to case basis. In general, he believes the report is worthy of the Board's
consideration.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the initial action is to set up a committee which will report
back to the Board as to what measures needed to be taken, and Mr. Agnor said that was
correct.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
143
Mrs. Cooke said some sort of statement needs to be made as to how the staff intends to
proceed with a target date.
Mr. Henley suggested that they wait until next month, and Mr. Agnor said they could put
it on the August 13 agenda, and before that meeting a timetable and recommendation for the
composition of the committee will be sent to Board members.
Mr. Agnor commented that this will be Ms. Markwood's last appearance before this Board.
He wanted to publicly recognize her two years of service, and he indicated that this may be
her final product in the terms of a written report to the Board.
Mrs. Cooke stated that she hated to see her go, and she said that Ms. Markwood had done
a fine job.
Mr. Agnor said Ms. Markwood and her husband would be moving to the northern part of the
state for the purposes of his law practice.
Agenda Item No. 17. STA-86-1. Subdivision Ordinance Amendments (continued from May 21,
1986). The following memorandum from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Communi-
ty Development, dated July 3, 1986, was received:
"On May 21, 1986, the Board of Supervisors reviewed STA-86-01 and requested
that the staff change the proposed amendments to reflect comments provided
by the Board of Supervisors. The first suggested change was to rewrite
Section 18-13(b) to allow the director to take action on an exempt plat
submittal sooner than the two days of review provided to the staff. That
change has been made on the third page of the proposed amendments. The
second suggested change was to rewrite Section 18-37(m) to specify which
section of 18-36 is being referred to. Staff has looked at that matter
again and feels that there are portions of the entire section 18-36 that may
come into play on this matter and, therefore, a specific paragraph under
18-36 should not be referred to. The final suggested change was for the
County Attorney to verify that the road requirements for the family divi-
sions are in accordance with the state code. Based on further discussions
with the County Attorney, it has been determined that there can be no County
requirements for roadway construction standards on private roads to serve
family divisions. Table I has, therefore, been changed to reflect that
opinion.
I hope these changes in the previous submittal to the Board of Supervisors
have addressed the Board's concerns. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me."
Mr. Horne said that instead of going through all of the changes that are proposed and
have already been before the Board at a previous meeting, he would just go through the three
changes that the Board had pointed out as some things that should be looked at. He discussed
the change in Section 18-36(e) and asked Mr. Lindstrom if this addressed his concern as to
the way it should be written. Mr. Lindstrom said it did.
Mr. Horne went on to discuss the other changes. He said that Section 18-36 is a complex
section of the ordinance. He said that this section needs some work, and the staff will be
looking at that over the next year to try to reduce it to a more readable form.
During discussions dealing with the Highway Department and private entrances, Mr. Henley
asked if new entrances would have to be approved. Mr. Horne said that on new entrances, they
would have to do whatever is required. That is a separate situation.
Mrs. Cooke asked which comes first on a family subdivision, approval by the Highway
Department that they will give them an entrance, or do they make the family division first
and then get the highway approval. Mr. Horne replied that he will not sign the division plat
until there has been verification from the Highway Department that the lot can legally have
access to the road where it is shown. That could be either through a new entrance where they
will have to have a permit or an existing entrance. Under State Code, staff believes that
the Highway Department could impose increased entrance standards, but they have told the
County that they will not do that. Mr. 'Horne said they will take them at their word. He
said that Table II looks different because there are no construction standards, only the
notation for the plat. Mr. Horne said there were a lot of other changes that were gone
through item by item at the last meeting.
Mr. Bowie inquired about Section 18-13(b) and said he recollected that the problem there
was the minimum of time allowed for the-director to provide a review on an exempt plat
submittal. He does not think this has been corrected. Mr. Horne said the way this section
wass written before he could not sign the plat within two days. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it
should say that nothing shall preclude the director from doing it as fast as he can. Mr.
Horne said staff's reasoning is that they have people show up at the front desk and say that
it must be reviewed now. Mr. Lindstrom said that is not required by the ordinance, and Mr.
Horne said they explain that to people. He would like something in the ordinance to say that
staff does not have to stand at the front desk and do that. Mr. Lindstrom said this does not
preclude staff from doing it within two days, but it gives language that does not obligate
that it be done immediately.
Mr. Horne said it is clearly not staff's intention to unnecessarily delay people. It is
difficult for the staff planner to sit at the front desk and sign off on it while the appli-
cant is standing there.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Mr. Bowie. asked why two days of review is more .effective than five. Mr. Horne stated
that in those cases where they feel they do not have the ability to review it, this will
allow them at least two days. Mr. Keeler said there is an_administrative policy that no
plats will be approved unless it is reviewed by two staff members in order to avoid error.
They have regularly established meetings twice a week where they go over all plats. They are
trying to get_people away from coming in at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. If people are used to doing
it, they will continue to do it, and staff could end up making mistakes. Mrs. Cooke said she
thinks this is a reasonable request on the part of the staff, and Mr. Bowie agreed. But he
said he does not see where this does it because he doesn't see the.difference between the
five day period and the two day period. They still can't tell the person they can't do it
right now. This does not solve the problem as it is worded. Mr. Horne replied that they can
point to this code section that says there is no obligation to do this within two days.
Additional time is needed. If they can point to a code section, there is direct authoriza-
tion that they don't have to do it right away. Mrs. Cooke asked if it could be worded
without a time limit but have review requirements instead, such as this has to be reviewed in
staff meetings as opposed to one person doing it at a time. A policy could be established of
team review. Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. Bowie that since there already was a five day limit
there was no reason to change it to two days.
Mr. Horne said the request of the staff is for all of the subdivision text amendments to
be approved as presented.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the ordinance as presented with the change in
Section 18-13(b) which is to strike all of the language after the words "within five days of
filing." 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:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CERTAIN SECTIONS OF
CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
KNOWN AS SUBDIVISION OF LAND
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that certain sections of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County
Code known as Subdivision of Land is hereby amended through the following
changes:
Article I. In General.
Sec. 18-2.
Definitions.
Subdivision. The division, including resubdivision and the estab-
lishment of any condominium regime, of or in a parcel of land resulting
in two or more lots, parcels or units for the purpose of transfer of
ownership or building development, such that:
(a) Any one of such lots, parcels or units is less than five acres
in area; or
(b) Any one of such lots, parcels or units fronts less than two
hundred fifty feet on a road which is part of the state highway system or
state secondary highway system.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following shall not be deemed a
subdivision:
(a) The sale and/or exchange of land between adjoining land-owners;
provided, that:
(1) The land so sold and/or exchanged shall be added to and
become part of an existing adjacent parcel as evidenced by appropriate
symbol and wording on the plat together with signatures of both land-
owners pursuant to section 18-55(b) and by the instrument of conveyance
thereof; and,
(2) No parcel which was five acres or greater in area prior to
such sale and/or exchange shall, as a result of such sale and/or ex-
change, be less than five acres in area;
(3) No parcel shall, as a result of such sale and/or exchange,
front less than two hundred fifty feet on a road which is part of the
state highway system or state secondary highway system; and
(4) No additional lot or parcel shall be created by such sale
and/or exchange.
(b) The division of any parcel occasioned by an exercise of eminent
domain by any public agency.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
The foregoing notwithstanding all divisions of land shall be deemed
to be subdivisions for the sole purpose of the application of section
18-13(b) of this chapter.
Article II. Administration of Chapter.
Sec. 18,13. Administration approval of certain subdivision plats.
(a) Same.
(b) Every division which is not subject to review in accordance
with section 18-13(a) or section 18-41 shall be submitted for review by
the director of planning to insure compliance with section 18-28 and
section 18-55 (b), (c), (h), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s), hereof. The
director of planning shall review each such plat within five days of
filing.
ARTICLE III. Design Standards.
Division 4. Lots.
Sec. 18-30. Location.
Every subdivision lot shall front on an existing public street, or a
street dedicated by the subdivision plat and maintained or designed and
built to be maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation, except that private roads shall be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of this chapter. Except for lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac, frontage shall not be less than required by the zoning
ordinance. This regulation may be reduced for frontage on public street
or private road cul-de-sacs; provided that driveway separation shall be
in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
standards. When a new subdivision abuts one side of an existing or
platted street, the subdivider shall dedicate at least half the
right-of-way necessary to make such street comply with the minimum width
fixed for the same by this chapter.
Division 6. Streets.
Sec. 18-36. Private roads.
(e) kll private roads approved pursuant to this section shall
conform to the following:
(1) Private roads permitted under sections 18-36(b)(1),
18-36(b)(2) and 18-36(b)(5) shall conform to the requirements of table I.
Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(3) shall conform to the
requirements of table I except that a minimum CBR of subgrade of 10 shall
be required and the depth of base, width of travelway, minimum sight
distance and surface treatment may be increased in accordance with the
standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
the most traffic-intensive uses to which such land may lawfully be
devoted. Private roads permitted under section 18-36(b)(4) shall conform
to the requirements of table II.
Note: Table I amended and moved to new location within text.
Illustration to accompany note one, table I, retained and moved to new
location within text. Table II retained, but moved to new location also.
(2) Same.
(3) Same.
(4) Same.
(5) Same.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 36)
TABLE I
Single-Family Detached
(Residential/Agricultural/Commercial/Industrial)
Number of Lots Width of Depth of Surface Minimum
Served by Road Travelway Base Treatment Sight Distance
SEE NOTE ONE In addition (¥DH&T (Except as (In accordance
to 4 foot aggregate otherwise with VDH&T
shoulders base) expressly methodology
and ditch provided) for stopping
requirements sight
distance
2 lots ........... SEE NOTE TWO .................................
Family division ........... SEE NOTE TWO .................................
only (Any number
of lots)
3 - 5 lots 14 feet 6" #25 Not required 100 feet
or #26 SEE NOTE 3
6 - 10 lots 14 feet 6" #21 Prime & 100 feet
Double Seal
or Approved
Equivalent
11 - 20 lots 18 feet 6" #21 Prime & 120 feet
Double Seal
or Approved
Equivalent
NOTE ONE: (Same.)
NOTE TWO:
The surveyor shall certify on the plat that the existing and/or
proposed right-of-way is of adequate width and horizontal and
vertical alignment to accommodate a travelway passable by ordinary
passenger vehicles in all but temporary extreme weather condi-
tions, together with area adequate for maintenance of such travel-
way. Such certification may be accomplished by the following
wording on the plat: "This private road will provide reasonable
access by motor vehicle as required by section 18-36 of the
Albemarle County Code." This provision includes family divisions.
NOTE THREE: When slope of road is seven percent or less. If slope exceeds
seven percent, six inches of number 21 or number 2lA and prime and
double seal.
ILLUSTRATION TO ACCOMPANY NOTE ONE, TABLE I.
Insert at this point in text.
Same.
TABLE II. Same.
Insert at this point in text.
(f) Same.
(g) Same.
(h) Same.
Sec. 18-37. General standards of design.
(m) Access road. No subdivision shall be approved unless the princi-
pal means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, or, in the case of a private
road, to the standards of the county as set forth in section 18-36 of this
chapter, throughout its length including any distance between the boundary
of the proposed subdivision and existing public road.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Article IV. Platting.
Division 3.
Final Plats.
Sec. 18-55. Contents.
Paragraph. Same.
(a) Same.
(b) A statement that: "The division of the land described herein is
with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned
owner, properties and trustees. Any reference to future potential develop-
ment is to be deemed as theoretical only. All statements affixed to this
plat are true and correct to the best of my knowledge."
(c) The boundary lines of the area being subdivided Shall be deter-
mined by an accurate field survey with bearings shown in degrees, minutes
and seconds to the nearest ten seconds and dimensions to be shown in feet to
the nearest hundredths of a foot to the accuracy of one in five thousand.
Total acres in each existing and proposed parcel plus delineation of the
Flood Hazard Overlay District of the zoning ordinance shall be shown.
Article V.
Special Provisions Applicable to
Certain Divisions.
Sec. 18-57. Exemption of certain divisions; qualifications.
(c) No such parcel shall be transferred, except by devise, descent or
operation of law, to a person other than a member of the immediate family of
the transferor, for a period of one year except for purposes of securing any
purchase money and/or construction loan, including bona fide refinancing. A
statement shall be affixed to the plat that such parcel shall not be trans-
ferred for a period of one year from date of recordation except in accor-
dance with this section.
(d) Any such parcel which is transferred to the owner of any adjacent
parcel shall be deemed to become an integral part of such adjacent parcel
and shall be so noted on the plat by appropriate symbol and wording.
(e) The requirements of sections 18-36(a), 18-36(d)(2), 18-36(d)(3),
18-36(d)(4) and 18-36(e)(1) shall apply to any plat submitted pursuant to
section 18-36(b)(5) of this chapter.
(f) Same.
(g) Same.
(h) Any lot created which is less than five acres shall comply with
section 18-23 of this chapter.
(i) In addition to the foregoing, any such plat shall comply with
section 18-13(b) of this chapter.
Sec. 18-58. Procedure.
Each such division shall be registered by the filing of such division
with the director of planning, who shall make a determination as to whether
such division is in accord with the provisions of sections 18-13(b) and
18-57 of this chapter. In the event that he shall determine that such
division is so in accord he shall issue a certification of exemption which
shall be recorded with the plat of such division. No such plat shall be
recorded without the attachment of such certificate. In the event that he
shall determine that such division is not so in accord, he shall deny such
certificate, giving in writing his reasons for such determination. The
director of planning shall act either to issue or deny such certificate in
accordance with section 18-13(b). The provisions of section 18-43(b) shall
apply to any such division.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Mr. Lindstrom moved to appoint Mr. Burton M. Webb as
a member of the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation Board with a term to expire
on June 26, 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:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pa_ge 38)
Mrs. Cooke mentioned the vacancies on the Advisory Council on Aging, the BOCA Code Board
of Appeals, Community Service Board, Drunk Driving Steering Committee and the Emergency
Medical Services Council. Mrs. Cooke would like to be replaced on the Drunk Driving Steering
Committee. She stated that she and Mr. Fisher would decide what to do about the appoint-
ments.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie said that he has had two or three problems in his district, and there is
nothing in the Zoning Ordinance to take care of them. First was the tire situation, and if
the tires had not been a fire hazard, he does not think the problem could have been correct-
ed. Secondly, there is a problem being handled through the court involving junk automobiles.
He would like for the staff to think about this. He said the new Zoning Administrator said
he had some ideas on some rather simple things that would allow him to do something about
properties being turned into a dump or something unsightly. Mr. Bowie is asking what can be
done, and would like for the staff to inform the Board within the next couple of months. He
wants to know if anything can be done without going through a long court process just trying
to keep the neighborhood nice.
Mr. Henley asked what the tire situation was, and Mr. Bowie said there were tires piled
up at Cismont, and there was some doubt under the Zoning Ordinance whether or not the man had
a right to keep the tires there.
Mr. Henley stated that farmers who make big bales of hay use truck and car tires to
stack them on. Mr. Henley said he has a lot of them.
Mr. Bowie said he is talking about something that is a public nuisances.
Mr. Agnor said he had notification from the Virginia Association of Counties that they
are starting to accumulate recommendations for amendments to the State Code with those
requests being made by September 1. The August agenda will have items of concern that need
to get into the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative Program.
Mr. Agnor noted that he had received the following letter from Dr. Richard Prindle,
Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District:
"This letter is written in response to the May 7, 1986, resolution concern-
ing the need for sanitary disposal of sewage for residences near the Woolen
Mills and East Market Street.
Examination and observation by health department staff disclose that the
Woolen Mills, occupied by the Allied Van Company, and five dwellings do not
have safe, sanitary sewage disposal systems.
Under regulations of the Board of Health, occupancy of such premises is
prohibited. No authority, however, is provided the health department to
require the owners or occupants to connect to a sewer system. Such
authority is granted the local government (Sections 15.1-1261 and 1262) by
rules and regulations or resolution.
We will be pleased to work with the Board and the Service Authority to
resolve and correct the problem."
Mr. Agnor stated that the Board had adopted a resolution and sent it to the Health
Department requesting that they participate in solving a sanitary sewage problem near the
Woolen Mills East Market Street area. Dr. Prindle has responded to that resolution indicat-
ing that there is one warehouse building and five dwellings involved and pointing out that
the State Code requires that any mandated connections to a system must be dealt with by the
local governing body. He said the Service Authority staff is contacting property owners
involved in this project and are trying to determine their ability and willingness to connect
to the sewer line that is being proposed to being installed. If there is a problem, there
will be a report back to the Board.
The last item that Mr. Agnor talked about was an update of the monitoring of the wells
and underground water systems in the vicinity of the Greenwood Chemical Plant. He had
indicated earlier that there would be another testing of the water wells in that area, and
they have received information that it will be done this month. This will involve testing of
the wells that were tested earlier when the explosion first occurred, and will also involve
the sinking of several more monitoring wells from the studies that have been made in terms of
locating some additional areas that need to be watched and monitored.
Mr. St. John mentioned the item from earlier today concerning the appeal of Mr. Edgerton
on the Milkey Tract Plat. He said he would not ask the Board to have any special meeting
about the appeal for a family division. He is satisfied, in his own mind, that if there is
any appeal to result, it can't be lawfully changed. If the Board should elect to put the
appeal down for a hearing and notifies the applicant, that can be done just as well at a
regular meeting as a special meeting. It will not change the outcome. After the appeal is
heard and paperwork is reviewed, it is going to be a case where, under the law as written,
the staff had no choice but to approve this subdivision and any violation of the Zoning
Ordinance is new business.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Edgerton and Mr. Gouldman if the discussion this morning re-
solved the problem~in their minds.
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Mr. St. John said that it did not. They say the Zoning Ordinance is not satisfied
because the slopes and buildable space don't fit the requirements. The key here is that
there is in Mr. Agn6r's file, which came out of the Planning and Zoning Office, a certificate
by a licensed engineer with 15 or 20 years experience and a reasonably good reputation that
says just the opposite. It says the slopes and the buildable area fit the Zoning Ordinance
requirement. Mr. St. John thinks it is too late to say that this can't be accepted, .and
because someone says this is not true, an investigation will be launched and the people ~ill
be summoned before the Board. He does not think the Board has the grounds to do this because
the surveyor's certificate is in the file. In no other case does he remember that this was
not accepted, where an adjacent landowner takes the position that this certificate is in the
file, but it is not correct. And if something is not done to stop the bulldozers right away,
the bulldozer will correct the topographic deficiency so that the certificate will be correct
by this time next week. That is the position that the complaintants are taking. That~would
mean that the Board would have to lunge into this adverse action against these people to show
that a certificate that they filed is wrong. He is not going to advise the Board to do that.
Mr. Henley asked if there was someone in the Engineering Department who could look at it
and confirm whether this is reasonably correct, if they measure it off and check the slopes?
Mr. Agnor said that when the plat was appealed to the Board and the Planning Commis-
sion's actions were:approved several years ago, a condition was added that said you approved
a subdivision but it was going to be contingent, beforebeing signed, upon examination by the
Engineering Office that the lot has a building site. After that action, the engineers for
the applicant at that time, provided a topographic map and everything else that was needed.
The County Engineering staff took it to the field and sent a copy of the memo that said
according to their examination it is a buildable lot and there are sufficient sites for a
building and two septic tanks. It was one lot at that time. They did not look at it from a
two lot point of view or having more than two building sites on it.
Mr. Lindstrom said the question is whether there is a building site and two septic field
locations on both of the lots that have now been created.
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Edgerton is saying that on the first appeal that the property
was not buildable for a single site. Now he is saying that on the second appeal, it is not
buildable for two sites.
Mr. St. John said that Mr. Edgerton is saying that it is not buildable on either of the
two sites, which means that Mr. Bailey's certificate was wrong and that the present sur-
veyor'S certificate is wrong. Mr. Agnor explained that Mr. Bailey was the former County
Engineer. Mr. St. John said that Mr. Ashley Williams actually signed the certificate, but
Mr. Agnor commented that Mr. Bailey signed the memorandum because he oversaw the field work
on it. Mr. Agnor said he saw some of the papers that had notations on them, and he recog-
nized his handwriting. ~
Mrs. Cooke said she sympathizes with the man and his problem, but in light of what's on
file, she doesn't know what to say.
Mr. Agnor stated that Mr. Edgerton said to him today and on a previous occasion that the
lot was approved as a single six-acre lot because it was not buildable as two, three-acre
lots. The files do not support that. There was no field survey made to determine whether it
was buildable at the time it was being subdivided. The field survey and the mapping of it
occurred after the Board, in January, 1981, said that this lot could either be joined to an
adjacent lot, or it had to be determined to be buildable. Mr. Edgerton said that it was put
into a single lot and noted on the plat. that there would be no further subdivision by the
Planning Commission because it had been determined that it could not hold two buildabte lots.
That is not what the file says. The file says that he contended that it could not be built
upon even as a single lot. The subdivider at that time, not having topographic information
to be able to certify that it was buildable, agreed to leave it as a single lot and agreed
that it would be adjoined to an adjacent lot if it was found that it was not buildable. The
Board did not accept that, and said it would approve it as a subdivison and make a deter-
mination if it was buildable.
Mr. Lindstrom Commented that he would support having the County Engineer go out and take
a look at these two parcels as soon as he can do it before the bulldozers have recontoured
the land to see what is really going on out there. All the Board has is conflicting informa-
tion. It is an unusual circumstance because the County did tell the gentleman that it would
let him know before it happened, and it didn't get done that way. He understands why, but he
would be interested in seeing what the County Engineer can tell now. It may be that by the
end of the day there may be enough work that's been done out there that it may already be
different.
Mr. Agnor said there is no more grading going on out there. He stated that the man just
cleared off some brush. Mr. Edgerton is saying that he can change the contours if he chooses
to do so, and Mr. Agnor is saying that he can't do that until he gives the County the plan
for it, which he has not done. There's no danger in it happening very quickly.
Mr. Henley said that he, too, would like for the County Engineer to take a look at it
and get a memo to the Board as to what he finds.
Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Henley meant whether the two lots are buildable, and Mr. Henley
answered, "yes."
Mrs. Cooke wanted information as to what activity has taken place on the site.
Mr. St. John said the Board has to be careful that the Engineer does not get into a
confrontation, because he has no right to be there. If the owner tells him to get off the
property, then he has to-get off. Mr. Lindstrom said the Engineer Can then report to the
Board that the owner would not let him go onto the property.
150
July 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
Mr. Henley said he really did feel that the Engineer.should look at the property since
it is such a mixed up situation. He asked Mr. St. John if ~he has to have permission to go on
the property. Mr. St. John stated that there is no application pending anymore, so he has no
right to be there. Mr. Henley asked Mr. St. John if the Engineer has a right to be there
ce the Board has had complaints by an adjoining landowner. Mr. Agnor replied to Mr.
Henley's question by saying that it may be that he may not even have to go on the site.
Everything is in the file. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the~Engineer should go out there.
Mr. St. John said that in a normal situation, the Engineer would be showing the Health
Department people, where to go to make these tests. But if there has been this adversity and
complaints, the landowner is not going to be in a good frame of mind.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to request the County Engineer to contact the property
owner to see what work has been done and to determine whether two building sites and four
septic field sites can be put on the property and that the Board not take any action on this
appeal until after the property owner or his agent and the adjoining property owners have
been notified. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 22.
adjourned at 2:57 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was