1985-01-09~ Januar-~ ~ 1 8-Re:ul~r Da2L_Meetin~)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
January 9, 1985, at 9:00 a.m. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
Absent: No one.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of
Finance; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mrs. Sandra R.
Markwood, Administrative Assistant; Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation;
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher, Board Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. The consent agenda was approved on motion by Mrs.
Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 4.1 Street Signs: Gillums Ridge Road. Mr. Ronald Pack, a resident living on
State Route 787, requested street name signs for the recently approved road name for Gillums
Ridge Road, and has agreed to pay the cost of the signs and shipping. The following resolution
was adopted to accomplish this request.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the f
f~ll~i~g roads:
Gillums Ridge Road (State Route 787) at the northwest
corner of its intersection with State Route 708; and
Gillums Ridge Road (State Route 787) at the northeast
corner of its intersection with State Route 682; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to the 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 Trans-
portation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned s~reet signs.
Item No. 4.2 Change Orders Number 10, 11, 12 -- Court Square Project.
The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, Deputy County Executive,
dated January 2, 1985:
"Attached are copies of change orders numbers 10, 11, and 12 for your approval,
which increases the contract by $142165 bringing the total contract to
$1,471,741. These change orders obligate all but approximately $7,000
of the original appropriation. Change order No. 13 is already in
process which will add about $2,000 needed to strengthen the under-
pinning of the west corner of the Court House. Considerable work is
left to be done on the Court House. The target date for completion
is late March, 1985.
The major items in the above change orders are:
Change Order No. 10 - Furnish and install sump pump with pit to
prevent flooding of the basement.
Change Order No. 1t - To relocate the chiller and build a new wall to cut
down on the level of noise in the General District Court.
Change Order No. 12 - To change the floor plan in the Commonwealth
Attorney's area and install some shelving.
Ail change orders have been reviewed by staff with the architect as to need
and competitively priced prior to authorization in an effort to control the
project cost. Ail change orders proposed by the contractor, staff or archi-
tect must be reviewed with the County Executive's staff and written authori-
zation provided prior to proceeding with the change order."
Mr. Bowie asked if the $7,000 set aside.for change orders on the Court Square project will
be adequate to complete the project. Mr. Agnor said staff has discussed this with the archi-
tect and they feel the $7,000 will be adequate if no problems crop up when the work begins on
the Courthouse. Mr. Agnor said some of the work on the building calls for tearing into walls,
and the architect sai'd he may find some unexpected problem there that might require discussing
the cost overrun with the Board.
Mrs.' Cooke asked what the installation of television cable is for. Mr. Agnor said this is
a conduit for the microwave cable for the State teletype system. There is also a television
system in the building to observe people in the lock-up.
1984.
Item No. 4.3 Report of the Director of Social Services for October, dated December 28,
The following memorandum was included in the report:
"As promised two months ago~ the following is a report of various intra-
agency and community activities in which staff are involved. These, .along
with the numerous interagency activities discussed earlier give an overview
of the total involvement of staff in efforts to improve, expand and/or
coordinate services to those whom we serve.
A part of our functioning which I will not be capturing on paper involves
the many task forces, committees, or study groups that are established
from time to time either locally or at the state level to look at pro-
cedural or policy issues that need change or revision. Briefly, we have
had staff involved in such efforts related to the Employement Services
Program, Child Protective Services Program, Family Services, Foster Care,
Adult Services, Supervisory Issues, and Eligibility Fraud. These are
mostly short-term committees, which distinguishes them from the following:
Friends & Relatives of Nursing Home Residents - (Local organization
with national affiliates addressing the concerns related to nursing
home services) Rosemary Ashton, Eligibility Worker; Judy Melton,
Eligibility Worker.
Jefferson Area Board on Aging Advisory Board - Kathy Ralston,
Administrative Assistant.
Outreach Counseling Board of Directors - Kathy Ralston, Adminis-
trative Assistant.
Emergency Runaway Shelter Advisory ~Board - (a part of grant admini- -
steredby Central Virginia Child Development Association) Sue Hefflin,
Social Worker.
Tri-Area Foster Family (TAFF) Advisory Board - (Cooperative arrange-
ment between City, Albemarle and Greene counties to recruit, orient
and train foster parents) Chris Walker and Cheryl Lewis, Social
Workers; Anne Bloxom, Supervisor.
ADOPT (Statewide Committee) - ("Adoption Development OUtreach Plan-
ning Team'', composed of public and private adoption agencies' repre-
sentatives to address child adoption issues statewide) Chris Walker
(Chairperson)
*7.
Child Sexual Victimization Task Force - K.C. Keogh, Social Worker,
Anne Bloxom.
Child Sexual Victimization Task Force Education Committee - same
as above.
Child Sexual Victimization Task Force - Albemarle County Multi-
Disciplinary Team - Anne Bloxom.
Seven, eight and nine are all a part' of a local, interdisciplinary
approach to deal with child-sexual abuse issues.
10.
'Kids on the Block' Puppeteer - (A puppet show for children to
teach them about handicaps of various kinds and about abuse) K.C.
Keogh and Carolyn Pettit.
11.
Coordination of Resources Committee (CORE) - (A local effort to
coordinate emergency needs resources, i. e. food, clothing, shelter)
Richard Goodin, Social Work Supervisor.
12.
University of Virginia Committee for Child Protection - (A hospital
based multi-discipline team to address child abuse cases found in
the hospital) Anne Bloxom.
lB.
Thomas Jefferson Child Advocacy Committee and Executive Com-
mittee - (A multi-discipline effort encouraged by state code to
address child abuse issues locally) Anne Bloxom.
14. Albemarle County Housing Coalition - Karen Morris, Director.
15.
Virginia League of Social Services Executives - Services
Committee (statewide) - (The state's professional organization E~r~ia ?
Directors and Assistant ~irectors) Kar~n Morris, chairperson.
16.
Albemarle County Program Review Committee - Kathy Ralston and Karen
Morris.
_~ ~ Januar 1 8 Re ular.Da Meetin
17.
18.
State Board of Social Services Sub-Committee on Service Pro-
grams Mandates and Regulations - CA committee established by the
State Hoard of Social Services to address a change in the State's
1984 Appropriation Act) Karen Morris.
Valle~ Regional Fraud Committee - (A regio~al committee that
addresses welfare fraud issues) Marianne Shanaberger,
Eligibility Worker.
Virginia League of Social Services Executives - Executive
Secretary - (Ms. Patrick serves as an ex-officio member of the
Executive Committee for clerical support. All expenses paid
by the League)i Betsy Patrick, Clerical SuperviSor."
Item No. 4.4 Memo from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Dated December 28 1984 concerning "Well
Testing Policies for County Owned Properties". ' '
"Mr. David C. Paperfuse and I met today with representatives from the
State Health Department, Dr. Richard A. Prindle, Mr. Jack Collins and
Mr. Jim Moore, to discuss the above referenced subject. During the
meeting it was learned that current Federal/State regulations require
the following well test:
One bacteriological sample/quarter
One nitrate anaylsis/five years
We all agree that the above requirements are inadequate for our needs.
Mr. Jim Moore, Water Specialist from the Health Department's Regional
Office in Lexington, has agreed to develop and recommend a well testing
policy which should meet our needs. If staff does not receive the
Health Department's well testing policy in time for your January 9 meet-
ing, I would recommend that you defer this matter until February t3th.
We also discussed the testing of the samples taken from Stone Robinson
Elementary School. While some of the tests being run are still incon-
clusive, they intend to take a final sample in early January from both the
original well and the latest well drilled and submit a report on the
results of those tests along with Dr. Hewlett's test results in late
January or early February.
Finally, we discussed the suggestion made for monitoring septic drain-
fields at County-owned property. It was recommended that the staff at
the schools which are being served by drainfields be made aware of the .
types of toxic material that should not be disposed of through the
septic system. Also, the well testing program being developed should
provide the necessary monitoring to alert the County of any contaminants
which may enter the groundwater supply. Mr. Papenfuse, with help from ~t~a~
the Health Department, will be developing a list of toxic substances which
should nat enter the septic system. He will then distribute this list to
the appropriate personnel."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County has received any more information on the well water
contamination at Stone-Robinson School and what contaminants might be present in that water.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Tucker just received reports on the water and has not had a chance to review
them yet, but the results will be presented to the Board when they are available.
Item No. 4.5 Piedmont Corridor Mail. The Board received a memorandum dated January 5,
1985, Containing the names of 179 persons who had sent letters opposing the proposed Piedmont
Corridor highway to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Commissioner Harold C.
King.
Item No. 4.6 Memo from Charles K. Trible, State Auditor, dated November 5, 1984, for-
warding a copy of the Comparative Report on Local Reven'ues~'an'd'Expen'd'it'ures for fiscal year
ended June 30, 1983, pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 15.1-156. (Each Board member receive,
a copy of this report.)
Item No. 4.7 Memo from Richard Hall-Sizemore, Executive Director of the Virginia Assoc-
iation of Counties, dated January 2, 1985, concerning the 1985 Legislative Program of VaCO and
Related Issues.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes - July 18, 1984 (night).
Mr. Bowie said he had read these minutes and had two corrections. On the second page,
second paragraph of the discussion, change the word "said" to "told". He also suggested the
sentence "He said the drinking water is already bad." be deleted from the Fifth page, third
paragraph from the bottom, since Mr-. Bowie himself had made the statement in reference to water
in California, not Albemarle County. Mr. Bowie noted that he, not Mrs, Cooke, had seconded the
motion at the bottom of page five.
With these corrections, Mr. Bowie made motion to approve the minuteS.~ -Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
January 9. _,_ 1985
(Regular Day Meeting~
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters.
Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, if the president of the Woodbrook Parent-Teachers' Organization_
had contacted him about the entrance to Woodbrook Subdivision from Route 29 North. Mr. ~
Roosevelt said no, and the matter was dropped.
Mr. Henley said the petitioners who had asked the Highway Department for road improvements
on Route 674 near Route 614 several months ago have not been back in contact with Mr. Roosevelt
because a spokesman for the group has not been selected.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the section of the walkway on Georgetown Road that was torn up
for the construction of Terrell Subdivision will be reinstalled. Mr. Lindstrom said that since
construction there is nearly finished, the County Engineer should see about having this walkway
repaired by the developer.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters.
the State Highway System.
Request to accept a new portion of Route 697 into
Mr. James Murray, Jr., was present for Mr. Jeff Hale. He reminded the Board members that
Mr. Hale had requested permission about a year ago to move a portion of Route 697 away from his
house, and had offered to pay the total cost involved. This request was approved by the Board.
The road is now complete in accordance with the plans approved by the Board. Mr. Hale asks
that the Board accept the new portion of road and abandon the old section at the same time.
Mr. Hale has conveyed about two acres of land to the Commonwealth along with drainage easements
£or this project. There is a construction crew on the site with heavy equipment. The dirt
from the new roadbed was moved and piled in the front yard of Mr. Hale's house. He needs to
have that dirt moved and spread on the old roadbed before the crew leaves the property. Mr.
Murray said the Board can, under State Code, adoPt a resolution asking that the new section be
taken into the system contingent upon a letter approving the abandonment being received from
the State Highway Commissioner.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the procedure is set out under Code of Virginia Section 33.1-155.
This ~ection allows the Board to simultaneously abandon an old section and take in a new sec-
tion when c~rtain findings exist:
That the road must be altered;
Thataa new road be constructed in lieu thereof;
That the new road serve the same citizens as the old road;
That approval of the State Highway and Transportation Commissioner
be obtained.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion that the Board, having found the above factors present, adopts
the new section of Route 697 into the State Highway System and abandons the old section shown
on the plat presented to the Board. (Resolution follows.) He conditioned his motion on the
completion of construction to the satisfaction of the Highway Department and on the recordation
of the Deed (along with drainage easements) in the Circuit Court Clerk's office. Mr. Way
seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System due to
relocation and construction of Route 697;
NOW,' THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the following section, as indicated on a plat recorded
in Deed Book 825, page 190, showing a 40-foot right-of-way (copy of plat made
a part of the permanent records of the Board), be added to the Secondary
.System Pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia:
Beginning at a point approximately seven-tenths of a mile
from the southbound lane of Route 29, thence in a westerly
direction 1,600 feet to the end of dedication as shown on
a plat of "A 40' Strip of Tax Map 98, Parcel 4, to be dedi-
cated to Public Use", prepared by Gary M. Whelan and dated
December 13, 1984.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section be abandoned:
Beginning at a point approximately seven tenths of a mile
from the southbound lane of Route 29, thence in a westerly
direction 1,200 feet to the end of abandonment as shown on
a plat of "A 40' Strip of Tax Map~98, Parcel 4, to be Dedi-
cated to Public Use", prepared by Gary M. Whelan and dated
December 13, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 7. Local Options for Administering Industrial Development Bonds,
deferred from December 19, 1984.
January ~, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., presented this item to the Board, saying the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority had considered the Board's guidelines delivered on December 19, 1984 and feels
that the Board and Authority should have some guidelines now, even though no applications for
industrial development bonds are pending.
Mr. Murray said the Board and Authority need to iron out some philosophical differences.
The Industrial Development Authority approved the staff's draft of a policy for the adminis-
tration of bonds, presented at the December 19, 1984 Board meeting. The IDA liked the idea of
meeting quarterly, of allocating bonds on a first-come, first-served basis, but it feels that
some categorization of priority projects is needed to facilitate the allocation process.
Projects with a high priority rating would come earlier on the agenda for review by the IDA.
The staff proposal, Mr. Murray said, did not spell things out exactly as the IDA would
like. The Authority, he said, would like for the policy to be less specific, because it feels
that the more specific the guidelines are, the more likely the Authority will be to have to
allocate part of its bonds to a project it might not rank highly.
He said a specific example of this would be if the County had an existing high,teahnO~lQgy
business that wanted to expand and a new incoming industry that wanted the bonds to locate a
facility in the area that would employ the currently unemployed in the County. Under the
present guidelines, the Authority would have to give priority to the existing business, even
though it is the antithesis of what the Board wants to do with the industrial development
bonds: create jobs for the un- and under-employed of Albemarle County. Mr. Murray said a
little more general statement of principles would be more suitable to the Authority, and the
Board would still have the final say in the allocation process. Mr. Murray said IDA member Mr.
Frank W. McCullock had summarized the IDA's point of view in the following two paragraphs of a
draft proposal from the IDA dated December 19, 1984:
"4. We disagree with the proposed assignment of priority to projects which
involve the expansion of an existing business or industry over those which
might bring an entirely new industry to the area. It is our opinion that some
new industries might, in fact, be of greater value to the County than expan-
sion of some existing ones. We would recommend that any mention of expansion
of existing industries or creation of new industries be deleted from the
priority guidelines.
5. Instead of the preceding guidelines, we would recommend that we haYe a
wide latitude of discretion by assigning a high priority to projects which
have a 'positive impact on the County economy and local community needs.'
In this same regard, we think it should be made clear that these ~riteria are
only 'guidelines' and not a precise definition of what constitute a high
priority project."
Mr. Fisher said the ordinance establishing the IDA repeatedly say that the purpose behind
bond financing is to help provide jobs for people who are already in ti~e area, unemployed or
underemployed. He suggested that this be the common denominator for t~e guidelines -- the
consideration of businesses that provide jobs for this group already within the community. Mr.
Fisher said it bothers him tha~ the County has citizens who are unemployed, and yet it uses its
inducement money to attract businesses that employ people who are not in the area, but move in
when the business does. The emphasis should be on finding jobs for th County's citizens.
Mrs. Cooke said she understood that this had been the idea from tl
Board would give top priority to a business that offered employment to
the County. Mr. Murray said the staff's guidelines may have been a ii
point. Mr. Bowie said his original idea had been to provide jobs for
in the area, and the phrase "existing business" had come about because
that most local jobs come from existing businesses. He said the high
would bring in their own employees. Mr. Murray said he would suspect
concerned because according to its statistics, the majority of new job
businesses, not existing ones. Mr. Fisher said the Board had obviousl
Mr. Murray said the new business is likely to need the tax break ore than the existing
one does. The existing business may have lines of credit already available, whereas the new
business may not have any other means of getting the money to relocate
Mr. Lindstrom said he still has a concern for the local, establis]Led business that deser-
ves some consideration because of the role it plays in the community. But his primary concern
is that the bonds not be allocated to businesses that plan to locate h~re, bring in most of
their work force from other places and proceed to contribute to the Col~nty's problems without
substantially improving the situtation for the County's unemployed cit.zens. He said he under-
stands that the IDA needs some flexibility, but the Board and IDA stil need some definite
guidelines. The IDA can still find exceptions to those guidelines, bu~ the main priority
should be on using the bonds for financing companies that need to use his resource and cannot
receive financing from conventional sources (so the County's allotment of funds is not "wasted"
and secondly, so that companies can address the need for local employm~nt. Mr. Lindstrom said
he would feel comfortable with the policy if it stated this, and he wo~ld also feel comfortable
with a statement that the IDA can consider projects which may not meet these criteria but are
otherwise really excellent projects.
Mr. Murray said the staff has recommended projects that require s~itled labor, primarily.
Mr. Way said he is not sure what the phrase "skilled labor" means, but it bothers him. Mr.
Murray said he had spoken with Mr. Tucker and the biggest purYeyor of entry-level jobs are
fast-food restaurants, and the staff felt this kind of business was not what the Board or IDA
wanted to attract. Mr. Fisher said the emphasis originally must have been something other than
white-collar labor. Mrs. Cooke asked how skilled labor is defined. Mr. Agnor said the kind of
training provided by the Vocationsl-Technical School is skilled labor. He said the original
intent was to raise the level of quality among local employment opportunities so there would be
more jobs for the underemployed and more opportunities for employees to become more skilled.
Mr. Fisher said some better definition might be in order. Mr. Way said he still is not comfor-
table since it would be difficult to say if a company is requiring skilled or unskilled labor.
e beginning -- that the
people already living in
~tle ambiguous on this
~he un- and under employe~
his statistics showed
~echnology industries
~hat the Authority is
are created by new
seen different statisti~
January ~.~ 1985 (Regular. Day'Meeting)
Mr. Agnor suggested using the. word "underemployed" rather than skilled labor. Mr. Fisher
asked what that means, and Mr. Agnor said if, as a case~in Point, the Board has an application
for a fast-food restaurant and one for an assembly-line job that requires some training,' the
latter would be preferable.
.. Mr. Murray suggested that he meet with Mr. Tucker and the staff and present a new set of
guidelines at the next meeting.
Mr. Fisher said he would like the rewritten guidelines to inclUde the fact that, to him,
the definition of "new" jobs does not include "transfer"jobs. These must be new jobs for
county persons. He felt the specific guideline should .say that there is a distinction between
the two kinds of jobs. Mr. Murray said he agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if these guidelines completely preclude the use of bonds for such
projects as housing for the elderly and other community needs. Mr. Murray said this category
of community needs is something the IDA and the staff will have to look at more closely. Some
guidelines will have to be developed. Mr. Murray said he felt that some of the housing pro-
jects-are very loosely monitored and the County may have used some of its funds to help people
it did not intend to help. The twenty percent of a housing project that is required by HUD to
be set aside for "the poor" would be fine, except that in this community "poor" is defined as
those families with an income of less than $20,000 per year. In these cases, Mr. Murray said
he feels the only people the IDA helped were the developers who built the projects.
Mr. Bowie said he was not certain about the $500,000 lower limit. He did not understand
why the county would preclude issuing bonds for a project under that amount, since many small
businesses would need less than that. Mr. Murray said the staff recommendation here would be
changed to give priority to a project only if it-has tried for State Small Business Financing
and failed to obtain it. Mr. Bowie said a lot of businesses need small amounts. Mr. Fisher
reminded him that the overhead on bond financing is very high. Mr. Murray said it is not
unusual to pay $15,000 for bond lawyers just to get the financing in place. This would make a
small loan very expensive-.
Mr. Bowie said he has a concern that the staff and IDA a~lso give priority to employers
that will take the un- or underemployed and train them for more skilled Jobs.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Murray for attending this meeting and asked if the IDA has many
applications pending for funding. Mr. Murray said it did not. He added that the balance of
the loan for Riverbend Partnership, LTD., was closed on December 30, 1984 during a special
meeting. If Riverbend had not closed in 1984, the corporation would have had a claim against
almost all of the 1985 allocation. The Partnership went ahead and closed the financing basi-
cally for the benefit of the County.-
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said he had asked for a report on the highway funding proposals
currently being studied by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC).
Ms. Sandra Markwood, Administrative Assistant to Mr. Agnor, said the Highway Subcommittee
of the General Assembly is going to act on this matter today. She said three funding proposals
are being considered. The first, proposed by JLARC, would allocate the funding equally to
primary, secondary and urban highways at 33.33 percent each. The Virginia Department of High-
ways and Transportation would allocate 50 percent of the funds to primary roads and twenty-five
percent each to urban and secondary roads. The final proposal, named for Highway Subcommittee
Chairman Clive Manning, is a compromise between the two and calls for forty percent of the
funding to go to primary roads and thirty percent-each to urban and secondary roads.
Albemarle County, Ms. Markwood said, would benefit under all three of the formulas, but it
would receive the most benefit from the JLARC formula ($225,000 more). The Virginia Department
of Highways formula would give the County about $70,000~more money, and the Manning proposal-
would provide an extra $167,000.
The other portion of the highway bill that would interest the county is the funding formul~
for unpaved roads. ~Three proposals have been issued on this also. JLARC recommends that 7.6
percent of construction funds go to pave roads with 50 vehicle trips or more per day. The
Virginia Department of Highways is recommending 3.7 percent of funds to pave roads with 100
vehicle trips or more per day. The Manning Compromise bill recommends 5.6 percent of the
construction money to go to pave roads with 50 vehicle trips per day. Ms. Markwood said the 50
vehicle trip per day recommendation will probably not be approved. The committee will most
likely approve a 100 vehicle trip per day requirement in order to pave roads.
Ms. Markwood said these two items would most affect the County's portimnoof highway funds.
Other items under consideration include the distribution of urban funding, changing the formula
from being based on vehicle miles traveled (70 percent) and primary lane mileage (20 percent)
and primary needs (10 percent).
She said the results of today's committee meeting should be available within a week or so.
Mr. Fisher said he f.eels this will be something of a battle within the legislature. He added
that the Board should tell its legislators that it supports the JLARC formula, since that one
will benefit this area the most. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the whole $225,000 would go into
secondary system funds. Ms. Markwood said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked the change in primary road
funding and Ms. Markwood said she would figure that out and let him know. Mr. Fisher said
there is no additional money involved; rather, the pie is being divided differently. Mr.2
Lindstrom said he realizes this, but since there are some great primary needs, the County needs
to assess where it needs the money worse. Mr. Lindstrom indicated that the Virgina D~partment
of Highways and Transportation formula might be better, but the County has no way of knowing
how much of the primary road money for the district ~C~lpe~e~ill~be spent within the County.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think the twenty-five percent allocated to the secondary roads under
the Highway Department formula would be enough for the County. He said the fifty percent
allocation to primary roads was set up to build interstate highways, and that project is for
the most part complete. Ms. Markwood said the subcommittee had been considering capping the
amount of money that can be spent for interstate highways in the primary funding at twenty-five
percent, but this might be unfair to the systems that already have interstates and have to
maintain them.
Janua~ular Da~ Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board has ever supported a funding formula before. Mr. Agnor
said the Board .has supported several JLARC proposals. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board
should support one or possibly two of these proposals that would increase the amount of money
available to the localities for secondary roads.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to officially support the JLARC proposal, saying the Board has
supported this formula iln the past, even though he feels uneasy about primary road funds, and
this support be communicated to loc.al legislators. Mr. Henley seconded the motion, which
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Proposed Definition of "Accessory Building or Use."
Mr. Donnelly reviewed the history of this item, saying that at the November 7, 1984 Board
meeting, the Board asked the staff to review the definition of accessory building or use and
present a revision of this definition at a later meeting. Mr. Donnelly presented the following
memorandum:
"The Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on November 7, 1984, directed
the staff to prepare some specific language regarding accessory uses. In
response to this request, staff has drafted the followin definition of
ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE:
A building or use which: (1) is subordinate to and serves a
principal building or prnicipal use; (2) is subordinate in
area, extent or purpose to the principal building or principal
use served; (3) contributes to the comfort, convenience or nec-
essity of occupants of the principal building or principal use;
(4) is located on the same lot and same zoning district as the
principal building or use; and (5) is of a type customarily
found in Albemarle County.
The above definition has been reviewed and concurred with by Mr. Fred
Payne and Mr. Mike Tompkins."
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Donnelly he thinks this definition is wonderful. Mr. Donnelly said he
had some copies of the old definition for the Board's review of it desired. Mr. Agnor said
copies of the old definition had already been distributed with the Board packet.
Mr. Bowie said the use of the word "type" in item (5) seemed to relate more to building
than to use. Mr. Donnelly said the staff could change that word. Mr. Bowie said he is con-
cerned with more than just the buildings constructed on a property. He is also concerned with
the uses to which that building is put. Another question he had is whether or not there is an
exception for family use. He asked the effect of condition (5) on the individual family. Mr.
Donnelly said the matter would be left up to the Zoning Administrator to determine if the uses
of a particular structure are appropriate. Appropriateness is decided by what is common prac-
tice in Albemarle County.
Mr. Fisher asked how one would determine the necessity of a building or use to a specific
primary building or use. Mr. St. John shrugged and Mr. Fisher commented that Mr. St. John
appeared to have washed his hands of the whole definition. Mr. St. John said he would like for
the record to show that he thinks the whole change is a mistake. Mr. Donnelly, in answer to
Mr. Fisher's question, said that a detached garage is an example of something that could be
allowed as a necessity to a residence.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board needs to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning
Ordinance and Mr. Donnelly said yes. Mr. Fisher commented tha there is some reluctance on.the
part of the staff to go forward with this proposal.
Mrs. Cooke told Mr. Fisher she is not prepared to support this definition until she knows
the ramifications. Mr. Bowie said he had two questions and neither have been answered, so he
would not vote for it today. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels more comfortable with the new lan~
guage than he felt with the old definition and feels this to be a step in the right direction,
but he does not mind waiting.
Mr. Henley said he would like to hear Mr. St. John's comments on the definition. Mr. St.
John said he had just said the change in the definition would be a mistake. ~There are points
in the new language that are unworkable. Mr. Lindstrom said he had noticed that Mr. St. John
and the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Fred Payne, did not agree on this matter. Mr. St. John
said he knew that Mr. Payne felt that he had been required to come up with some new defini-
tions, and, that being the case, this was the best alternative he could develop outside the old
definition. Mr. Payne and Mr. Tompkins believe it was a mistake also. This definition has
been in place since 1968 and has never caused a problem except the recent case with a private
golf course, and in Mr. St. John's opinion, that was not a problem. The current definition
comes from a zoning textbook and is an accepted, nationwide definition. When the Board changes
to a new definition, it abandons the body of law that had grown up around the old one and when
it has to be defended in court, it will be open to interpretation from all sides. The language
has not been tested in court or passed on by zoning authorities. He cited item (2) as an
example, because it says. an accessory use must be subordinate in area, extent or purpose. That
means, taken literally, that in a single-family residential district, a garden cannot be bigger
than the square footage of.the house. Thins definition would impose a duty on the Zoning Admin-
istrator to go around and look at gardens and make certain that they are not bigger than the
houses to which they belong. He said he realizes this seems absurd and is not the Board's
intent, but when the Board begins to reach out for new definitions in its Zoning Ordinance,
this is the kind of thing that will come up.
January 9, 1_985 (Regular .Day Meet~~
Mr. Lindstrom said he could remember instances when the Board had created some new thing
that did not have dire consequences, and in addition, there may be many absurdities lurking in
the current zoning ordinance, if anyone wanted to look for them. He feels the Board has an
absurd definition in "accessory building or use'! as it now reads in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Donneliy said the staff did not just dream up the definition presented today. Most of
the language was taken from a recent publication of the American Planning Association. The
Planning Association provides a glossary of terms used in zoning ordinances. He said he assume
these have been tried and tested in court. Item (5) is the only thing that was written wholly
by the staff.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that any time you adopt a law, if it has some common sense,
you have a legitimate basis for its adoption. If the Board's concern is legitimately addressed
by this language, then it has a legitimate concern. He said he finds it hard to imagine that
people will complain about large gardens. This defines an accessory use more narrowly and thus
will be a more effective tool in the hands of the zoning administrator who tries to administer
it. Ne said he does not understand why this is~so awful, since to him, it makes sense and it
something that has some currency that can be supported in court. He said a lot of the
language in the Zoning Ordinance has not been tested in court.
Mr. Henley said he did not think the Board should act on this definition today.
Mr. St. John said he does not feel strongly about this and it will not effect the work in
the office of the County Attorney. He said he is not telling the Board the definition will be
a disaster, but he does see problems with it. In any event, the county legal staff will be
happy to work with whatever the Board decides.
Mrs. Cooke then made motion to defer the definition of accessory building or use to the
February 13, 1985 board meeting. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Proposed Amendment to Various Fee Schedules.
In accordance with the Board's request at the December 12, 1985 meeting, Mr. Agnor presen-
ted a memorandum from himself, dated January 4, 1985, on the relative impact of the proposed
increases in fees on the County budget:
"At your meeting on December 12, 1984, you requested staff to study the
effect the proposed fee schedule amendments would have on the County's
~evenues. This study is based on the following cost recovery:
ENGINEERING:
INSPECTIONS:
PLANNING:
100 percent of cost
100 percent of cost
50 percent of cost
Staff has projected the revenues anticipated over the next fiscal year
from applications/permits using the proposed fee schedule and suggested
cost recovery. A comparison of current revenues, proposed revenues using
· the new fee schedule and the difference between the two revenue projec-
tions are provided below:
DEPARTMENT
CURRENT PROPOSED
ANNUAL ANNUAL PERCENT
REVENUES REVENUES DIFFERENCE CHANGE
Engineering $ 1,750 $ 14,000 $ 12,250 +700
Inspections 343,980 446,250 102,270 +29.7
Planning 18,170. 49,000 30,830 +169
Total $363,900 $509,250 $145,350 +40
~adBased Upon the~difference in revenues anticipated between the current
and proposed fee schedule, an amount of $145,350 could provide a potential
tax rate reduction of $0.0085 of the real estate tax rate, or this
difference could equate to an approximate $0.~14 reduction in the personal
Property tax rate.
Although final budget proposals for FY 85-86 have not been submitted by
each department, this amount of additional revenue should aid in funding
the needs of these three departments. Staff continues to believe these
fees are justifiable and recommends that the Board adopt a resolution of
intent to amend the following code sections to recover the departmental
costs shown in the first paragraph of this memorandum:
Engineering: County Code, Chapter 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control,
Section 7-4 (d) Submission of Plans and Specifications.
Inspections: County Code, Chapter 5 Buildings, Section 5-3 Permit Fees.
Planning.: County Code, Chapter 18 Subdivision of Land, Section 18-43,
(a) and (b) Fees.
Zoning Ordinance: Section 35.0 Fees."
~ry 9,. 1985
(Regular Day~)
Mr. Agnor said the staff listed the changes possible in tax rates, even though staff
members do not think these fees have anything to do with personal property rates. Some of the
extra money will be needed for next year's operations, Mr. Agnor said, but certainly not all of
the money. Staff believes the proposed fees are justifiable and recommends that a resolution
of intent to amend the various ordinances be adopted.
Mr. Fisher said this is a continuation of the December 12 work session, with the changes
that have been agreed upon. He asked for discussion. Mr. Bowie said he is willing to make a
motion to adopt resolutions of intent, but stated that he had heard nothing about the study of
permitting procedures Mr. Lindstrom had proposed. He said if the County plans to raise fees,
it has a responsibility to see that permitting procedures and inspections are fair. He said,
presuming that there is some effort to proceed with the study, he would move that the Board
adopt a resolution of intent to amend the code sections as set out in Mr. Agnor's memorandum.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission at its meeting last night accepted the charge of
duties sent to it, and appointed Mr. Richard Cogan and Mr. James Skove to the Committee. The
Board should now complete its appointments to the committee. Mr. Lindstrom then seconded the
motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend and reenact Section 5-3,
Chapter 5, of the Albemarle County Code to increase all permit fees con-
tained in this section."
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend and reenact Section 7-4,
subsection (d) of the Albemarle County Code, in Chapter 7,~Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control, to read as follows:
Sec. 7-4. Submission of plans and specifications.
(a) same
(b) same
(c) same
(d) Upon the submission of any plan submitted pursuant to Section
7-3 of this article, the applicant shall pay to the County a fee of
~w,a$~-~ seventy-five dollars ($75.00) to cover the cost to the
County to review and to act upon such plan. For eac~ and every ero-
sion control inspection necessitated by t'~iS p'l'~n',' ~ ~fe'e' O'f twenty-
five dollars ($25.00) shall be paid by ~t~e'applio'~nt. Th'e maxim~
fee chargeable under this section, i~Cl~'si~e O'f i~speotio~s, shall
not exceed three hundred dollars ($300.00)."
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County
Subdivision Ordinance in Section 18-43, Fees, to wit:
(a)
Preliminary Plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time
when the preliminary plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the
form of cash or a check payable to the 'County of Albemarle,
Virginia,' the amount thereof to be determined in accordance
with the following schedule:
(i)
~e~-Se&~a~e-~e~-~e&&m~a~-~a~. .One ~u'ndr'eddollars
base fee plus one dollar per lot.
(2)
Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a pre-
liminary plat for the same property has been filed pre-
viously, shall be subject to the same requirements; pro-
vided, however, that no fee shall be required for the
review of a preliminary plat of any subdivision invol-
ving three or fewer lots.
(b)
Final Plat. The subdivider shall pay a fee at the time the
final plat is filed. Such fee shall be in the form of cash
of a check payable to the 'County of Albemarle, Virginia,'
the amount thereof to be determined in accordance with the
following schedule:
(i)
Administrative approval: ~&~eee~-Se~a~e-~e~-~a~e-ee~-
~a~-~k~ee-e~-~eee-~e~e-~e-~e~-~e~e-~e~-~&e~
&~e~ee~&e~-&¢-wa~&~e~ Twenty-fiVe 'dollars, including
family divisions.
(2)
Commission a~4-~ea~4-e~-e~e~&ee~e_a~e~a&+__~e~_4e&_
e~e~-&~-~e~e~ One hundred and fifty d'o'l'l&r's'b'&s'e''f'e'e' p'l'us.
o~e dollar per lot.
(3) Exempt plat: Ten dollars·
(4) Condomini~m Plat: Fifty dollars base fee plus one doll'ar
per unit·
(5)
In addition to the foregoing, in the case of any plat on
which is shown any road to be dedicated to public use, or
any private road, the subdivider shall pay to the county a
fee equal to the cost of the inspection of the construction
of any such road. Such fee shall be paid upon completion
of all necessary inspections, and shall be deemed a part of
the cost of construction of such road for purposes of sec-
tion 18-19 (8-28-74, Section 3; 11-10-76, 3-2-77, 12-14-77,
12-1-82. )
(c) Waiver'request of Subdivision Requirement: Twe'nty'-'fi'v'e''dO'll'a'rS.~
AND, FURTHER, requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to th~sBBe~rd
at the earliest possible date"
"BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Section 35.0, entitled 'Fees', as follows:
35.0 FEES
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the
zoning administrator, the commission or the board of supervisors
shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray
the cost of processing such application.
a. For a special use permit:
1. Mobile home and home occupation - $20.00.
Rural area divisions - $125.00.
Commercial use - $125.00,
Industrial use - $125.00.
Private club/recreational facility - $125.00.
Mobile home park or subdivision - $125;00.
Public utilities - $100.00.
Ail other uses - $75.00.
b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $2~Tgg $50.00·
c. For amendment to zoning map - $125,00 plus Si/acre.
&~---~e~-~a~ee&e-~e~a&&~-&eee-~Aa~-~e-(~-ae~ee---$~g~g~T
~---~e~-~a~ee~e-~e~a~-~e~e-~a~-~&~e-~-ae~e~-~-~ees
~a~-~e~-~Ag~-ae~ee---$~gg~
8~---~e~-p~ee~e-~e~e~&~-~e~e-~-~e~-(&g~-~e~ee---¢&gg~gg
D~-$~gg-De~-~e~e-e~-p~-~he~ee~-eYe~-~e~-~&g~-~e~e~
d.1. For requests for a variance to the board of zoning appeals -
$50.00.
2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals - $20..00.
&~---~e~-D~ee~e-ge~&&~-&eee-~-¢&~e-(D~-ae~es---¢Dg~gg~
~T---~e~-~a~ee~-~e~a~&~-me~e-~ha~-~e-~D~-ae~ee-~-~ee~
8.---~e~-Da~ee~e-~e~a&&~-me~e-~ha~-~e~-(&g~-ae~ee---¢&gg~gg
~&~e-$&~eg-~e~-ae~e-e~-~a~-~e~ee¢-e~e~-~e~-(&g~-ae~ee~
For site development plan - $200.00.
For site development plan waiver - $100.00.
For site development plan amendment:
a) Minor - alterations to parking, c'i'rc~l'~t'i'o'~,' b~i'Zd'ing
size, location - $25.00.
b) Major - planning commission review - $50.00..
For relief from a condition of approval from aomr~2s;2'i'e~o'~ $'50.00. ¢
Januar · ~_ 1- 8 ~ , Re ~ula_.r Da~ Meetin ~)
In addition to thefforegoing, the gchmal costs of any notice required
under Chapter ll, Title 15.1 of ~the Code shall be taxed to the appli-
cant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set
forth in this section. Faiiure to pay all applicable fees shall con-
stitute grounds for the denial of any application.
AND,DFURTHER requests the Albemarle County ~lanning Commission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does request
that the Planning Commission send its recommendation.to the Board at the ear-
liest possible ~ate."
Agenda Item No. 10. Request for Increase in License Fees for Unneutered Male Dogs.
The Board of Supervisors received the following letter from Ms. Susan Wiedman of Voices
for Animals, dated January 1, 1985:
"County Board of Supervisors
Counvy Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Sirs/Maam:
Voices for Animals is presently in the middle of its research into an
effective spay/neuter program for Albemarle County. After gathering
quite a bit of information on dog licensing, we feel it is very impor-
tant to change the fee for unneutered males.
Currently the charge is $3.00 for a neutered female, $5.00 for an
unneutered female and a flat rate of $3.00 for neutered or unneutered
males. We feel this is a major flaw. The license cost for an unneu-
tered male should be the same as an unneutered female, $5.00.
For 1983, the county sold 3,025 male licenses bringing in $9,075.00
to the gene~ral fund, at $3.00 apiece. On the other hand, 1.921 licenses
were sold for spayed females, bringing in $5,763.00 while 597 unspayed
female licenses brought in $2,985 due to the $5.00 charge. I imagine
the reasoning behind the increase of $2.00 is to persUade the public
into spaying its female animals. Why does this stop when it comes to
neutering males?
If the $5.00 license fee for unspayed female dogs is successful, the
same procedure for males would surely be of benefit. The animal control
warden as well as the SPCA would be relieved of some of his work. The
shelter was forced to euthanize 4,554 animals in 1982. That figure would
surely be lowered if both males and females were neutered.
Male dogs are 'in heat' 365 days a year. That is to say, they can impreg-
nate a female that often. Neutering a male is a major step in preventing
excess and unwanted breeding. Many unaltered males wander when a female
is in heat. They become lost, adding work to the already burdened dog
warden, and wandering dogs can easily get hit by a car. The neutered
male dog will not join dog packs in pursuit of females, nor will he
fight or annoy the neighbors. There are also physical and psycho-
logical advantages. Neutering will prevent most urinary problems which
tend to occur later in life among unneutered males.
According to the Humane Society off,he ~Hnited~S~ates, one solution to
pet overpopulation problems is to have a strong, enforceable animal
control ordinance which includes a lower licensing fee for altered animals.
Albemarle County is doing this for females, but not males. Voices for
Animals feels it is time to change this.
If the County were to charge $5.00 for unneutered maies, the increase in
revenue would be quite significant. This money could be used to help
educate the public about neutering their pets or help the SPCA promote
its spay/neuter program which helps low-income individuals.
The public needs to take greater responsibility for its companions by
realizing that both male and female animals must be altered. After all,
the female can only become pregnant by an unneutered male. This is
equally as important as spaying a female.
What kind of action must we take? Do you need feedback from the com-
munity before such a change can take place? Is an ordinance necessary,
or just approval from the Board? Thank you for looking into this
matter. If you have any questions you can call me at 977-8547.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Susan Wiedman
Voices for Animals"
Mr. Fisher called on Ms. Wiedman for comment. She said Voices for Animals believes the
fee for unneutered male dogs should be the same as the cost of licensing for unneutered female
dogs -- five dollars. Now male dogs are licensed at the same thr~e dollar rate regardless of
whether or not the dog has been altered. Ms. Wiedman summarized for the Board the financial
ramifications of this set out in her letter above. Ms. Wiedman suggested that a flyer could be
given to new pet owners stating the benefits of having a neutered pet.
Januar f 8~ ~ ula Da eeti~ i
Mr. Bowie asked how many dogs were put to sleep last year by the shelter. Ms. Wiedman
said about 2,000.
Mr. Fisher said the state used to control the amount charged for license fees. He asked
if that is still the case. Mr. Agnor said the Code of Virginia stipulates that the fee cannot
be more than $10 ~or less than $1. The Code also says the fee for a spayed female cannot be
more than the fee for a male dog. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any reason that the County
has not done this before. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Fisher said the Board raised the fees about
ten years ago to the maximum allowed at that time.
Mr. Henley said he has gotten braver and braver in his old age and he now thinks, out
loud, that there should be a county-wide leash law.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problems with this proposal at all. It may not encourage
people to neuter male dogs, but at least the fees will be the same. She made motion to aUthor-
ize staff to advertise for a public hearing to amend Section 4-23 of the Code of Albemarle as
pertains to licensing for unnuetered male dogs. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. H~n~ey.rsaid~:dogs'~2~hat run loose annoy him. He has fifteen dogs of his own that are
kept confined. Mrs. Cooke said she used to think this a cruel thing to do to a dog, but has
since had to deal with animals that are unrestrained and has changed her mind. People are not
always voluntarily responsible for their pets.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Service Agreement with Western Albemarle Rescue Squad.
Mr. Agnor told the Board that this service agreement with the Western Albemarle Rescue
Squad will ensure that the squad provides lifesaving and rescue functions for the duration of
its indebtedness to Albemarle County. At the D.ecember 12 meeting the Board appropriated
$130,000 for the squad's use in purchasing a new squad building. The funds are to be allocated
in two payments, $65,000 on February 1, 1985 and $65,000 on July 1, 1985.
Mr. Agnor said if the squad ceases to provide rescue services, the property purchased with
these funds will be conveyed to the County. The County Attorney's Office drafted the agreement
and the rescue squad has approved the language contained in it.
Mr. Henley made motion to approve the following service agreement with the Western Albe-
marle Rescue Squad and that the Chairman be authorized to sign the document. Mr. Bowie seconde
the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
"THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of January, 1985, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the~ "County"), and the WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD,
INC. (the "Rescue Squad");
WI TNE S SETH :
That for and in consideration of the operation by the Rescue Squad of
a rescue squad company to protect human life during the period of this
agreement and the purchase of the existing Crozet Volunteer Fire Depart-
ment property, with improvements threon, for use as a new rescue squad
station during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to the
Rescue Squad One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000.00), of which
Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($65.000.00) shall be paid on February 1, 1985,
and of which Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($65,000.00) shall be paid on
July 1, 1985, from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum of
Thirteen Thousand Dollars ($13,000.00)per year shall be withheld from the
County's annual grant to the Rescue Squad, for a period of ten (10) years,
beginning with the fiscal year 1985-86, and extending through fiscal
year 1994-95, so that at the end. of the tenth year, which is the term
of this service agreement, a total of One Hundred and Thirty Thousand
Dal~ars ($130,000,00) will have been withheld. This withholding is in
addition to any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements
with the Rescue Squad.
If at any time during the term of this agreement, the Rescue Squad is no
longer in the business of providing rescue squad services from the property
to be purchased from the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., identified
as Parcel 68 and 69 on Albemarle Tax Map 56(A)-01, located in Crozet, Virginia,
the Rescue Squad covenants that it will convey its interest in the property,
as-a~rescue~s~d organization, including all appurtenances thereto and improve-~
ments thereon, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or
its assigns will use the property for rescue squad purposes."
Agenda Item No. 12. Request concerning Claudius Crozet Park.
At a previous meeting, Mr. Agnor said this Board had approved the drafting of an agreement
with Claudius Crozet Park for certain unspecified capital improvements. Mr. Agnor said the
agreement was drafted and presented to the Park Board and was acceptable to that body; however,
(RegUlar Day Meeting)
the Park Board now has some questions about the restrictive covenant that requires that "The
Owner shall place a restrictive covenant on the Property restricting future use of the Property
to recreational and public purposes."
The Crozet Park Board's concern is that the restrictive covenant will make renegotiating
the park's debt difficult. That debt is due to be renegotiated next January. The Park Board
is fearful that the covenant will impede its ability to obtain long-term financing for the debt
the park now has as well as for 'fUture debts it might incur. The Park Board is asking that the
restrictive covenant be removed entirely, Mr. Agnor said. The Park Board has said that, should
the property have to be sold to meet its obligations, the money left over, if there is any,
according to Park by-laws, will be divided evenly between the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company,
the Women's Club and the Lions' Club. Mr. Agnor said the Park Board feels this clause will
provide the short-term protection the County sought in the restrictive covenant.
Mr. Agnor said the staff has looked at the matter and recommends that the covenant stay in
place. It seems reasonable to the staff that the County be protected, so that should the
organization go out of business, the County's interests will be protected and public use of the
property preserved. Mr. Agnor said the staff does recognize that leaving the restrictive
covenant in place will impair the Park Board's ability to obtain long-term debt financing.
Mr. Henley said he could approve keeping the restrictive covenant in the agreement if the
Board of Supervisors had agreed to pay the Park Board a certain stipend each year. But in
fact, the County has not promised the Park Board anything at all and does not have to fund a
single capital project. In view of this, he said he does not feel it is fair to the Park Board
to leave this covenant in place.
Mr. Neil Snyder, President of the Crozet Park Board, said he agrees with Mr. Henley. The
Agreement, as it is drawn up, does not require the Board of Supervisors to do anything except
consider requests, which is what the Park Board desired; but on the other hand, the agreement
requires the Park Board to restrict the use of the land forever to recreational use only.
While this is what the Park Board intends, it will have a hard time meeting its debt obliga-
tions of approximately $37,000. If the agreement is signed with the restrictive covenant in
place, the Park Board may be back next year asking for $37,000 because the Park Board cannot
obtain financing for the debt it now carries. On January 21, 1985, the Park Board will be
voting on a change in its articles of incorporation that will prevent the Board from incurring
any more debt. The amendment will require that the park be operated on a cash basis, because a
vote of two-thirds majority will be required to incur debt, and Mr. Snyder said that would be
virtually impossible. Instead, the Park Board will raise the money from donations and other
means to finance projects up front. Mr. Snyder said both parties to the agreement desire the
same thing: continued community use of the park, and the Park Board thinks the land will be
sufficiently protected for public use without the restrictive covenant. In the long run, the
debt will be liquidated and there will no longer be a threat of having the park used for pur~-
poses other than public recreation.
Mr. Henley said again that he would support the restrictive covenant if the Board had
committed itself~ to a certain amount of money each year, but since the Board has just said it
will consider requests, he cannot support the clause.
Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, director of Parks and Recreation for the County, said he undere
stood that the Claudius Crozet Park Board would have signed the restrictive covenant if they
had not had such a large, immediate debt. He said that since the Park Board is planning to
avoid such debt in the future, and since the County is only guaranteeing mowing and trimming --
all capital projects must go through the capital improvements budget process -- he would su
that the County go ahead with the agreement and sign the restrictive covenant when the debt has
been liquidated. The Park Board has shown its intention to keep the Park public, and Mr.
Mullaney had no reservations about performing mowing and small capital projects for the Park
without the restrictive covenant. He suggested that the size of capital improvements be kept
small.
Mr. Bowie said he could accept this, because he does not think the $37,000 debt would
cause a problem for the Park Board, so the original intention of the Board of Supervisors, that
of preserving a public park in Crozet, will be met. Mr. Henley said the debt has been a burden
to the park, as has the swimming pool. Mr. Fisher indicated that he is now willing to vote
that the restrictive covenant not be signed.
Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. Mullaney thinks this Board needs to do. Mr. Mullaney said the
Board of Supervisors and the Park Board could have a gentlemen's agreement on maintenance and
capital improvements. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Mullaney write out an agreement. Mr.
Henley noted that the more help the Park Board receives, the more likely it is to finish its
debt repayment.
Mr. Henley made motion to accept Mr. Mullaney's suggestion that the County provide regular
mowing, trimming and small capital improvements to the park. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion
which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie left the Meeting at 10:37 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Legislation Relating to Manufactured Housing.
The Board of Supervisors received the following two letters from staff members on the
proposed legislation in the House of Delegates (H.J.R. 146) that would prohibit distinction
between site-built housing and mobile homes. The first letter, dated December 21, 1984, came
from Mr. St. John:
"This letter is in response to Mr. Fisher's request to me~ that I
review the letter from the Piedmont Environmental Council with attached
model statute, on tha~ subject of mobile homes.
The substance of this letter is that the General Assembly is considering a
statute which would prohibit discrimination between manufactured housing and
other homes, in rural and agricultural areas, in all counties in Virginia.
The only legal question is whether such a statute would pass muster before the
Courts, or be declared unconstitutional. I do' not think it is unconstitutional
although it may be unwise; that is to say, if the General Assembly enacts this
statute, I believe we will be stuck with it.
From a non-legal perspective, comments should come from the County department
of Planning and Community Development, but I do not mind expressing my thoughts.
We have been looking for this legislation for some time, and it is the direct
result of the practice of some counties who have overly restricted mobile homes,
some even to the point of barring them altogether except in mobile home parks.
We have represented some of those counties in court proceedings, and although
we won in court, we admonished those counties that, in the long run, their
actions were going to result in just this kind of legislation.
I'do not believe the Virginia draft legilsation will precisely follow
either the Iowa statute, or the outline given in the letter from the
Piedmont Environmental Council; but at any rate I believe it is pre-
mature for the Board of Supervisors to adopt any resolution for trans-
mittal to the sub-committee, and further, I think we have already done
this when we sent a long memorandum enclosing a copy of our mobile home
study, to that sub-committee.
What I think we should do at this time, is to send copies of our previous
letter to the sub-committee, and of our mobile home study, to our local
legislators, urging ~hem to be alert to this legislation and forward the
proposed statute to us promptly, when~ they receive it, and to vote against
it if it does indeed read as set out in the Piedmont Council's letter.
If it is substantially different from what we have been told, then we should
review it carefully at that time and make our comments to our legislators
based on our judgment at that time.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED)
George R. St. John
County Attorney"
The following memorandum was received from Ms. Mary Joy Scala in the Department of Plannin
and Community Development, dated January 8, 1985:
~"This memo is in response to the Board's request for comment on the Piedmont
Environmental Council's letter of December 14, 1984 concerning House Joint
Resolution 146. I will comment on the first of the two subcommittee recom-
mendations as outlined~by Mr. John Roberts of the Piedmont Environmental Council,
that is, the equal treatment of manufactured and site built housing in rural
zones.
According to Mr. Jack Austin, principal staff person, the subcommittee should
be having a final meeting this week, in order to finalize its report and pro-
posed legislation. The tentative recommendation will be non-discrimination of
manufactured homes built to the HUD code (post 1976) in any zone which permits
single-family homes on two (2) acres or greater.
Obviously, the definition of manufactured homes should be clarified in the final
proposal. Staff assumes that we are discussing manufactured units which do not
meet the Building Official Code Administration (BOCA) Code and which therefore
require special use permit in Albemarle. Manufactured units labelled under BOCA
are considered modular homes and may currently be placed anywhere a conventional
single-family home is permitted. Since 1980, the term 'mobile home' has been
replaced with 'manufactured home' in all federal laws and regulations. Mobile
homes built since June 15, 1976 are federally inspected for compliance with-the
HUD code of 1974 (amended 1976).
The Piedmont Environmental Council questions the distinction between urban
and rural sites for the location of manufactured homes. Its main concern is
that the letislation would encourage the location of scattered homes far from
public utilities.
I agree there is no logical reason to distinguish urban from rural sites,
especially if one assumes that manufactured and site-built homes are equivalent.
It is really contradictory to do so.
It is questionable whether the proposed legislation would greatly increase
the problem of scattered dwellings in Albemarle. Our current policy concerning
individual mobile homes is liberal in comparison to adjacent counties.
The point to be made is that the amount of-rural area development - whether
in conventional or manufactured units - and the concurrent loss of farm-
lands and woodlands is largely determined by land use policy and the proposal
is directly contrary to the objectives of our Comprehensive Plan since it pro-
vides an incentive for rural development.
(Regular Day Meeting)
There are two other problems with the proposed legislation. The first problem
concerns construction codes. A manufactured unit may or may not conform to
the BOCA code. Even homes which are nearly indistinguishable when placed
side by side can be built to different structural and safety standards.
The Director of Inspections indicated for the recent mobile home study that in
his opinion, the HUD and BOCA codes are not equivalent.
The second problem concerns the legislation of appearance standards for manu-
factured homes. It may be difficult legally to impose aesthetic and size
standards on manufactured homes which are not also required for conventional
homes.
The Planning staff concurs with Mr. St. John's recommendation to oppose this
proposal."
Mr. St. John, asked to comment by Mr. Agnor, told the Board he agrees with Ms. Scala's
assessment of the situation.
Mr. Donnelly summarized Ms. Scala's memorandum to the Board. He said the staff under-
stands that the definition imposed by this legislation would include mobile homes under "manu-
factured housing."
Mr. Fisher suggested the staff send copies of the letters drafted in September, 1984, to
the subcommittee members along with copies of the Mobile Home Study to Albemarle County's
legislators. Mr. St. John said the board can take other action after it sees an actual copy o.f
the proposed legislation.
The Board agreed to the above actions by concensus.
10 47 a.m. )
(Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion:
County Automobile License.
Enforcement of Ordinance Requiring Purchase of Albemarle
Mr. Henry Dean, County citizen, told the Board that many vehicles in the County are being
operated without a county automobile license. He said he believes this money would go to the
schools and he is aware that people in the school system frequently do not have the money to
buy the supplies they need. Mr. Dean said he volunteered to Mr. Agnor to assist in collecting
the money. He said he remembers when the County passed an ordinance saying that automobile
owners who do not pay taxes will not be able to purchase county automobile licenses. This made
many people pay taxes. Now the County is having problems with the automobile licenses. Mr.
Dean said he cannot meet his obligations if his debtors do not pay him, and he does not expect
the County to work ~differently.
Last spring, Mr. Dean said he took a survey 60 days after the county licenses went on
sale. He counted 140 vehicles with no decal on the windshield. On Labor Day he 6ounted 167
vehicles without county licenses. Four or five of those had no sticker at all. Recently 14
vehicles passed him with no county license. This morning he counted 17 in the trailer parks
around Albemarle High School. He said this represents a lot of money the County is not collec-
ting. He suggested that the County needs better enforcement and larger fines. He said a lot of
people that he refers to as deadbeats, do not like to pay their taxes and he feels the County
is losing from $30,000 to $50,000 yearly through unpaid taxes, not counting the fines or inter-
est on uncollected money.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Dean also pointed out that the City of Charlottesville has given its
police department the authority to go on private property, in parking lots and such, and cite
city licensing violations, while the County does not have this authority. Mr. Agnor said he
has discussed the matter with Sheriff Bailey, Chief Johnstone and Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director
of Finance. Mr. Breeden said he is of the opinion that the infractions, for the most part, are
concentrated in the urban area. One reason for this, Mr. Agnor said, is that there tends to be
a large transient population in the urban area.
Sheriff Bailey .always concentrated his efforts to enforce the licensing ordinance.during
the period from April through June after the decals were due on April 15. Even then, the
citations were for moving violations. The officers would not go on private property, so the
Sheriff placed roadblocks on the roads. Other citations after this period were written when
deputies stopped a car and found no County sticker. The enforcement of the ordinance was
considered a low prioritY.
Mr. Agnor said Chief Johnstone has talked with Mr. St. John about allowing the police
officers to go onto private property and check for County licenses,.but the CountY Executive
has not heard the outcome of those discussions. If it is not possible to go onto private
property, the roadblocks this year will be concentrated in the urban area and enforcement may
improve. A lot of automobile operators may have legitimate reasons for not havinga county
sticker, Mr. Agnor said, and even though the police will still stop those individuals, that
will not result in more citations and more revenue for the' County. Those who are guilty of not
having a sticker have been given a warning in the past, and the vehicle's identification is
sent to the Finance Department. After a period of time, the Police Department will again be
notified that these licenses taxes have not been paid and the offi.cers can cite the automobile
owners involved. Mr. Agnor said this presents something of an enforcement problem for officers
in the County, because it is somewhat cumbersome. Still, if the County starts enforcing the
ordinance, word tends to get around and more people will begin comPlying with the law.
Mr. Fisher said the sale of decals is a key part of the collection of personal property
taxes in the County. He suggested that some of the licenseless vehicles are the ones owned by
people who owe the County taxes in addition to the $15 fee for an automobile license. He said
he would like to see what the County can do to find ~.~e~SSonable way to deal With this Problem.
Januar 9 1985 (Re ular Da~ Meetin_n~~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the problem has worsened since the roadblocks have not been in
place. Mr. Breeden said he did not think so. Mr. Lindstrom then asked about how much money
the County is losing each year from the vehicles that do not have stickers and the personal
property taxes that have not beenlpaid. Mr. Breeden said this would be difficult to estimate,
but he said there are approximately 40,000 vehicles in the County and the County sells about
38,000 or 39,000 licenses each year, so there are about 1,000 vehicles without decals. To
eradicate this situation completely, Mr. Breeden said the police need to be able to go onto
private property. Mr. Fisher asked if the police would not have to first determine that the
vehicle belongs in the County before issuing a ticket. Mr. Breeden said he does not think so.
Those automobile owners who have legitimate reasons for not having the stickers can explain
their reasons in court. Mr. Fisher asked if every locality in the state requires vehicle
licenses and Mr. Breeden said there are very few localities that do not require them.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if there is anything else the County can do to improve its
enforcement. Mr. St. John said he did not think so. He is working on a policy with-Chief
Johnstone for ticketing vehicles parked in parking lots. Mr. Way noted that the parking lots
at the high schools are public lots. Mr. St. John said this is not really a moving violation;
the Code of Virginia says that licenses have to be provided for vehicles housed in the county
and not necessarily merely moving through the County. He is trying to look at the process by
which the citations are issued. Mr. Agnor said this is similar to the handicapped parking ~
violations -- in the city the officers can just leave a ticket on the car; in the County offi-
cers must wait and issue the citation to the driver when he or she returns to the illegally
parked vehicle. Mr. Lindstrom said-he thinks there is a benefit not only to roadblocks for the
sake of the licenses, but for automobile maintenance as well. Mr. Fisher said that roadblocks
are expensive and sometimes dangerous. He feels the County should ticket non-moving vehicles.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels the County ought to combine all its methods of enforcing the
ordinance. ·
Mr. Lindstrom asked that Mr. St. John report back when the study of alternatives is fini-
shed. Mr. Bowie said the report should.probably include what the County proposes to do about
the problem so that finding a solution does not fade away into a low priority. Mr. Henley..
asked how many places in Virginia do not require local licenses. He said it would not be fair
to ticket a vehicle from some other county that does not require a license and then force the
person, who is innocent of an Albemarle County violation-, to return to the County for trial.
Agenda Item No. 15. Receipt of 1983-84 FinanCial .Report of the County of Albemarle from
the auditing firm of Price Waterhouse, dated June 30, 1984~, along with a letter dated December
20, 1984, from Mr. Walter J. Kucharski, State Auditor of Public Accounts, saying that the ~
financial report meets the specifications required and was accepted by his office.
Mr. Bowie asked what had happened to the recommendations cited in last year's management
letter, specifically Recommendation 13. Mr. Agnor said he would check on this and inform Mr.
Bowie. He added that the County has advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP)~ the Data ·
Processing Study.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation: Court Square Project.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones to the Board, dated
January 2, 1985:
"It was learned by Staff in early November-that the original bid on the reno-
vation of the Court Square building did not include prices on carpeting. ~
According to the architect, it is customary to bid this item separately for local
and state governments to vendors and not include it in the general contract.
On November 29, the architect took competitive bids from four vendors. The
prices ranged from a low of $23,000 to a high of $27,551. The apparent low
bidder was the Ceiling and Floor Shop.
A review of the current status of.the project reveals that if all bills on
outstanding contracts and change orders are paid, there is less than $7,000
left in the initial appropriation for this project. Since most of the work
in the Courthouse Building is unfinished, and so may require additional change ·
orders, you are respectfully requested to approve the following additional
appropriation:
FROM: Unappropriated Balance of Capital Improvement Fund - $23,000
TO: 9000-06000-976000 Court Square Building.- $23,000
If the $7,000 is not needed for ~additional change orders, it can be used to pay
for moving expenses of the Commonwealth's Attorney, Judge, Clerk and Sheriff
to their new quarters. The most recent target date for completion of the project
is March, 1985.
Since this project was included in previous five-Year CIP programs, and has been
trhough the public hearing process, it is not necessary to go through additional
public hearings. You make make this appropriation by official motion.
Attached is the bid tabulation by the architectural firm."
Mr. Agnor said the ten percent of the total cost of the project that was held back for
change orders and unforseen costs,' $136,000, was heavily impaired by the first two change
orders, reinforcement of the second floor and replacement of the guttering. Those two orders
took nearly half of the $136,000. Of the $7,000 that is left, other items may need funding, -
and the $23,000 is not available in this category,
/7Janua~r. : 1-8: , Re .ular D_~ Meetin_~
The Capital Improvements Fund has about $500,000 that can be used for this type of problem
An appropriation from this fund does not require a public hearing, so Mr. Agnor requested that
the Board approve the transfer of $23,000 from this fund to the Court Square Project.
Mrs. Cooke made motion to adopt the following resolution to transfer the funds as Mr.
Agnor recommended. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried by 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 $23,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital
Improvements Fund and transferred to 9000-06000-976000 Court Square
Building;
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appropriation: Emergency Medical Services.
Mr. Agnor told the Board that the County will receive $8,211.50 from the Virginia Division
of Motor Vehicles (to be used for emergency medical services) as a result of the $1.00 charge
added to all vehicles titled in Albemarle County. The amount represents $0.25 of this $1.00
amount. Mr. Agnor said the area rescue squads, last year, asked that the money be divided
equally among them, and this seems to be the best plan for this year's allocation.
He requested that the County budget be amended to recognize $8,211.50 in additional rev-
enues and that this amount be allocated to the three rescue squads.
Mr. Way made motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by-the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $8,211.50 has been received from the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation and the same hereby is added to the General Fund as Emergency
Medical Services Funds, coded 2-1000-24000-240415;
AND FURTHER, that $2,737.17 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
2-1000-24000-240415 to 1-1000-32030-565002 Charlottesville/Albemarle
Rescue Squad;
AND FURTHER, that $2,737.17 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
2-1000-24000-240415 to 1-1000-32030-565102 Western Albemarle Rescue Squad;
AND FURTHER, that $2,737.16 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from
2-1000-24000-240415 to 1-1000-32030-565202 Scottsviile Rescue Squad;
AND, FURTHER, that these appropriations are effective this date.
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion, which passed with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County could check into getting more than $0.25 of each $!. He
suggested that the County's legislators push for more of this money from the Division of Motor
Vehicles.
Mr. Breeden noted that this year's amount is down from the $9,166 received last year
because last year's amount was based on estimates, while this year the C~unty receives the
actual amount it earned. In addition, trucks are not covered by the $1.00 surcharge.
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Scheduling of Hearings for Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report, dated January 9, 1985:
"Background
The Board of Supervisors adopted the current revision to the 1977 Albemarle
County Comprehensive Plan on January 5, 1983, as mandated for each locality
in Article 15.1-446 of the Code of Virginia. Since the adoption of this
Comprehensive Plan, eleven Comprehensive Plan amendments have been consid-
ered (all in 1984). Currently, there is no fee charged, nor any formal
application, guidelines or criteria for consideration of Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The Board of Supervisors requested at their December 19, 1984
meeting that staff prepare a draft schedule for Comprehensive Plan Amend-
ments. Staff work on the five year review of the Comprehensive Plan should
begin in late 1985 and continue through mid-1987. It is anticipated that
the public hearing and adoption process should take approximately six months
prior to the target date for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in January,
1988.
POLICY PROPOSAL
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, made by the public shall be
reviewed twice annually. The Planning Commission or the Board of
Supervisors may initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment study at any
time as deemed appropriate.
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications may be filed at the Depart-
ment of Planning & Community Development on or before the first Tues-
day respectively of the months of March and September.
**There currently is no fee charged for Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests. The Planning Department proposes a fee of $200 per appli-
cation to cover staff and administrative costs.
Prior to the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the
Board of Supervisors, or its agent (the Planning Commission) should hold
a public hearing for the purpose of discussion and to entertain public
comment on the Plan in general. This public hearing would also provide
a public forum for Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors requests to
amend the Plan. The date, time and purpose of the public hearing should
be advertised in the newspaper in advance.
Within ninety days of the application deadline, the Board of Super-
visors shall take action to approve or deny Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment requests initiated by the public. Prior to the Board of Super-
visors review of Comprehensive Plan a~mendment applications, the
Planning Commission shall review all Comprehensive Plan amendment
requests and make recommendations to the Board. The Technical Site
Review Committee shall be consulted for recommendations as necessary.
No public Comprehensive Plan amendment applications will be processed
within six months prior to the expected date .of adoption of a major
five year Comprehensive Plan revision.
CRITERIA FOR THE REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IP~PEIUATI'ONS
The Comprehensive Plan provides a long-range gui~de for direction and
context of the decision-making process for public and private land uses.
The Comprehensive Plan is general in nature rather than attempting to
identify specific geographic locations. The Land Use Map of the Com-
prehensive Plan suggests the relationship of recommended uses to general
areas. Proposed amendments to the Land Use Map should be reviewed for
compliance with the general plan rather than area specific or parcel-
specific requests for a change in the recommended use. The purpose of
the Land Use Map is to provide and plan for a balance of land uses,
equipped with adequate utilities and facilities, in a comprehensive,
harmonious manner. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be
evaluated for protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the gen-
eral public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual.
The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be largely
determined by the fulfillment of support to the goals and objectives
specified in Chapter 9 of the Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive
Plan Standards outlined in Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan.
A primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map is to
facilitate the coordination Of improvements to the transportation
network and the expansion of public utilities in an economical, effi-
cient and judicious manner. Comprehensive Plan amendments which direct
growth away from designated growth areas shall be discouraged unless
adequate justification is provided. Amendments to the boundaries of
growth areas may be considered appropriate if the request is compre-
hensive, proposes to follow a logical topographic or man-made feature
and is supported by adequate justification (i.e. neighborhood is built
out). No Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be considered in areas
where roads or utilities arD non-tolerable or inadequate unless the
improvement of those facilities is included in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment proposal.
Proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments shall be evaluated for general
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance
(Article 18 of the County Code), the CATS Study, Erosion Control Ordinance
as well as other County requirements, adopted studies and ordinances.
me
Except as otherwise provided, the following conditions may be considered
in the evaluation of a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan:
Change in circumstance has occurred (i.e. external factors, policy
change, etc.); or
Updated information is available (i.e. census information); or
The adoption or development of subsequent portions of the Compre-
hensive Plan (i.e, CATS Study or Stormwater Detention Plan); or
A portion of the Plan is incorrect or not feasible (i.e., Rt. 631/
Rt. 742 connector road); or
The preparation of the Plan as required by Article 15.1-447 of the
Virginia Code was incomplete or incorrect information was employed.
~ Januar 1 8 ~ Re ular Day Meeting)
PROPOSED 1985 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW 'S'C'HED'ULE
First Review Schedule
February 19, 1985' Planning Commission public hearing on general policies
land use plan, goals, etc. '
March 5, 1985: Deadline for filing Comprehensive Plan amendment requests to
Department of Planning and Community Development.
March 21, 1985:
Site Review Meeting.
May 14, 1985: Planning Commission public hearing.
May 29, 1985: Board of Supervisors public hearing.
Second Review Schedule
August 27, 1985: Planning Commission public hearing on general policies,
land use plan, goals, etc.
September 3, 1985: Deadline for filing Comprehensive plan amendment requests
to Department of Planning and Community Development.
· September 19, 1985:
November 12, 1985:
November 27, 1985:
Site Review Meeting.
Planning Commission public hearing.
.Board of Supervisors public hearing."
Citing Item C~under "Criteria for the Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications"
Fisher said the Board has had questions over the past several years as to when a property
is developed to its potential. He said he had been confused by the previous Planning staff's
position that once a subdivision is approved, it is developed. Sometimes, however, the actual
site has nothing on it. That does not suggest "built out" status to Mr. Fisher. Mr. Donnelly
said this merits further study to get a definition of "built out", but the parcel has been tied
up by a committment to development. Other developers cannot utilize the land. Mr. Bowie
proposed a hypothetical situation where the County had a parcel zoned for light industry, but
the parcel is unsuitable for that use. He asked if this definition means that the County could
not consider zoning other property in the area as Light Industrial, LI, because this parcel is
here, even though it cannot be used. He said he cannot support the "once-it's-platted-it's-
done" concept.
Mr. Lindstrom said the plan with respect to industry is more flexible than it is for
residential areas. He said the Board did not place all the industrial zoning~the County will
need in the next twenty years on the map. Rather, it developed criteria that could be used to
evaluate whether or not a particular parcel should be zoned industrially. He said one of the
complaints the County had received was that it had been zoning land that no one else wanted as
industrial land. That seems different from the residential case.
Mr. Fisher said the idea here is to set up a policy for bi-annual review of Comprehensive
Plan amendments initiated by the public -- to collect all. the applications for review at one
time, every six months. This has not been the policy of the Planning Commission in the past.
Prior to this time, the Planning Commission has considered the amendments whenever they came
into the Planning Department. This policy would be similar to the one being developed for
hearing zoning text amendments.
Mr. Donnelly said this policy would give the planning staff time to review a number of
applications in a more comprehensive manner. Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission has
reviewed this policy yet. Mr. Donnelly said no. He said he thinks the Planning Commission is
in support of the policy.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Comprehensive Plan is the most fundamental land use document the
County has and he feels it would be reasonable to give'it the same dignity given the Zoning
lrdinance. Mr. St. John said that, from a legal standpoint, the step of initiating a policy for
ihearing Comprehensive Plan amendments is a very wise one that will enhance the County's posi-
tion should it be challenged with regard to its land use structure. Currently there are no
standards of record and the County needs standards because Otherwise the County can get away
from the idea that the Zoning Ordinance has to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
two documents should receive equal treatment. He said he does not think the County can charge
a $200 fee as proposed by the staff, but that part might as well be left in the policy as it
gOes to the Planning Commission for review. He said he also feels that the policy should
become part of the plan itself. A "policy" is not an official ~enactment of the Board. The
~ublic cannot come in and look at a book of policies, so it needs some context.
Mr. Donnelly said another advantage to standardizing a schedule for Comprehensive Plan
amendments is that the staff will be able to work out a program for itself so that the amend-
ments do not disrupt its work so much.
Mr. St. John said the process for amending the Comprehensive Plan is not set out like the
~rocess for amending the Zoning Ordinance, and it should be, because citizens have the right to
~etition the goVernment for redress of grievances under the Constitution.
Mr. Fisher said he does not like the position the Board was forced into over the proposed
~ontana Planned Residential Development, where it had to consider Zoning Map amendments and
Comprehensive Plan amendments at the same time. .Mr. Donnelly said he hopes the Comprehensive
Plan amendments would precede the Zoning Text amendment or the Zoning Map amendment.
Januar 1 8 Re ular Da Meetin ZffP
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John thinks this should be part of the Comprehensive Plan
itself. Mr. St. John said this seemed~right to him now, but he is not asking the Board for a
resolution of intent to change the Comprehensive Plan itself. He thinks the document should bc
in some readily accessible, logical location. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board should adopt a
resolution of intent at this meeting. Mr. St. John said this should wait and let the staff
review the policy, and then let the Planning Commission review it.
Mr. Lindstrom made motion to direct the staff to study the proposed policy and the recom-
mendation that the policy be placed in some official document. Mr. Henley seconded the motion~
Mr. Donnelly asked if the matter should go to the Planning Commission first. Mr. Lindstrom
said he felt it should. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. ZTA-84-5. Henry Javor (Deferred from December 12, 1984).
Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone present to speak on this application. Mr. Donnelly
said he thought it was Mr. Javor's intent to withdraw the petition. Mr. Fisher said the Plan-
ning Commission had recommended denial of this request. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board had had
recent communication from Mr. Javor and learned that it had not. The Clerk reported that the
Board's office had attempted to notify Mr. Javor of the meeting.
Mr. St. John said he recommends that the item be dropped from the Board's agenda entirely
since it is no longer, technically, a matter for consideration. Mr. Javor is taking a second
look at the problem he intended to address with this petition, and if the Board takes action
today to deny this, it might force Mr. Javor to have to reapply and pay again for the same
amendment. Mr. Fisher said this amendment has been through all the hearing processes and
fore must still be alive. Mr. St. John said this is true, but the Board needs to make certain
that Mr. Javor is not making substantial changes to bring before ~the Board. He recommended
that the matter be deferred another week and he would report on it at the next meeting on
January 16. He said he does not think the Zoning Text amendment is going to solve Mr. Javor's
problems, but Mr. Javor is not here and he may need more time to prepare for the Board.
Mrs. Cooke made motion to defer ZTA-84-5 to January 16, 1985, when Mr. St. John would
~Ireport on the matter. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher asked if any Board members had items not on the agenda that should be brought
to the Board's attention. None were offered. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Board members be
provided soon with a schedule for the budget work sessions.
Agenda Item No. 20. Executive Session.
At 11:39 a.m., Mr. Bowie, offered motion seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into
executive session for a discussion of personnel matters. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board emerged from executive session at 3:07 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments.
Item No. 2lb. Mrs. Cooke made motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mr. Lewis R. Fibel
to the Community Services Board to replace Mrs. Esther Freix with a term to expire on June 30,
1987. Mr. Henley made motion to appoint Dr. W. D. Buxton to the Community Services Board to
replace Mr. W. A. Chick, with a term to expire on June 30, 1986. The appointments were con-.
firmed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Item No. 21c. Equalization Board for 1985. Mr. Bowie made motion to reappoint Mr.
William L. Howard to the Equalization Board; Mrs. Cooke made motion to reappoint Ms. Barbara
Staples to same; Mr. Lindstrom made motion to reappoint Ms. Sharon Hamner to same; Mr. Way
motion to reappoint Mr. Thomas A. Allison to same; Mr. Henley made motion to reappoint Mr.
Louis Rauch to same; Mr. Bowie seconded the nominations with all terms to expire on December
31, 1985. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Non-Docketed Appointment. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to appoint Mr. Way to the Library
Board Budget Committee. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
January 9, 1985
(Regular Day Meeting)
Not-Docketed. Mr. Bowie indicated that he is pleased that the United Way has met its goal
in donations for this year.
Agenda Item No. 23. Adjournment.
meeting adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
There being no further business to transact, the