1984-06-20JUne 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
247
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 20, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office building, Charlottesville, Virginia
Present:
Peter T. Way.
Messrs. Frederick R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and
Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers Present: Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ~7.:30-P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-20. Jerome Corporation (Deferred from June 6, 1984). Since
the County Engineer was not present at this time, the Board continued with other agenda
items.
Agenda Item No. 5. Report from County Attorney on Virginia Federal Savings and Loan
(deferred from June 6, 1984).
Mr. St. John noted that he had placed on the Board table tonight a letter from himself
dated June 15, 1984 addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. regarding the request by Virginia
Federal Savings and Loan for exoneration of a penalty assessed on 1983 real property taxes
which were not received in the County's Department of Finance by midnight on December 5,
1983. He then proceeded to summarize his opinion as contained in the memorandum. Mr. St.
John said he had reviewed the file furnished by Virginia Federal Savings and Loan. This
file contained affadavits of persons working for Virginia Federal Savings and Loan and from
the Charlottesville Postmaster, the envelope in which the check arrived at the County Building,
and ail other pertinent correspondence and documents. He has also talked with the people in
the County Finance Office who handled the matter. Mr. St. John said Virginia Federal's
check was not received in the Finance Department until December 7.
Mr. St. John said Mr. Carroll Cooper said he believes that Virginia Federal has been
treated badly in this matter, but he personally feels that the staff in the County's Finance
Department "bent over backwards" in an attempt to convince Virginia Federal to see that the
official postmark of December 5 was on the envelope, but they did not do that. Mr. St. John
said he does not believe this Board has any facts on which to exonerate the penalty and he
recommends that no such action be taken. He also recommended to the Director of Finance
that he not take any such action.
After hearing the County Attorney, it was the concensus of the Board members is that no
action would be taken on this request. Mr. Fisher asked that the County Attorney respond to
Mr. Cooper's letter of April 30, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-20. Jerome Corporation. Mr. Fisher said this petition was
deferred from June 6 in order to allow the County Engineer time to report on how the water
runoff from this specific site will be handled. He personally also felt it would be helpful
if a written agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property owners, Mr; Gorman,
and Mr. West, regarding screening of their properties from the site, could be presented at
this time. He asked Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, for a report on whether provisions
have been made to deal with the stormwater detention ordinances of the County. Mr. Elrod
said no. The developer has proposed a large oversized pipe to store water under the parking
lot site; in addition there would be a basin to serve the Grogan property; one drainage
basin for the hotel; and one for the paved surface of the road. Other sites in this commercial
subdivision, when developed, will have to provide their own.stormwater facility. In order
to construct a drainage basin to serve the internal road on this property, it was planned to
go north along Route 29 and to the creek where there is a large box culvert behind the Pizza
Hut. However, it turned out that the design for than drainage and for a turning lane on
Route 29 could not be constructed without extending the culvert that goes under Route 29.
The plans presented so far do not reflect that. Until the plans do reflect that and some
scheme is worked out to make all that work, the basin physically cannot be built. Until
that is done, approval is being withheld. The developer's engineer had hoped that by the
time this subdivision was ready for development, Highway Department plans for improving
Route 29 at that culvert would have materialized. At this time, the Highway Department does
not even have this improvement on its schedule, so the developer will have to do something
on his own.
Mr. Fisher asked where the Board stands since the site plan was approved before any
zoning action was requested. He asked if these conditions were imposed on the site plan but
have not yet been carried out. Mr. Elrod said the site plan was approved subject to the
County Engineer's approval of stormwater detention, drainage, and several other plans. Ail
plans are subject to his computations, but have not been presented at this time. Mr. Fisher
said it appears that Mr. Elrod is not happy about the prospect of having multiple detention
basins on the site. He asked if Mr. Elrod has the discretion to disapprove any plans submitted
Mr. Elrod said he feels he does. Drainage from the site can be handled in more than one way,
but some methods are more complicated and more costly. He has recommended to the developer's
engineer that only one or two basins be proposed to take care of the whole site, However,
the developer plans to sell off a number of lots but not be the site developer of same. Mr.
Fisher asked if the idea is that th~ pipes going under the property will be constricted at
the out-let end, fill up with water, and then slowly filter out. Mr. Elrod saidyes. Mr.
Fisher'asked who will clean out the pipes. Mr. Elrod said i£ they are designed properly
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
A reg~ular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 20, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office building, Charlottesville, Virginia
Present:
Peter T. Way.
Messrs. Frederick R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and
Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke and Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.'
Officers Present: Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Chief of Planning, Mr. Ronald Keeler.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-20. Jerome Corporation (Deferred from June 6, 1984). Since
the CoUnty Engineer was not present at this time, the Board continued with other agenda
items.
Agenda Item No. 5. Report from County Attorney on Virginia Federal Savings and Loan
(deferred from June 6, 1984).
Mr. St. John noted that he had placed on the Board table tonight a letter from himself
dated June 15, 1984 addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. regarding the request by Virginia
Federal Savings and Loan for exoneration of a penalty assessed on 1983 real property taxes
which were not received in the County's Department of Finance by midnight on December 5,
1983. He then proceeded to summarize his opinion as contained in the memorandum. Mr. St.
John said he had reviewed the file furnished by Virginia Federal Savings and Loan. This
file contained affadavits of persons working for Virginia Federal Savings and Loan and from
the Charlottesville Postmaster, the envelope in which the check arrived at the County Building,
and all other pertinent correspondence and documents. He has also talked with the people in
the County Finance Office who handled the matter. Mr. St. John said Virginia Federal's
check was not received in the Finance Department until December 7.
Mr. St. John said Mr. Carroll Cooper said he believes that Virginia Federal has been
treated badly in this matter, but he personally feels that the staff in the County's Finance
Department "bent over backwards" in an attempt to convince Virginia Federal to see that the
official postmark of December 5 was on the envelope, but they did not do that. Mr. St. John
said he does not believe this Board has any facts on which to exonerate the penalty and he
recommends that no such action be taken. He also recommended to the Director of Finance
that he not take any such action.
After hearing the County Attorney, it was the concensus of the Board members is that no
action would be taken on this request. Mr. Fisher asked that the County Attorney respond to
Mr. Cooper's letter of April 30, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-20. Jerome Corporation. Mr. Fisher said this petition was
deferred from June 6 in order to allow the County Engineer time to report on how the water
runoff from this specific site will be handled. He personally also felt it would be helpful
if a written agreement between the applicant and the adjacent property owners, Mr. Gorman,
and Mr. West, regarding screening of their properties from the site, could be presented at
this time. He asked Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, for-a report on whether provisions
have been made to deal with the stormwater detention ordinances of the County. Mr. Elrod
said no. The developer has proposed a large oversized pipe to store water under the parking
lot site; in addition there would be a basin to serve the Grogan property; one drainage
basin for the hotel; and one for the paved surface of the road. Other sites in this commercial
subdivision, when developed, will have to provide their own.stormwater facility. In order
to construct a drainage basin to serve the internal road on this property, it was planned to
go north along Route 29 and to the creek where there is a large box culvert behind the Pizza
Hut. However, it turned out that the design for than drainage and for a turning lane on
Route 29 could not be constructed without extending the culvert that goes under Route 29.
The plans presented so far do not reflect that. Until the plans do reflect that and some
scheme is worked out to make all that work, the basin physically cannot be built. Until
that is done, approval is being withheld. The developer's engineer had hoped that by the
time this subdivision was ready for development, Highway Department plans for improving
Route 29 at that culvert would have materialized. At this time, the Highway Department does
not even~have this improvement on its schedule, so the developer will have to do something
on his own.
Mr. Fisher asked where the Board stands since the site plan was approved before any
zoning action was requested. He asked if these conditions were imposed on the site plan but
have not yet been carried out. Mr. Elrod said the site plan was approved subject to the
County Engineer's approval of stormwater detention, drainage, and several other plans. Ail
plans are subject to his computations, but have not been presented at this time. Mr. Fisher
Said it appears that Mr. Elrod is not happy about the prospect of having multiple detention
basins on the site. He asked if Mr. Elrod has the discretion.to disapprove any plans submitted
Mr. Elrod said he feels he does. Drainage from the site can be handled in more than one way,
but some methods are more complicated and more costly. He has recommended to the developer's
engineer that only one or two basins be proposed to'take care of the whole'site. However,
the developer plans to sell off a number of lots but not be the site developer of same. Mr.
Fisher asked if the idea is that th~ pipes going.under the property will be constricted at
the out-let end, fill up with water, and then slowly filter out. Mr. Elrod said yes. Mr.
Fisher asked who will clean out the pipes. ~Mr. Elrod said if they are designed properly
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if there are any other unresolved issues. With no one rising to speak,
the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said that at the last hearing there were some
statements made that the mobile homes which are to be displaced will not have to move until
September 1. Mr. McClure said that as long as the tenants comply with their current leases,
no one will be given notice to move.
Mr. Bowie said it appears that all of his concerns from the last meeting on this subject
have been resolved. He then offered motion to approve SP-84-20 with the conditions recommended
by the Planning Commission, to-wit:
Construction of private road and aZ1 commercial entrance improvements as
required under approval of SUB-80-027, Mary Patricia M. Brown;
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: Village Square Phase II and III Final Plat (deferred from
June 13, 1985). This was deferred in order to allow time for the County Attorney to ensure
the dedication of the 1.706 acres parcel by Salasco Service Corporation to the County of
Albemarle and to make a determination as to whether the developer has in fact complied with
his obligations relative to bonus provisions.
Mr. St. John said he had in hand a clarification of that dedication which he feels
accomplishes what the Board wanted:
"CLARIFICATION OF DEDICATION
On February 10, 1978, Salasco Service Corporation dedicated to the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, a 1.706 acre parcel in the "Village Square" development
for a future right of way for the proposed McIntire Road extension. D.B. 629,
pg. 306 to 309. A plat of the 1.706 acre plat done by William S. Roudabush, Inc.
on February 10, 1978, and revised June 18, 1984, is attached to this affidavit.
This affidavi6 is to clarify the absolute nature of the dedication of this
parcel to Albemarle County. Salasco Service Corporation hereby confirms that the
dedication of this parcel to Albemarle County is absolute, and is in no way
dependent upon the parcel being used for the proposed McIntire Road extension.
Under no circumstances will Salasco Service Corporation or "Villge Square" build
or have built upon this parcel any dwelling units.
Salasco Service Corporation allSO reaffirms its willingness to put to record
any Other documents which the County of Albemarle feels is necessary to clarify
the nature of this dedication.
Written and signed this 19th day of June, 1984.
Salasco Service Corporation
By: (Signed)
Michael D. Horn,
Vice President"
Mr. Herb Beskin, attorney for the applicant, has the original, Mr. St. John said, and
if he tenders that original, it will satisfy the Board's concerns. In reference to the
requirement placed on the developer that he should earn the bonuses granted to him in the
original preliminary approval (Mr. St. John said the information he received came from the
Planning Office), Mr. St. John said Mr. Keeler has reviewed the plans and the on-site, as
built plans, and the developer has substantially complied, so he feels the two questions
have been resolved, and there are no.grounds for denial for this final plat.
Mr. St. John said he cannot speak for the Planning Commission, but his information
indicates that, they had a reason for recommending denial so he would explain his understanding
of this action. This application cannot really be denied, but the Planning Commission is
concerned about the basic provisions in the zoning ordinance regarding what can' happen using
these bonus provisions. The Planning CommissiOn felt this was a good example of their
concern, and they thought this action would be appealed, and the Board would overrule this
action. As a matter of law, the developer is entitled to these bonuses~. Mr. St. John said
that although this may be a valid thought process, it is up to the Board to decide whether
to take another look at the bonus provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, and whether or not
these provisions should be amended, or changed. Mr. St. John said that is ipso facto as to
whether this developer is entitled to the bonuses. This application cannot be denied on the
ground that the bonuses should not have been granted.
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission has scheduled a work session for tomorrow night
to discuss the bonus provisions. BefOre the Planning Commission voted to deny the plat, it
had amended Condition l(g) of the staff's recommended conditions to include maintenance of
sidewalks by the homeowners':
25.0
1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The final plats for Phase 2 and/or Phase 3 will not be signed until the
following conditions have been met:
ae
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road
plans and profiles including entrance to private parking area.
County Engineer approval of drainage and stormwater detention facilities.
Issuance of erosion control permit.
de
County Engineer approval of private parking area design.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
Fire Officer approval of hydrant location.
ge
County Attorney approval of homeowner's maintenance agreements including
maintenance of sidewalks not eligible for maintenance by Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until:
a. Fire Officer approval of fire flow.
b. Landscape materials bonded or installed.
c. Recreation area has been constructed."
Mr. Keeler said that between the time the preliminary plats were approved, and the time
the final plats were presented, the Highway Department changed its policy relative to accepting
sidewalks for maintenance. The sidewalks in this development are no longer eligible for
maintenance. In Phase I, the sidewalks will be accepted for maintenance because the road
plans for that section were approved before the policy change went into effect.
Mr. Mike Horn, representing the developer, said the developer had planned to build the
sidewalks, and had budgeted for same. He said that he is afraid that even with a homeowners'
association, there will be no maintenance of the sidewalks in future years'.
Mr. Fisher said he has had quite a bit of experience with homeowners associations, and
finds that if the problems become bad enough, something will be done, and association papers
at least give the power to levy on homeowners to obtain the necessary funds.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he understands the County Attorney's remarks about bonuses, but he also
understands that in developing Phase II, the developer was awarded points for significant
landscaping. However, the developer is actually destroying entire acres of woods, so there
is no logic to awarding points for significant landscaping when woods are being removed.
There was also a bonus provision for being within one-half mile of a school. That is ridiculou
because the school is the Voc-Tech Center which actually increases busing instead of reducing
busing. His third concern was the award of land to the County which now seems to have been
clarified. At this time, Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the Village Square Phase II
and III final Plat with the conditions recommended by the staff, and set out above. Second
to the motion was offered by Mr. Way who said that distance to a school should be measured
along an existing road, and not across country. Mr. Henley said he really did not agree
with Planning Commission denying this plat - they could have let the Board know they were
concerned about these provisions. Roll was called at this time, and the motion to approve
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mrs. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-29. Daniel J. Veliky. Request to locate mobile home subdivisio
consisting of 14 lots on 31.48 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the west side of
Rt. 795, two miles south of its intersection with Rt. 620. County Tax Map 103, Parcels 23C
and 23D. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily progress on June 5 and June 12, 1984.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff's report as follows:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Mobile Home Subdivision (Sections 10.2.2.9; 10.5)
31.48 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcels 23C and 23D, is
located on the west side of Route 795 about two miles south
of Route 620.
Character of the Area
This property is heavily wooded and contains branches of Buck Island Creek.
properties in the immediate area are also wooded.
Other
Applicant's Proposal
The applicant proposes to develop a mobile home subdivision of approximately ten
lots. The property currently could be developed into four lots; therefore, review
under the Rural Areas criteria for additional development is also required.
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
251
RA Rural Areas Criteria for Additional Development
Soils in the area consist of Manteo Channery silt loam and Nansen silt loam.
These soils are rated poor to very poor for crops. Pines are recommended for
forestry usage, however, seedling mortality is classified as severe. These silt
loams are shallow soils complicating drainfield location and construction of
permanent structures (see soils scientist report of E. O. Gooch and Associates,
which is a part of the application).
The property is located in a rural area and not in proximity to a designated
growth area. However, staff would note there is residential development in the
area, particularly along Route 795. More than ninety lots of five acres or less
are within one mile of the property. Staff opinion is that an increase of six
or so dwellings in the area would not significantly affect the County's Capital
Improvements Program through provision of additional rural services. Route 795
is currently listed as tolerable.
Mobile Home Subdivision
The Blenheim area is one area of the County Where mobile homes are fairly
prevalent. There are nine mobile homes within one mile of this site. Generally,
staff believes the area to be suited to a mobile home subdivision.
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has expressed concern
about transportation of mobile homes to the site.
Staff would note that if approved as a mobile home subdivision, subsequent
development would not be limited to mobile homes. Conventional dwellings could
be constructed.
Staff recommends approval, subject to Planning Commission approval of subdivision
plat showing:
Only those areas for mobile home location and other improvements to be
cleared. Ail other areas to remain in a natural state.
Property to be developed using internal roads.
access to Route 795.
No lots to have direct
3. Maintenance of seventy-five foot tree buffer along Route 795."
Mr. Keeler stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 5, 1984, voted
to recommend approval of SP-84-29 to the Board, but amended Condition #2 by adding the words
"unless Planning Commission shall determine that access onto internal roads is not topo-
graphically feasible." Therefore the recommended conditions of approval read:
"1. Only those areas for mobile home location and other improvements
to be cleared. Ail other areas to remain in a natural state.
2. Property to be developed using internal roads. No lots to have
direct access to Route 795 unless Planning Commission shall determine
that access onto internal raods is not topographically feasible.
3. Maintenance of seventy-five foot tree buffer along Route 795."
At this time, the public hearing was opened. The first to speak was the applicant,
Mr. Veliky. He said that approval of White Pine Estates will be of help to people who are
not able to afford a free-standing home, but like their privacy. As far as Highway Department
comments regarding getting mobile homes to the area by way of existing roads., there are
already numerous mobile homes located in the area, so it is poSsible~to use the roads.
Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant has filed a subdivision plat. Mr. Keeler said no,
but attached to the soils scientists report is a sketch which notes the areas of very
shallow soils.
Mr. Henley asked Mr. Veliky his reaction if the Board included a condition (restriction)
stating that the area could only be used for mobile homes. Mr. Veliky said he did not
believe he would have any objection, but some people buying in the subdivision might like
to build a conventional home on that site at a later time. Mr. Henley said there, is a real
need for mobile home locations in the County, but he can understand that someone just
starting out might like to build a conventional home in the future on the same site. Mr. Way
asked why there would be no more than ten or twelve sites on this 31.48 acres. Mr. VelikY
said he had contemplated having fourteen lots, but after the soil analyses were made, it
appears that it will not be feasible to get more than twelve.
Mr. Fisher said it is normal on approval of a special use permit which increase the
density of a piece of property to set some maximum limitation. On this special permit it
is recommended by the Staff and Commission that the limit be left to the developer. Mr. Fisher
said if this permit is approved, he would recommend that the Board set an upper limit. Mr.
Veliky suggested that an upper limit be set at fourteen. Mr. Bowie said he realizes there
is a need for mobile home sites. One of the major differences in this type of site is
usually the size of the lot. He feels the lots in this proposed subdivision are more than
normal sized, and asked who can afford a two-acre lot.
Mr. Buddy Snoddy, a resident living less than one-quarter mile from the proposed subdivi-
sion, said he has no objection to mobile homes and agrees there is a need. He moved to this
area about eleven years ago when the road was still dirt. Now, up and down the road from
Route 620 to its junction with Route 795 there are two-acre lots. There has been an influx of
motor bikes and trail bikes and the Highway Department comments that the road is not suitable
for moving trailers along. Mr. Snoddy said he knows the land is not Suited to septic systems.
He does not know how Mr. Veliky will overcome that problem. Mr. Shoddy said he feels there are
already enough people in this area. He asked the Board to give him time to get a petition
signed by some of the people living in the area who are opposed to the request, who have not
come forward to protest. Mr. Snoddy said he does not think this many trailers can be put
252
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
on this property without adding some roads on the property itself. Mr. Snoddy said if the
petition is approved, he would like to have a condition placed on the permit that the
existing tree buffer cannot be removed. Mr. Shoddy also expressed a concern about well
water, and police and fire protection for the area.
Mr. Robert Jones said he has lived on this road for about twelve years. He is concerned
that this type of trailer village always seems to bring in the type of people who seem to
bring the quality of the neighborhood down. He realizes it is hard for the people wanting
mobile homes to find locations for same, but it took him a long time to get water and sewer
rights and a permit for his property. He said that recently some people tried to put up a
home across the street from him, but could not because of the land.
Mr. Bill Edgerton, President of Citizens for Albemarle, read the following statement:
"In reference to special use permit application 84-29, Mr. E. O. Gooch states
in his letter of May 8, 1984, to the applicant 'this preliminary study indi'cates
there are areas where soil cover over bedrock is insufficient to support septic
tank drainfield systems.' He then goes on to state that eight of the twenty
test borings show this condition. The board of Citizens for Albemarle feels
that this information warrants enough of a concern that the Board of Supervisors
should not grant a special use permit on this site for development of any kind
requiring septic tank drainfield systems until this problem is resolved."
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr.
Fisher said there was a sentence which Mr. Edgerton did not read which says: "While the
soil cover over bedrock in other areas investigated is more suited for installation of
drainfields, a more detailed investigation including percolation tests should be undertaken
to determine if in fact these soils meet the current health department regulations of a 120
percolation rate or better."
Mr. Bowie said if the soil will not perk, the subdivision cannot be put in this location.
Mr. Keeler said that is correct. Mr. Fisher said approval of this special permit would
constitute a rezoning since the present use of the land would allow four lots, and the
maximum use of the property could be increased to fourteen if the septic fields could be
installed. Mr. Fisher said the Board, in some cases, has requested that tests of the soils
be carried out before approval, so it would be known that something could actually be built
on the property before a rezoning took place. In some cases, the Board has left the decision
to the Health Department. Mr. Fisher said this petition is not as straightforward as he
had first thought when he heard that the Planning Commission had recommended approval by a
5/1 vote.
Mr. Way said he has mixed emotions about this petition. He is in sympathy with the
need for mobile home sites, but just because there is a need, he does not feel the Board
should rush into putting these sites in a location with problems.
At this point, 8:42 P.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 8:51 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said that during the recess, he was reminded that the County Zoning Ordinance
requires that there be a minimum of ten lots for creation of a mobile home subdivision. It
occurs to him that even if this application is approved, it might not be possible to obtain
ten lots, thus voiding the approval, or the applicant might 'seek a variance from the Board
of Zoning Appeals, etc. The real issue is whether the soil is adequate to support septic
tanks and drainfields. The only information furnished by the applicant is that at this
time there are serious questions about suitability. Mr. Way said he would agree to a
deferral of this request until some further information could be obtained on the percolation
tests, and he offered motion to defer the petition. Mr. Henley gave second to the motion.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion to say that the petition is deferred pending receipt from
the applicant of soil tests and approvals from the Health Department that indicate there
are at least ten viable sites on this property. Mr. Bowie said if it turns out that there
are ten sites on the property, can the Board do anything about the buffer. Mr. St. John
said conditions covering the buffer can be imposed on ~he special permit. These conditions
could be enforced against each of the several owners or against all of the owners.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher requested the Clerk to readvertise this petition when it is ready to be put
back on the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-84-13. Edward H. Bain, Jr. Request to rezone 17,500 sq. ft.
from LI, Light Industrial to HC, Highway Commercial. Located at junction of Rt. 743 and
Rt. 631. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 22 (part). Charlottesville District. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1984.)
Mr. Keeler said this application is identical to ZMA-83-12, G. Benton Patterson, which
was reviewed by the Planning Commission about a year ago. At that time the Planning Commission
recommended denial. Subsequent to that the applicant found a tenant for the vacant building
and withdrew the request under ZMA-83-12. However, the tenant did not fit under the LI
district. Again this year the applicant submitted a request for zoning a portion of the
property form LI to HC. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, on June 5, 1984, unanimously
voted to recommend denial of this request.
Mr. Keeler noted that a letter had been received earlier this day from Mr. Bain, and
the letter read as follows:
252
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
"June 20, 1984
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
HAND DELIVERED
Re: ZMA-84-13, G. Benton Patterson, Tax Map 45, Part of Parcel 22
Dear Mr. F±sher:
Mr. Patterson, the property owner, is reducing his request for rezoning under
ZMA-84-13 from Highway Commercial (HC) to Commercial (C-i).
Sincerely,
SIGNED: Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for G. Benton Patterson"
Mr. Keeler said that just at the beginning of this meeting tonight, Mr. Bain had
handed to him a letter dated June 20, 1984, cont~aining a proffer, as fOllows:
"June 20, 1984
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Carlottesville, Virginia 22901
HAND DELIVERED
Re: ZMA-84-13, G. Benton Patterson, Tax Map 45, Part of Parcel 22
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Mr. G. Benton Patterson, the property owner under the ZMA-84-13 proffers as a
part of the rezoning request the following:
Any use of the garage building on the site will require site plan approval by
the Albemarle County Planning Commission as to that building and the area
surrounding it, and any change in use of the convenience store located in the
other building on the property shall require site plan approval by the County
or Albemarle Planning Commission for that building and the area surrounding it.
Sincerely,
SIGNED: Edward H. Bain, Jr.
Attorney for G. Benton Patterson"
Mr. Kee!er said the request has gone from a conventional request for rezoning to HC to
a proffered request for C-1. He has not, of course, ~had time to review the proffer, nor
has the County Attorney.
Mr. Fisher asked how this proffer differs from what is allowed by right in the ordinance.
He asked if a change in use does not necessitate the filing of a site plan. Mr. Keeler
said that a site plan is only required if there is a change in access to the site or if
additional parking is required. A simple change of use does not require a site plan.
Since the Highway Department has recently reconstructed the access to the property, he did
not think a change in use would require the filing of a site plan.
Mr. Keeler said he would proceed with the staff's report and try to adjust same to the
present request.
"The staff does not favor Highway Commercial zoning for the'property becaUse the
property is not in a location where HC is recommended. HC is to be located
along main highways such as Route 29 and Route 250. This property is outside
of a designated growth area in the Comprehensive Plan and lies in the reservoir
watershed.
The property is currently developed with a convenience store, a garage-type of
commercial building which is vacant, and a twenty-six unit mobile home park.
The request is to rezone 4/10th of an acre out of a 6.543 acre parcel.
Access to the-property has been reconstructed as part of the Hydraulic Road
improvement, so there are four points of access to public roads. The property
drains to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir."
Mr. Keeler said the staff's comments from the September, 1983, staff report are still
valid:
"While commercial designation of the convenience store and garage building is
viewed as reasonable, building expansion should receive additional consideration
due to reservoir considerations. Appropriate measures for containment and disposal
of petroleum products should be taken if a garage use is reestablished."
254
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Keeler said he cannot say for sure that this new proffer covers that concern entirely.
"Under prior zoning, this property was zoned M-1 Industrial Limited. During consi~
deration of the 1980 zoning map, the agent for the applicant appeared before the
Board of Supervisors requesting that industrial zoning be maintained, partly
because the garage building was in industrial use at the time (i.e., cabinetry
shop). Under this zoning petition, an area around the store and garage has been
delineated for commercial zoning. This raises the question of the appropriateness
of maintaining industrial zoning on the remainder of the property (i.e., mobile
home park)."
Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission reviewed the request for HC and he-understands the
recommended unanimously denial of that request. What is before the Board now is a request
that is different from the one the Planning Commission reviewed.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain was present to represent
Mr. G. Benton Patterson. Mr. Bain said that in 1980, the applicant was happy with a commercial
designation, but because of the problems with the reservoir protection ordinance, the Board
decided it would leave the zoning on properties that had existing uses that fit in that
zoning category. That is the reason this property was zoned LI. Last summer the applicant
applied For a rezoning, but withdrew that request because there was a prospective tenant
for the property who seemed to fit the existing zoning classification. Mr. Patterson, who
has attempted to rent the property for almost two years, came back with this request because
there are several uses in the HC district (light warehoUsing, wholesale distribution) in
which people have expressed an interest. That is the reason the request this spring was
not reduced. There are several uses in the HC district which people have expressed an
interest in. That is the reason Mr. Patterson did not want to change from HC. There are
other commercial uses that people have requested that fall under both HC and C-1. It is
now at the point where Mr. Patterson has to give up some uses, and that is the reason the
request has been reduced to commercial, so he can find someone for C-1 who'can rent this
piece of property, particularly the garage building. There have been twenty or more poeple
who have expressed an interest, but none fit in the LI district. It is hoped that With a
commercial designation, they will. The proffer is presented tonight because during a
meeting with the Planning Commission last fall, and during the recent meeting, it was
stated by some members that they would support C-i, but they would like to have site plan
approval. The building on the property cannot be expanded beyond the 17,000 square feet,
and still have room on the property to furnish sufficient parking, so he does not see the
site plan as a big issue. Another issue the Planning Commission addressed last fall were
the entrances. The existing entrances were set by the Highway Department. Now, that these
entrances are in place, and the lighting set, there was not much concern expressed by the
Commission members. This is not a request to expand the use. Mr. Bain said that Mr. Pattersor
only wants some type of commercial zoning so that some tenant can use the building; some
type of use without a lot of traffic, or that does not require a parking lot.
Mr. Benton Patterson said he purchased this property about thirty years ago. It took
him about twenty-five years to pay for the property. He does not have a pension or retirement
fund so must use this property for his living. The building will have been empty for two
years this fall. The most serious problem at this time is under the insurance law which
requires a vacancy permit. Since the property has been vacant for this length of time, his
vacancy permit will expire thirty days after July 1 and he will not be able to purchase any
insurance for this building which is appraised for between $85,000 and $100,000. If he
were to sustain a loss, he would not be able to replace the building.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to discuss the sentences in the staff's report which read:
"This property drains to the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir." and "This property is
outside of the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Fisher said that in 1980, the
Board at that time struggled with the question of whether to leave intensive zoning on this
parcel for the two reasons stated. The Board did grant a zoning classification that matched
the use of the parcel at that time; the Rock Store and a building housing a cabinet maker's
shop. The~zoning classification was granted the entire parcel because there was no way to
divide the parcel on the zoning map. The remaining portion of the parcel is used for
residential purposes (mobile home park). If the portion of the property containing the
existing commercial building is now to be separated from the total parcel, Mr. Fisher said
he feels the Board should address the zoning category on the remainder of the property.
Separating four-tenths an acre from the total parcel would leave a large parcel of LI
zoning in the watershed for all of the wrong reasons. He said this would probably cause
some future boards of supervisors many problems. Mr. Fisher said he wonders what the
Planning Commission decision would have been if it had been presented with the proffer the
Board has received tonight. It is possible for~_the Board to refere the petition back to
the Planning Commission for review since the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity
to review the request for C-1.
Mr. Bowie said he cannot su~pport HC for this property in light of the staff's comment
last year that C-1 seemed to be a more appropriate category. He can support the request as
proffered tonight, but now since Mr. Fisher has raised the question, what about the zoning
and existing use of the remaining portion of the property. Should that part of the property
be rezoned?
Mr. Henley said he can support C-1 on this portion of the property, and could see no
reason not to vote on this request, and refer the other question back to the Planning
Commission for review.
Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if it would be appropriate'to change the zoning
on one portion of the property, and defer action on the balance of the property pending
Planning Commission review.
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
255
Mr. St. John said he understands there is no application before the Board to rezone
the balance of the property. There is only an application to rezone a portion of the
property. The Board cannot refer this question to the Planning Commission without adopting
a resolution of intent to rezone the remaining part, and in that resolution the public
necessary for the rezoning must be stated. Mr. Fisher said he' is concerned because the
Planning Commission did not review the exact same application that the Board has before it
tonight. Mr. St. John said the zoning request with the proffer offered tonight could be
referred to the Planning Commission, and in addition to that a resolution of intent adopted.
Mr. Henley said he was not ready to vote to rezone the remaining portion of property. Mr.
St. John said that legally the Board has the power to take action on ZMA-84-13 as proffered
tonight, because it is a less intense zoning request than the original application; as a
practical matter, the application could be referred-to the Planning Commission for review
and as part of that review, the Planning Commission could be asked to look at the zoning
classification on the entire tract. Mr. Henley said he is willing to support the request
for C-i, and would be willing to have the Planning Commission lo0k at the entire parcel.
Mr. St. John said that technically that is what a resolution of intent is for. It asks the
Planning Commission to review the zoning on the entire tract, and that allows the staff to
draft a report. For the Board of Supervisors, on its own initiative, to rezone land piecemeal-
not in a comprehensive rezoning of the entire county - there must be a change in circumstances,
or the Board must be able to demonstrate a mistake in the original zoning. Approval of the
zoning request before the BOard tonight would clearly demonstrate a change in circumstances
as to the remaining portion of the property, and would justify review on the grounds that
the very reason for the zoning category on this whole piece of ground had disappeared.
Mr. Fisher said the Board might adopt two separate actions; one to approve the C-1
application tonight', and another to refer the other zoning question to the Planning Commission.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie to approve ZMA-84-13, subject to the two proffers
presented, as follows:
"1)
Letter dated June 20, 1984, from Edward H. Bain, Jr., Attorney for G. Benton
Patterson, stating that Mr. Patterson reduces his request for rezoning under
ZMA-84-13 from Highway Commercial (HC) to Commercial (C-I).
Letter dated June 20, 1984 from Edeard H. Bain, Jr., Attorney for G. Benton
Patterson, stating that "Any use of the garage building on the site will
require site plan approval by the Albemarle County Planning Commission as to
that building and the area surrounding it, and any change in use of the
convenience store located in the other building on the proPerty shall require
site plan approval by the County of Albemarle Planning Commission for that
building and the area surrounding it."
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to request the Planning Staff to make a recommen-
dation as to an appropriate zoning category for the balance of Tax Map 45, Parcel 22, which
was subject to the prior action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-84-14. Thomas D. Payne, Jr. Request to rezone 1.18 acres from
RA, Rural Areas, to R-1 Residential. Located on the east side of Rt. 20 North, 3,000 ft.
north of its intersection with Rt. 769. County Tax Map 62, Parcel 89B (part). Rivanna
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and June 12, 1984.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff's report as follows:
"Prior to 1972, Mr. Payne purchased two acres of a 3.18 acre lot from his aunt,
Mrs. Phillips. The remaining 1.18 acres were added to and became a part of the
parent tract (no new lot was thus created). In 1982, Mrs. Phillips transferred
the 1.18 acres to Mr. Payne, however, the property was not added to the already
existing two-acre lot. Mr. Payne was then notified that this created a subdivision
and zoning violation and he sought variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals as
a curative measure since he thought he was obtaining a lawful building lot. The
staff discussed with Mr. Payne the idea of obtaining additional land to bring
this lot to the minimum requirements, but his aunt had died and the land was tied
up in estate and he was not able to obtain any additional land. The Board of
Zoning Appeals then granted Mr. Payne a variance from the area requirements related
to water and sewer subject to a rezoning of the property to R-1. The Board of
Zoning Appeals did not grant the variance from the lot size requirement of the
Rural Areas provisions. The variance the Board of Zoning Appeals granted has no
affect until the R-1 zoning is granted. Also, to extinguish all other problems,
the Planning Commission must approve a subdivision plat.
Comprehensive Plan
The property is located in an area designated as rural in the Comprehensive Plan,
with a recommended density of one dwelling unit per five acres (Agricultural
Conservation). The property is about two miles north of the Urban Area.
'256
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment
During the Board of Zoning Appeals deliberations, the applicant indicated
that he thought he was obtaining an independent building lot and really
had no use for the land otherwise. (Mr. Keeler said that in going back
through the transactions, it appears that this was a simple mistake in
the recordation process. Mr. Fisher asked how the owner of Lot 89B who
purchased a piece of land and combined it with that parcel, then sub-
divided it again and sold the land. Mr. Fisher asked if a deed was not
recorded. Mr. Keeler said a deed was recorded, but a plat was not recorded
with the deed. In fact, the deed referred back to the earlier plat in
terms of describing the property. Mr. Fisher said the Clerk then recorded
the deed because it appeared to be correct and the transfer never went
through subdivision review. Mr. Keeler said'that is correct.) While
staff is sympathetic to the applicant's situation, staff cannot recommend
favorably on this rezoning request for the following reasons:
The proposed zoning is in conflict with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan;
e
To rezone the property would be spot zoning and could set a precedent
for future rezonings in the area;
It would appear that in order to approve the subdivision plat, several
additional waivers/variances would be required. Additionally, while
staff is not advising the applicant financially, the cost of installing
a commercial entrance, upgrading the private road, and the like, may
prove prohibitive in terms of the value of the lot.
Staff recommendation for denial is consistent with another recommen-
dation for a similar rezoning request (ZMA-83-17, Douglas and Della
Marsh). Under that petition, property had already been developed
with three dwellings and a country store.
Mr. Keeler said that in regard to statements about the sUbdivision, the applicant noted
at the Planning Commission meeting that a lot was created in 1978 at the back of the property
and that new lot was reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
The Planning Commission approved it subject to private roads provisions and construction of
a commercial entrance, but waived the sight distance requirements. The subdivision plat was
appealed to the Board, and, at that time, the Board deleted the requirement for a maintenance
agreement on the road. The applicant has said that he has already obtained Health Department
approval for a septic system on the 1.18 acre lot. At the Planning Commission meeting it
was noted that this is an old subdivision (Ridgemont), and there are other lots of comparable
size in the subdivision. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 5,
1984, voted unanimously to recommend denial of this petition.
The public hearing was opened at this time. The first to sPeak was the applicant,
Mr. Payne. He said he has attempted everything he can except to add the property to his
original lot. The purpose for having the lot was to build and he was surprised when he
found the lot was less than two acres. After he requested a variance on the lot size, he
contacted various members of the Planning Commission and Board to see what he might do and
they felt he might be doing the wrong thing in requesting R-1 zoning, He feels that he
should have asked for a variance on existing rules. At the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing,
they suggested that he see if two septic field locations could be found on the property; he
has obtained that approval from the Health Department. As far as the road is concerned, the
right of way has been in existence there for thirty years. The road has been widened and is
maintained by the property Owners. There is no way to widen the entrance at the state road
to make it a commercial entrance because of a hill. If this request before the Board tonight
is not proper, Mr. Payne said he would like to know what variance or rule to request be
waived. Mr. Payne said he did try to obtain additional property, but there is a creek which
runs parallel to the property, and then runs into a dam. The property owner 'was concerned
about who would maintain the dam if same were owned by two people, and her attorney suggested
that she sell no property to him. Also, the creek is used to water cattle, and property
owners on the other side of the creek were concerned about losing frontage along Route 20.
The estate of~his aunt is in litigation, so he is unable to obtain any additional land. Mr.
Payne said what he really needs is advise from the Baord as to his options.
Mr. Fisher said his advise would be to go back against the estate and try to recover
his money because he was sold an illegal lot. Mr. Payne said there was no money involved.
The land was given to him. Mr. Fisher said the first division of Lot 90-I was done Under an
exemption in the ordinance which allows a transfer of land between property owners without
going through Planning Commission procedures. This was allowed on the condition that the
lot be attached to and become a part of lot 89B. There was no way the property could be
sold without dividing the lot again.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Circuit Court Clerk should not have recorded the deed. Mr. St. Joh
said the Clerk cannot be put in the position of examiner for compliance with subdivision and
zoning laws. She is not skilled in these areas. She is not charged with having that kind
of knowledge. Mr. Fisher said the only way to make te lot legal is to combine it with an
existing lot.
There being no one else present from the public to speak for or against this petition,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Payne may not have created this problem, but it would not be correct
for the Board to approve this request. Mr. Bowie said he did not believe that anyone living on
Stony Point Road wants one acre lots in the area. He did not realize there was no exchange
of money. Although, he would like to be able to say that Mr. Payne can build a house on the
property, he cannot think of any way to give such approval.
Jmne 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
sidewalks will have to be maintained by the homeowners association. The original intent of
this development was to provide moderate cost housing. Mr. Fisher said moderate cost housing
is one consideration, but not providing a place for people to walk, or children to play in
this type of density is another thing. He is somewhat surprised at the recommendation.
Mr. Bowie said he thought Mr. Keeler had said the Highway Department will not maintain
all of the sidewalks. Mr. Keeler said that is correct, the Highway Department will accept
maintenance only those sidewalks which were approved before this change in policy went into
effect. Mr. Fisher said essentially the recommendation is to waive the requirement for all
sidewalks except for those along Austin and Briarwood Drives, and that the sidewalks be
placed only on one side of those streets. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. Mr. Keeler said
there has been some confusion among the owners in Briarwood. None of the homeowners he has
spoken with were aware there was a requirement for sidewalks in the development. These
.people have installed landscaping, mail boxes, etc. in the area where the sidewalks would be
constructed. Mr. Fisher asked why no sidewalks have been constructed in this development.
Mr. Keeler said the County still holds a bond for construction of the sidewalks. Mr. Fisher
said it seems that there are now a group of people living in this development who do not
want sidewalks. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. In that regard, the last time that a plat
was before the Planning Commission for approval, the Planning Commission specifically included
a condition that in construction of sidewalks, the developer is to pay for relocation of any
features presently located in the areas where the sidewalks would be constructed. Mr. Fisher
said he still does not understand this request completely, but, at this time he opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Withers Finnell, project manager of Woodbriar Associates, owner of Briarwood PRD,
spoke first. This is a project to provide affordable housing which is attractive for the
average owner in Albemarle County and also affordable to the developer. As part of the
cost, lot sizes were kept to a minimum so there would be low maintenance cost for the home-
owner. Sidewalks were included as a requirement by the Planning Commission although the
developer felt that because of the size of the lots, and the width of the roads, sidewalks
were not necessary, and would increase his cost beyond what he had expected. Since that
time, the Highway Department has increased the amount of road frontage required for each lot
so the developer estimates he will lose about 100 lots due to this change and this cost will
be passed to future owners. This is an attractive, safe subdivision. The areas which are
already developed contain wide roads, are not heavily populated, and only travelled by those
living in the subdivision. Many lot owners expanded their yards out to the street and built
fences and put in shrubbery in order to have a larger yard. At the Planning Commission
hearing on this petition, the property owners came forth without any encouragement to express
their overall opposition to having sidewalks in Briarwood. They felt the usage of the lots
for their purposes would be more suitable than having their lots infringed upon by sidewalks.
He asked the Board to cooperate by recognizing the realities of the situation. The lots are
planned, there are homes in place on some lots, sidewalks are not needed and should be
eliminated. He asked the Board to consider the wishes of the people who live in the areas
being discussed, and the future expense for maintenance of sidewalks in Briarwood. Mr. Finnel
said he would correct the statement Mr. Keeler made, the courts that have been recommended
to be eliminated from the sidewalk requirement are Whitney and Heather, not Heather and
Finch. The developer would like to have the requirement for sidewalks in the subdivision
eliminated because he does not feel sidewalks are needed. The developer is working on plans
with the Planning Department now for a tot lot and playground area which will have certain
pathways that will run behind the lots which front on Austin and Briarwood Drives, so these
pathways could be used instead of the sidewalks recommended for these two roads.
Mr. Fisher asked how many units have been built.
units thus far.
Mr. Finnell said there are about 120
Mr. David Lamb said he just moved into Briarwood. Previously he lived in a development
in Greene County which had no sidewalks and there were no problems. Mr. Lamb said he lives
on a corner lot, and if sidewalks were installed on both sides, there would have to be
cutting into his yard. (Mr. Fisher remarked that actually Mr. Lamb's yard is cutting into
someone else's sidewalks.) Mr. Lamb said he feels people walking on the sidewalks would
throw cigarette butts, beer cans, trash, etc. into his yard which he would have to pick up.
Mrs. Shirley Crenshaw said she lives on Whitney Court. On June 5 she completed taking
a survey in which she got seventy-five of the residents in Briarwood to sign. Seventy-five
percent of those signing were against sidewalks; eighteen percent were for sidewalks; and
seven percent were undecided. Mrs. Crenshaw said she feels there are alternatives other
than taking the front yards of these homeowners. She said that sidewalks will not keep kids
out of the street. The idea of a playground is excellent.
Mr. Charles Martin said he lives on the north side of Austin Drive. He could be
selfish and speak in favor of the sidewalks as proposed being built on the south side of
Austin Drive, since it would not affect his property, but, these homes are moderate income
homes, and the amount of property is very limited. Mr. Martin said that if sidewalks were
built on the north side of Austin Drive, they would take about twenty-five percent of his
yard. As far as the issue of children being safe, he does not have any children at this
time, but he would noo speak for something that would be dangerous. He does not believe
safety is an issue, and'recommended that the sidewalks not be built.
Mr. Fisher said he feels the developer should have built the sidewalks five years ago
because the sidewalks are a part of the approved plan. The homeowners would still have had
a choice as to whether to buy with the sidewalks in place. Mr. Fisher said he feels the
developer is now using the homeowners to try and get out of spending some of the money that
was supposed to have been used to build the sidewalks in the first place.
Mr. Martin agreed that the sidewalks should have been in place, but said they are not
there. He does not feel he has been used in any way, in fact Mr. Wood, Mr. Finnell, and
himself have had an antagonist re!atio~ship. Mr. Martin said he is being honest when he
says he does not want the sidewalks in his yard at this time.
J~ne 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
sidewalks will have to be maintained by the homeowners association. The original intent of
this development was to provide moderate cost housing. Mr. Fisher said moderate cost housing
is one consideration, but not providing a place for people to walk, or children to play in
this type of density is another thing. He is somewhat surprised at the recommendation.
Mr. Bowie said he thought Mr. Keeler had said the Highway Department will not maintain
all of the sidewalks. Mr. Keeler said that is correct, the Highway Department will accept
maintenance only those sidewalks which were approved before this change in policy went into
effect. Mr. Fisher said essentially the recommendation is to waive the requirement for all
sidewalks except for those along Austin and Briarwood Drives, and that the sidewalks be
placed only on one side of those streets. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. Mr. Kee!er said
there has been some confusion among the owners in Briarwood. None of the homeowners he has
spoken with were aware there was a requirement for sidewalks in the development. These
people have installed landscaping, mail boxes, etc. in the area where the sidewalks would be
constructed. Mr. Fisher asked why no sidewalks have been constructed in this development.
Mr. Keeler said the County still holds a bond for construction of the sidewalks. Mr. Fisher
said it seems that there are now a group of people living in this development who do not
want sidewalks. Mr. Keeler said that is correct. In that regard, the last time that a plat
was before the Planning Commission for approval, the Planning Commission specifically included
a condition that in construction of sidewalks, the developer is to pay for relocation of any
features presently located in the areas where the sidewalks would be constructed. Mr. Fisher
said he still does not understand this request completely, but, at this time he opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Withers Finnell, project manager of Woodbriar Associates, owner of Briarwood PRD,
spoke first. This is a project to provide affordable housing which is attractive for the
average owner in Albemarle County and also affordable to the developer. As part of the
cost, lot sizes were kept to a minimum so there would be low maintenance cost for the home-
owner. Sidewalks were included as a requirement by the Planning Commission although the
developer felt that. because of the size of the lots, and the width of the roads, sidewalks
were not necessary, and would increase his cost beyond what he had expected. Since that
time, the Highway Department has increased the amount of road frontage required for each lot
so the developer estimates he will lose about 100 lots due to this change and this cost will
be passed to future owners. This is an attractive, safe subdivision. The areas which are
already developed contain wide roads, are not heavily populated, and only travelled by those
living in the subdivision. Many lot owners expanded their yards out to the street and built
fences and put in shrubbery in order to have a larger yard. At the Planning Commission
hearing on this petition, the property owners came forth withoUt any encouragement to express
their overall opposition to having sidewalks in Briarwood. They felt the usage of the lots
for their purposes would be more suitable than having their lots infringed upon by sidewalks.
He asked the Board~to cooperate by recognizing the realities of the situation. The lots are
planned, there are homes in place on some lots, sidewalks are not needed and should be
eliminated. He asked the Board to consider the wishes of the people who live in the areas
being discussed, and the future expense for maintenance of sidewalks in Briarwood. Mr. Finnel~
said he would correct the statement Mr. Keeler made, the courts that have been recommended
to be eliminated from the sidewalk requirement are Whitney and Heather, not Heather and
Finch. The developer would like to have the requirement for sidewalks in the subdivision
eliminated because he does not feel sidewalks are needed. The developer is working on plans
with the Planning Department now for a tot lot and playground area which will have certain
pathways that will run behind the lots which front on Austin and Briarwood Drives, so these
pathways could be used instead of the sidewalks recommended for these two roads.
Mr. Fisher asked how many units have been built.
units thus far.
Mr. Finnell said there are about 120
Mr. David Lamb said he just moved into Briarwood. Previously he lived in a development
in Greene County which had no sidewalks and there were no problems. Mr. Lamb said he lives
on a corner lot, and if sidewalks were installed on both sides, there would have to be
'cutting into his yard. (Mr. Fisher remarked that actually Mr. Lamb's yard is'cutting into
someone else's sidewalks.) Mr. Lamb said he feels people walking on the sidewalks would
throw cigarette butts, beer cans, trash, etc. into his yard which he would have to pick up.
Mrs. Shirley Crenshaw said she lives on Whitney Court. On June 5 she completed taking
a survey in which she got seventy-five of the residents in Briarwood to sign. Seventy-five
percent of those signing were against sidewalks; eighteen percent were for sidewalks; and
seven percent were undecided. Mrs. Crenshaw said she feels there are alternatives other
than taking the front yards of these homeowners. She said that sidewalks will not keep kids
out of the street. The idea of a playground is excellent.
Mr. Charles Martin said he lives on the north side of Austin Drive. He could be
selfish and speak in favor of the sidewalks as proposed being built on the south side of
Austin Drive, since it would not affect his property, but, these homes are moderate income
homes, and the amount of property is very limited. Mr. Martin said that if sidewalks were
built on the north side of Austin Drive, they would take about twenty-five percent of his
yard. As far as the issue of children being safe, he does not have any children at this
time, but he would noo speak for something that would be_ dangerous. He does not believe
safety is an issue, and recommended that the sidewalks not be built.
Mr. Fisher said he feels the developer should have built the sidewalks five years ago
because the sidewalks are a part of the approved plan. The homeowners would still have had
a choice as to whether to buy with the sidewalks in place. Mr. Fisher said he feels the
developer is now using the homeowners to try and get out of spending some of the money that
was supposed to have been used to build the sidewalks in the first place.
Mr. Martin agreed that the sidewalks should have been in place, but said they are not
there. He does not feel he has been used in any way, in fact Mr. Wood, Mr. Finnell, and
himself have had an antagonist relationship. Mr. Martin said he is being honest when he
says he does not want the sidewalks in his yard at this time.
June 20-, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Carolyn Dawson, a homeowner in Briarwood, asked if the sidewalks to be built will
be three feet in and four feet wide. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said they will be
five feet wide lying adjacent to the curb. Mrs. Dawson said she speaks for the homeowners
on Whitney Court. This is not a busy area. Only people living in the area travel the road.
The children do play in the street. Addition of playgrounds will help this.
Mr. Fisher said this Board is faced with the question of what it will be like when the
development is completed and there are five times as many people living in Briarwood. If
this condition is waived at this time, it cannot be added back at a later date. A lot of
staff, Commission, and Board time went into the original decision. Mr. Fisher said he feels
he must make a sight review of the property.
Mrs. Libby Anderson said she also live~
end in a dead-end, cul-de-sac so the majori~
is opposed to sidewalks.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod if he had al
developer's bond last November because the
of a letter of credit, and was not honored,
between December and February, the develope~
certificate of deposit. This certificate i:
that some of the work would be done by April
the major paving, which was the biggest prol
into the State system.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are bonds be~
Mr. Elrod said yes, that is a separate bond
credit, it should not be returned to the de~
the other amenities have been installed. M~
gain compliance with the sidewalk part of tl
said the bond was for more than just sidewa!
the work completed since Spring of 1983.
~ on Whitney Court. She said that this road will
;y of traffic on same will be residential. She
other comments. Mx. Elrod said he Called the
~ork had not been done. The bond. was in the form
so the question was taken to court. Sometime
gave the County some money in the form of a
still being held. There was an understanding
15 of this year. Some work has been done, but
lem, has not completed so the roads can be taken
ng held for construction of the recreation areas.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board loosens up any
reloper until there are either better bonds, or
Fisher asked how long the County had tried to
conditions before the bond was Called. Mr. Elrod
Lks. The .County had been trying to get all of
Mr. Fisher said if there was no one else present who wanted to speak, he would like to
request that this petition be deferred for two reasons: 1) Mr. Lindstrom requested that the
Board not vote on any waiver of sidewalk requirements in this development until he was able
to be present; and 2) he would like to view the property.
Mr. Bowie said he has been to the property a number of times, and he will support
deferral. He knows of two problems; sidewalks were to have been installed, and evidently
the people purchasing in Briarwood were not told that sidewalks were a requirement of the
plan. Also, when there are 600 houses built, there needs to be some kind of Common sense,
logical balance concerning safety on the streets which carry the traffic. Mr. Bowie then
offered motion to defer a decision on this petition un~il July 18, 1984. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment re:
System (advertised in the Daily Progress on June 12, 1984).
Computerized Jail Management
Mr. Ray Jones noted the following memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Deputy Director
of Finance, dated June 6, 1984:
"You have received a request from the Jail Administrator for an appropriation
in the amount of $40,000 to purchase a computerized Jail Management System.
Approval for the purchase of this system was given by Charlottesville City
COuncil on April 16, 1984 and the County Board of Supervisors on_May 9, 1984.
Currently, the Joint Security Complex is indebted to the City of Charlottesville
in the amount of $87,000 and the County of Albemarle for $50,500 which is
their proportionate shares of excess revenues over expenditures for the
fiscal year 1982-83.. It has been the intent of this office as f~scal agent
for the Joint Security Complex to refund this surplus to the City and County
prior to June 30, 1984. However, at this time I would recommend that these
refunds be reduced by $20,000 for each locality in order to provide funding
for this appropriation.
I request your official action on an appropriation to be effective July 1, 1984."
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this budget
amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was they offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following ~resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $40,000 be and the same hereby is appropriated from the fund balance of
the Jail Fund (2-4000-95000-510100) and transferred to code 1-4000-95000-700100
entitled "Machinery and Equipment" for purchase of a computerized jail management
system.
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation shall be effective as of
July 1, 1984.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
NAYS: -None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
2-6 0
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes - December 21, 1983. Motion was offered by
Mr. Henley to approve these minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Report on Tire-Splitting Fees (Re: Cecil Gardner problem).
Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, summarized memorandum from the County Executiv
dated June 15, 1984:
"The tire splitting fee was started on June 1, 1981 with approval from the Board
of Supervisors and City Council. It was initiated primarily as a result of
two factors:
1) Two employees at the landfill had been funded from Comprehensive Employment
Training Act (CETA) funds, and those funds were terminated in 1981. The splitting
fees were considered to partially fund the labor associated with the~special
handling (splitting) required to bury tires.
2) A large pile of several thousand tires existed at the landfill, and in spite
of efforts of split those tires and reduce the pile, the volume of tires brought
to the landfill exceeded the splitting operation. The pile of tires had to be
eliminated by either expanding the splitting operation, or by only accepting
tires already split.
The reduction of manpower from the loss of CETA funds was not practical when the
tire operation actually needed to be expanded. Other landfill operations were
also expanding.
The acceptance of tires only in a split condition was not realistic, since
splitting machines did not exist in the community. The fee was approved to
partially offset the loss of CETA funds, and to encourage commercial tire dealers
to split tires with their labor force rather than the landfill labor force. It
was set at 405 per tire, which represented the cost of labor of the splitting
operation. When approved, concern was expressed by the Board over discouraging
the use of the landfill by the charging of a fee.
Fees collected in FY 81-82 totalled $11,253 with $860 coming from County sources.
Fees in FY 82-83 totalled $4,573, with $523 derived from County sources. FY 83-84
fees have continued similar to FY 82-83.
The fee has resulted in some commercial dealers acquiring their own splitting
machine and bringing the tires to the landfill already split. Other dealers
still pay the fee. The pile of tires has been eliminated, and the volume of
tires being buried is estimated to be comparable to the volume buried prior to
the fee. It is difficult to determine if individual citizens have been discouraged
from bringing tires to the landfill since their volume is insignificant compared
to the commercial tire dealers, but citizens do continue to bring tires and pay
the fee. The staff is of the opinion that the fee has accomplished what it was
intended to do.
The proposal to lift the fee for a period of time to encourage the disposal of
tires could be adopted on a trial basis to observe its results. If adopted, it
is recommended that it be considered for one week in the spring as a part of
spring clean-up efforts.
The Cecil Gardner matter is a unique problem, and ~as to be dealt with accordingly.
The landfill has two tire splitting machines, one serving as a back-up. They
are gasoline powered and are moveable in a pick-up truck. Since the 405 fee is
calculated to be labor costs, it is recommended that one of those machines be
made available to Mr. Gardner for a rental fee, being transported by him to
his property and returning it within a specified period of time. Mr. Gardner
could split his tires, and haul them to the landfill without paying the 405 per
tire fee, just as commercial dealers do. If approved, it is recommended that
the rental fee and the time of usage be negotiated by the staff with Mr. Gardner.
It may be that the Judge will establish the time when the case is heard again on
June 26."
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Gardner will need to sign a waiver of liability if the machine
is leased to him. Mr. Jones said anything arranged with Mr. Gardner will have to be in
writing, and approved by the County Attorney's office.
Mr. Bowie said the Gardner property is located in his district. He would like to help
get rid of the tires without using County funds, and he supports this recommendation as a
solution. Mr. Bowie said if it requires a motion, he will so move. Mr. Way said he will
give second to the motion as pertains to a solution to the Gardners' problem, but has a
comment on the other part of the letter. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
J~ne 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
261
Mr. Way said as to the lifting of the fee at certain times, anything that can be done to
encourage litter being turned is good, but he would hate to see commercial tire people take
advantage of this. He wouId like to approve lifting the fee once a year for a week or two
so the average citizen can bring in things lying around, but because of the commercial tire
dealer he was not sure he could support it. Mr. Jones said this does not really require any
action of the Board, but if the Board wanted to do something like this it could be during
Spring Clean-Up Week. Mr. Fisher said if it could be done at the same time that the City has
its clean-up week, it would be good, and the County might get some publicity at the same
time. Mr. Jones assured the Board that there would be no "free-loading" situation allowed
with the commercial tire dealers.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said he had received a copy of a letter
from Mayor Buck concerning appointment of Mr. George Prill as the Joint appointee to the
City/County Airport Authority. He asked the status of the Authority. He said he thought
this appointment was still for the Airport Board. Mr. Jones said he had talked with the
County Executive who said the Board should appoint Mr. Prill to the Airport Board. The
Authority has not been created yet, and there are a lot of Airport Board actions which need
to be taken in order to create an authority. Mr. Fisher requested a motion to concur with
City Council in appointing Mr. George C. Prill to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board.
Motion to th'is effect was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Karen Hayden as a member of the Library
Board, with said term to expire on June 30, 1988. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
At the request of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Howard W. Allen and Mr. David I.. Morris were reappointed
as members of the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors, ~.~te~s~[r~xp~ri~ o~ June 30
1988 (both Mr. Allen and Mr. Morris have expressed a desire in being reappointed). Motion
to appoint was made by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Henley said he will find a replacement for Mr. Walter Perkins who was recently
appointed as a member of the Albemarle County School Board.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Resource Recovery Commission. Mr. Fisher noted
receipt of the following memorandum from Mr. Bowie dated June 14, 1984:
"The Resource Recovery Commission has lain dormant for some months waiting for
Albemarle County to complete its appointments. We have made two appointments
from staff; Keith Mabe and Tom Muncaster. The Commission has waited for the
third appointment before conducting any business. I have met with the current
appointees of the Commission and they do desire to resume meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Resource Recovery Commission was first formed in 1974 to study refuse disposal
problems in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. After considering various
options, they concentrated their efforts on building a plant which would convert
refuse to energy. After nearly eight years of work, the idea was abandoned
when the University of Virginia decided to build their new hospital on the only
site suitable for the conversion plant. Little additional action has taken place.
In the meantime, the County has been plagued with litter problems, the potential
closing of ~he Keene landfill, etc. Organizations such as the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the League of Women Voters, have
continued to study the problem and recommend/Take Action, but we have had no
coordinated central program. It appears that it is time we do. Attached is a
list of the various studies that I have identified (on file).
RECOMMENDATIONS
A)
That a third Albemarle County appointment be made to the Resource Recovery
Commission so they may begin work. That this appointee be a member of the
Board of Supervisors.
B)
That the three appointees to the Resource Recovery Commission be augmented
with at least two more members (perhaps from the Clean Community Commission
or the League of Women Voters) to form a separate committee to study the
problems of Albemarle County.
C) That the term of the appointments to the County committee be two years.
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
I believe that coordinating the efforts of the Resource Recovery Commission with
a committee who will study the problem from Albemarle County's viewpoint Will
ensure a solution to the problems of litter, waste disposal, etc. If the Board
wishes, I will accept the appointment to the Resource Recovery Commission. As a
member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the Resource Recovery
Commission and the additional County committee, I would attempt to bring a
coordinated area solution to the problem."
Mr. Way said he felt this was a good idea and moved to accept the recommendations as
stated in Mr. Bowie's memorandum and his appointment to the Resource Recovery Committee.
motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Thee
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Jones proceeded to read into the record a memoran-
dum from the County Executive as follows:
"The Director of Finance position was advertised two separate times in trade
journals with National circulation, and in newspapers with circulation in the
Mid-Atlantic region. Fifty-four applications were received from twelve states,
with seventeen applicants from outside of Virginia, and thirty-seven within
Virginia. Nine were selected for interviews by a committee composed of the
Director of Personnel and the two Deputy County Executives. Three were recom-
mended by the committee to the County Executive for interviews. Three additional
applicants were selected by the County Executive for interviews, and from the
total of six considered by the staff to be finalists, three were selected for
interviews by the Board of Supervisors. It is my opinion that the advertising,
recruiting, screening, selection and interview process, covering a period of
six months, has been thorough, and is now completed.
It is my recommendation that Mr. Melvin Breeden, currently the Deputy Director
of Finance, be promoted to the position of Director of Finance effective July. l,
1984 at Step A of Range 32 in the County's Pay and Classification Plan, at an
annual salary of $37,456. Mr. Breeden has been employed in the Finance Depart-
ment since 1968, has held several supervisory assignments in his_sixteen years
of Connty. se~i~e, has completed a number of classes and training courses in
municipal fin~nciaI management, and is qualified for the position. He is a
native of Albemarle County, a resident of Earlysville, is married, and is the
father of two children."
Mr. Way then offered motion to make the said appointment as recommended by the County
Executive, and to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
upon the recommendation of the County Executive, that Melvin A. Breeden is
hereby appointed Director of Finance of Albemarle County effective July 1, 1984.
Melvin A. Breeden, as Director of Finance, shall have all those powers and
duties as set forth in Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-605.
Mr. Henley said he thinks the County government can be proud that it had someone on the
existing staff who was selected out of 54 applicants to fill the position, and he feels
Mr. Breeden will be able to do the job. He offered second to the motion, which carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Jones then proceeded to read the remaining portion of the County Executive's memo-
randum of June 19, 1985:
"The Director of Planning and Community Development was also advertised two separate
times in trade journals, and in newspapers with circulation in the Mid-Atlantic
region. One hundred eight applications were received from 18 states, with 69
applicants outside of Virginia, and 32 within Virginia. Nine were selected for
interviews by a committee comprised of the Director of Personnel and the two Deputy
County Executives. Four were recommended as finalists by the committee to the
County Executive for further interviews, and from this group the applicant
recommended for appointment has been selected. It is my opinion the entire
appointment process covering a period of six months has been thorough, and is
now completed.
It is my recommendation that Mr. James R. Donnelly of Huntsville, Alabama be
appointed Director of Planning and Community Development, effective July !, 1984
at Step A, Range 30 in the Pay and Classification Plan, at an annual salary of
$34,052. Mr. Donnelly has been employed three years as a planning consultant, has
served ten years as Director of Planning for the Regional Council of Governments
in Huntsville, Alabama. He has served planning appointments for the State of North
Carolina, the cities of New Britain, Connecticut and Norman, Oklahoma, and was
Planning Director of the Rappahannock Area Planning Commission in Fredericksburg,
Virginia in the early 1970's. His planning career spans a period of eighteen years.
He is a native of Massachusetts, a graduate of Utah State Uviversity, and Alabama
A&M University, a resident of Huntsville, Alabama, is married, and the father
of several children."
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
· Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to accept the rescommendation of the County Executiv
and appoint Mr. Donnelly as director of Planning and Community Development. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
~YES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT:~ Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher noted that there are still vacancies on the B~ard of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority, and the Equalization Board. He said the Board has not advertised to
fill these vacancies, but can do so. It was thus agreed.
Agenda Item No. 16. Lease on Commonwealth Attorney's Office.
memorandum on the subject dated June 13, 1984:
Mr. Jones noted his
"Attached are copies of two separate leases from Management Services Corporation
~for the space currently occupied by the Commonwealth Attorney. One lease is for
Ethel Irwin's old office and the other is for Bernard Chamberlain's old office.
The lease of Ethel Irwin's old space is $4,080 annually payable at $340 per month.
The Bernard Chamberlain space is $4~920 annually payable at $410 per month. The
total amount of rent cost is $9,000 or $750 per month. The Commonwealth Attorney
sublets a portion of the space to the State Police that pays $1~,800 per year
leaving a net cost to the County of $7,200 or $600 per month. The above annual
cost of $9,000 is up from $8,285 for the current year or about 8.6%.
The proposed budget for FY 84-85 allocates only $6,750 for the County's cost
which was an estimate for a portion of the year. It was expected that we could
get a nine month's lease, however, Management Service Corporation will not issue
-anything other than an annual lease. The lease agreement does include a provision
to sublease in condition 4.
The staff recommendation is for the Board of Supervisors to take official action
authorizing the County Executive to sign the lease as presented to the County.
Once the official date is known as to when the Court Square Building will be
completed and ready for occupancy by the Commonwealth Attorney, the issue of
subleasing can. be dealt with by the Staff and the actual amount of additional
money can be appropriated.
It may be possible to sublease and have the tenant pay directly to Management
Services for the remainder of the FY 84-85."
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve signing the two leases.
The roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Claim of Jay Traverse.
letter as a claim against the County:
Mr. St. John noted receipt of the following
"June 8, 1984
Gerald Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Office Building
M¢Intire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
RE:
Jay Traverse, accident on Route 53 just past entrance to Monticello
heading toward Palmyra
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I represent the above named party in relation to a car accident that occurred
at the location named. On or about May 15, 1984, Mr. Traverse was driving on
Route 53 about a mile past the entrance to Monticello heading toward Palmyra.
Another car came toward him close to, but not over, the center line. Mr. Traverse
moved his car closer to the right side of the road and his front tire caught the
edge of the road and dropped into the ditch, breaking both wheels. The right
side of the road was substantially eroded, there was no shoulder and the white
side-line was gone. There were also no warning signs on the road. The car
dropped about 2 feet, causing damage to the car totalling $1,515.96. Fortunately
Mr. Traverse was not injured.
This letter is a formal notice of my client's claim against the County pursuant
to the requirements of Virginia Code Ann. Section 8.01-222. My client would
like to be reimbursed for the cost of repairing his car. I am enclosing a copy
of the repair order which lists the repair costs. Please note that the cost of
repair of pre-existing conditimns has been deducted.
Please contact me concerning this at your earliest convenience.
very truly yours,
(Signed)
Judith M. Herndon"
June 20, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. St. John gave .the following reasons for denial of this claim. 1) The County'has no
responsibility for maintenance of either primary or secondary highways; and 2) even 'if it
were still the County's obligation to maintain public highways, the County is absolutely
immune to this kind of cl&im. As a matter of law, it would be unlawful to pay the claim.
Mr. St. John recommended that the claim be denied and that the Clerk forward a letter to
Student Legal Services notifying them of the denial, and he will send a letter setting out
the grounds for the denial. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie to accept the recommendation
of the County Attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 17.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and the Board
Mr. Jones noted that the staff has requested bids on a twenty-year loan of $570,000 from
local banks; money to be used for the purchase of the Bicentennial Center from the State Board
of Community Colleges. These bids will be opened on June 27, 1984, and hopefully this matter
will be ready for completion by the Board on July 11, 1984.
Mr. Bowie noted that the Board had received.several letters from persons concerned about
the disposal of McIntire School property, but he fel't these would be better left to the
Buildings and Properties Committee.
Mr. Fisher noted that he and Mayor Buck have agreed to hold a joint meeting of the Board
and City Council on August 23, 1984, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Office Building. He asked
that the Board members make note of this time, and that a letter be written to City Council
confirming this date.
Agenda Item No. 18. At 11:00 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board,
the meeting was adjourned.
d C~airman