1983-02-09February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 9, 1983, at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:46 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
~bsent: None.
Officers Present:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by
Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda consisting of two items for approval and seven
items as information. Roll was caIled on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Item No. 2.1. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Common-
wealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of January, 1983 were presented; said
statements were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2a. Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Robert M. Hauser, Vice
President of Hurt & Company, Inc., requested by letter dated November 2, 1982, for Westfield
Road in Phase II of Wynridge Subdivision to be taken into the State Secondary System since
all the necessary requirements are in order. The following resolution was adopted by the
Board:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Phase II in Wynridge
Subdivision:
Beginning at station 17+92.53 of Westfield Road, a
point common to the centerline of Westfield Road and
previous dedication, thence with Westfield Road in a
westerly direction 598.27 feet to station 22+82.80
a point common to the centerline intersection of
Westfield Road and Westfield Court in Wynridge
Subdivision, Phase II.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 56 foot right-of-way width
from station 17+92.53 to station 18+96.73 and a variable width from
station 18+96.73 to station 21+12.66 and 50 feet from station 21+12.66
to station 22+82.80 and drainage easements along this requested addition
as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 740, page 423.
Item 2.2b. Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. James M. Hill, Jr., agent for
Charles William Hurt, requested by letter dated November 3, 1982, for Ipswitch Place and
Pheasant Lane in Ivy Farms Subdivision, be taken into the State Secondary System since all
the necessary requirements are in order. The folloWing resolution was adopted by the
Board:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Ivy Farm Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 of Ipswitch Place, a point
common to the centerline int'ersection of Ipswitch
Place and Lambs Road, thence with Ipswitch Place in a
northwesterly direction 1,046.88 feet to station
10+46.88 the end of the cul-de-sac of Ipswitch Place
in Ivy Farm Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right
of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded
by pla~ in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 643, page 117 and Deed Book 755, page 415.
February 9, 1983 (R~gu~ar Day Meeting)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Zvy Farm Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+00 of Pheasant Lane, a point
common to the centerline intersection of Pheasant Lane
and Ivy Farm Drive, thence with Pheasant Lane in a
southerly direction 1,392.88 feet to station 23+92.88 the
end of the cul-de-sac of Pheasant Lane in Ivy Farm
Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as
recorded by plat~in the Office of thee Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 712, page 692.
The following items were received as information:
Item No. 2.1. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of December,
1982, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item No. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of January, 1983, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance, and charged to the following funds for the month of January,
1983, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Mental Health Fund
$ 1,096.04
2,050,375.85
2,944,706.13
71,387.07
1,337.51
84,211.51
31.65
2,290.22
208,368.53
411.16
20O,350.82
$5,564,566.49
Item No. 2.3. Letter dated January 28, 1983 from Mr. G. H. Coppedge, Right of Way
Manager B, Department of Highways and Transportation, was received regarding notice of
intent to dispose of surplus right of way acquired from Franklin & Marshall College of
Lancaster, parcel #013 on Route 601; said project #0601-002-150, C-501.
Ite~ No. 2.4. Letters re: State Corporation Commission Hearings. The following
letters were received as information: Virginia Electrio and Power Company, to determine·
appropriate tariffs, letter dated January 31, 1983; Appalachian Power Company to determine
appropriate tariffs re: 1983 Fuel Factor, letter dated January 14, 1983; Potomac Edison
Company to determine appropriate tariffs, letter dated January 17, 1983; hearing to be
held on all cases March 23, 1983, in Richmond.
Item No. 2.5. Letter dated February 2, 1983 from Mrs. Judy Gough, Administrative
Assistant, listing bingo and raffle permits which were administratively approved between
November 1982 to February 1983.
Item No. 2.6. Letter dated February 1, 1983 from Mr. John W. Williams, Chairman,
State Board of Corrections in answer to a letter from John P. Jordan regarding the Community
Diversion program.
Item No. 2.7. Memorandum dated February 2, 1983 from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr,, regarding
1983-84 County/City Revenue Sharing Calculations.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: August 18, September 1 (Afternoon), October
13, October 21, November 10, November 17, December 1 (Night), December 15, 1982 (Night)
and January 19 and February 2, 1983.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes of August 18, 1982 and found no errors.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of October 13, 1982 and February 2, 1983 and found no
errors.
February 9, 19~3 ~Regular Day Meeting~
Miss Nash had read the minutes of October 21, 1982 and January 19, 1983 and found no
errors.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the minutes
of August 18, October 13, October 21, 1982 and January 19 and February 2, 1983. Roll was
~atl~d and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Request re: to name street Faulconer Drive.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, reviewed this request which was
presented at the Board meeting of January 12, 1983. Mr. Tucker said the request was
deferred from that meeting in order that the staff could contact the Albemarle County
Historical Society to determine if the name "Everitt Avenue" which is noted on a plat
dated 1910 should be retained. Mr. Hunter Faulconer, Jr., developer, has suggested that
this particular road be named "Faulconer Drive". Mr. Tucker said he contacted Mr. Lloyd
Smith, President of the Historical Society, and there is no preference over either one of
the names nor any historical significance attached to either.
Mr. Fisher asked to which portion of Route 855 the request is related. Mr. Tucker
said he would recommend naming the road "Faulconer Drive" only from its connection with
Old Ivy Road to where it turns into Belfield School because there is some developable
land in the subject area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Faulconer if that was satisfactory. Mr.
Faulconer said yes.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to accept the recommendation of Mr. Tucker and to
adopt the following resolution. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Atbemarl~e County,
Virginia, that State Route 855 from the connection of Old I~vy Road
to the entrance of Belfield School be named Faulconer Drive as
highlighted on the attached sketch. (Copy on file in Clerk's Office)
Agenda Item No. 4b. Request to vacate right-of-way in Chestnut Ridge Road.
Mr. Tucker noted letter received from Mrs. Kinzie de Launayl dated February 1, 1983,
requesting vacation of right-of-way on Chestnut Ridge Road in Ke!y West Subdivision.
(Copy on file in the Clerk's Office) Chestnut Ridge Road interslects with Wildflower
Drive and leads to some undeveloped property. Mrs. de Launay is~ requesting this vacation
because she plans to build a passive solar house and would like to site the house on the
lot to capture the full effects of the sun. This requires that the house be sited as
close to lot 1 as possible. Mr. Tucker said the staff has reviewed this request and feel
the right-of-way shown on the Key West plat is a logical extension of the road into
undeveloped property which consists of approximately 57 acres and which has very limit, ed
road frontage on Route 20. Mr. Tucker said he would suggest that Mrs. de Launay seek a
variance, if the Board does not approve this request, and site the house as close as
possible to the side of her lot. This would create a problem w~th the seventy-five foot
setback requirement. Mr. Tucker said lot 1 would have to be given access through the
vacated right-of-way since it has no other access. Mr. Fisher asked if the roads in Key
West are in the state system. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that
the type of connection shown should be kept in order to discourage more access points on
Route 20. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. de Launay was present. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr.
Fisher said he was not personally in favor of this request, but he felt the applicant
should be allowed to present her case. Therefore, he requested that notification be sent
to the applicant and adjoining property owners that this request will be deferred to the
agenda for March 9, 1983. Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash,
to ~that effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Resolution: Western By-Pass Alternative.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom was to prepare this resolution and suggested deferring
the discussion of this until Mr. Lindstrom arrived.
Agenda Item No. 4d. Road Viewers Report.
Mr. Fisher noted the receipt of the following road viewers report dated February 3,
1983:
"1) Brookhill Avenue - Lakeside Subdivision (.03 of~a mile from Route 20
South to the Piedmont Virginia Community College property line).
Even though this road is eligible, we feel it is unwise to use Rural
Addition Funds for improving roads that could have been improved during
the development of the subdivision. There is also potential for vacant
land having access to this road to develop as a subdivision. We
recommend rejection of this application.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Da~ Meeting~)
2) Shannon Drive - Shadwell Estates Subdivision (one-half mile east of
Shadwell on the south side of Rt. 250 East).
Even though this road is eligible, we feel it is unwise to use
Rural Addition Funds for improving r~&ds that could have been
improved during the development of the subdivision. In addition
we do not feel the service given by the road justifies the cost
involved to improve it. It appears the road can be maintained-
by those served at a minimum cost.
3) 'Entrance Road' - Woolen Mills (.02 mile from State Rt. 1115, Broadway
Road to the County-City Line).
This road serves six houses and two businesses plus being a
through road. We feel this service justifies the cos~ involved to
improve the road. We recommend Rural Addition funds being used for
this improvement provided all requirements in the attached report
are met.
4) 'East Market Street' Alley - Woolen Mills (500 feet from the property of
Mr. and Mrs. Sylvester Herring to the property of Mrs. C. F. Melton on East
Market Street).
This street serves four houses with no other access. We feel this
service justifies the cost involved to improve the road. We recommend
Rural Addition Funds being used for this improvement provided all
requirements in the attached report are met.
We recommend that Rural Addition Funds which remain unspent be
used for future applications either this year or next year.
Sincerely,
(Signed by)
John O. Higginson
William A. Gray
Bernard C. Ward
Alonzo Jones"
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. Mr. Fisher asked if
there are sufficient Rural Addition Funds to improve the two roads recommended in the
foregoing report. Mr. Roosevelt said the "Entrance Road" at the Woolen Mills will require
$6915 of Rural Addition funds and $7905 from other sources. The "East Market Street
Alley" at the Woolen Mills will require $2070 of Rural Addition Funds and $2070 from
other sources. There is only $19,000 in Rural Addition Funds remaining for FY 82-83; the
Board has already spent $1,000. The amount to come from "other sources" is a decision
for the Board, however, in the past, citizens have been responsible for those amounts.
Miss Nash said Brookhill Avenue in Lakeside Subdivision had been scheduled for
review by the Road Viewers for almost a year and she was disturbed that rejection of the
request is recommended. This subdivision was platted thirty years ago and the road is in
terrible condition. The residents were led to believe that the road was eligible~for
these funds. Miss Nash said she would like to find out if it were possible to have this
road reconsidered for Rural Addition funds next year or can the Board overrule the Viewers
decision. Mr. St. John said under the new state statute, the County Board can fund any
secondary road improvement. However, Highway Department policy is also in effect here and
he was not sure what that policy might be.
Mr. Roosevelt said the road is eligible for addition under the rural addition statute.
His report (on file in the Clerk's office) indicates that the total cost to improve this
road is $56,197 with a total of $23,232 being eligible for Highway Department funding.
However, only $19,000 is available for these rural additions, so the total project could
not be done this fiscal year. Forty percent of the funding would have to come from
sources other than Highway Department funds.
Miss Nash said if the Road Viewers decision was reversed and Brookhill Avenue accepted,
would the two roads at the Woolen Mills have to be reviewed again. Mr. Roosevelt was not
certain if a viewer recommendation could be carried from year to year. The Code allows
funds to be carried forward for three years and the Department does not have ~any preference
in this matter. Mr. Fisher asked Miss Nash if she felt the residents in Lakeside Subdivision
would be able to raise the necessary funds. Miss Nash said Mr. Daniel Lowe, a resident,
was present and could answer that question. Mr. Lowe said the residents are aware that
some funds will have to be provided by them. Mr. Fisher felt that perhaps the two smaller
projects should be accepted and the funds remaining from this fiscal year, plus funds
from the 1983-84 allocation be considered for Lakeside if the residents can provide their
share of the funds. Mr. Roosevelt said that could be done.
Miss Nash agreed with the suggestion and offered motion to accept recommendations #3
and #4 of the Road Viewers report to fund~ the two projects, Entrance Road at the Woolen
Mills and East Market Street Alley, and to also approve for Rural Addition funding,
Brookhill Avenue in Lakeside Subdivision with the balance of funds needed for this project
to come from Rural Addition Funds for FY 83-84. Mr. Henley said the only way he could
support the motion would be to fund the two projects recommended, and then carry forward
the funds left until it is seen what-happens after that. Miss Nash felt a definite
feeling of the Board should be expressed because the residents will have to raise about
$30,000 and they will need to start raising the funds now. The people will be left in
limbo if something like this is not offered.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher questioned the statement in the report about undeveloped land which could
have access to Brookhill Avenue. Mr. Roosevelt then referred-to his ~ketch and noted
that between lots A6 and C1 there is a righta~ay ~h~c~i~ naaed~-on ~h~ ~a~as Lakeside
Drive. The right-of-way is only the length of the two lots, but connects to an undeveloped
parcel of twenty acres bounded on the north by the Community College and on the south by
other properties. The only feasible access out of the undeveloped parcel to Route 20 is
through Brookhill Avenue and Lakeside Drive. The property is owned by the same person
who also owns frontage alGng Route 20 but that property is steep, and Mr. Roosevelt said
that in his opinion the best access for the property would be through the right-of-way.
The property is zoned R-1 and could be developed into twenty lots. Mr. Fisher asked if
the improvement to Brookhill Avenue would be adequate to handle the additional traffic
from the parcel or would the developer have to upgrade the road. Mr. Roosevelt said the
improvements would be sufficient to handle the additional development. Mr. Fisher then
questioned the fact that no end is shown for Brookhill Avenue outside of the platted
lots. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the end of the road abuts the Piedmont Community College
parking lot. Mr. Roosevelt said it is feasible that the College could connect to this
road and empty their parking lot down this road at some future time. However, logically,
unless something happens to the main access road of College, he did not feel the College
would want their traffic using a subdivision street. Mr. Fisher felt the owner of the
twenty-acre parcel should share in the cost of the improvement. Mr. Roosevelt said the
owner of the twenty-acre parcel is the same developer listed for the cost portion of this
improvement. Mr. Fisher asked if this was the original developer. Mr. Roosevelt said
yes, the same family. Mr. Henley did not feel setting aside funds in the next fiscal
year for the project would make any difference for the peoPle raising the funds.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion. Mr. Henley said his concern with the motion is that
other improvements could not considered by the Road Viewers next year if this motion is
approved; then, if the Brookhill Avenue residents do not come up with necessary funds, no
improvements would be done or even considered next year. Mr. Fisher then suggested
setting December 31, 1983 as the time limit for all items including the funds to be
concluded. If that date is not met, then the project will be dropped at that time. Miss
Nash accepted that as an amendment to her motion. Mr. Henley said he would support that
amendment. Mr. Butler accepted same to his second. Mr. Roosevelt then requested that
since the other two projects recommended by the Road Viewers need funds from "other
sources", that a time limit be set on those requests as well. Mr. Fisher asked if the
same date was satisfactory. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. Miss Nash and Mr. Butler accepted
that additional amendment. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4e. Request to abandon portion of Route~ T1306 in Town of Scottsville.
Mr. Fisher said a resolution adopted by the Scottsville Town Council on December 20,
1982, has been received requesting the Board to abandon Route T1306 from its intersection
with Rout~e T1304 to the intersection of Route T1307 in the town for the flood control
levee project. Mr. Fisher recognized Mayor Raymon Thacker and asked if he had any additional
comments. Mayor Thacker showed a copy of a plat and noted that this project is part of
the flood control levee project. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:46 A.M.) Mr Maynard Etrod,
County Engineer, was present and explained the location of the road to be abandoned.
Mayor Thacker said closing this section will dead-end Harrison Street but not affect
Lumber Street. The area involved is C & 0 property and the Town has acquired the largest
portion of that property for the levee project.
Mr. Fisher said Section 33.1-151 of the State Code requires that notice be posted in
three places along the road for thirty days, publication of a notice to abandon and that
a notice be forwarded to the State Highway Commissioner. Therefore, in order to meet the
advertising deadlines, March 16 or April 13 have been suggested for the public hearing
dates. Miss Nash then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on March 16, 1983,
at 7:30 P.M. the request from the Scottsville Town Council to abandon State Route T1306
from the intersection of Route T1304 to the intersection of Route T!307 (approximately
0.09 mile) and that all the affected property owners be notified in writing. Mr. Butler
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ~indstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 4f. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt distributed to the Board a copy of the cost estimates for the Route
743 (Hydraulic Road) project showing an estimate of all of the costs involved, including
the County's share. Basically, he is requesting that the curb and gutter be extended
from Georgetown Road to Whitewood Road. Mr. Roosevelt said this project was budgeted at
$2,900,000 and the cost at the present time is $2,970,000+. Between the time the project
was advertised and the bids opened, it was determined that there is sufficient traffic
between the Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road intersection to warrant a traffic signal
being installed at Whitewood Road. The traffic signal will be added to the project which
will cost about $40,000, making the total project cost $3,037,558. Mr. Roosevelt said he
has determined, using contract prices, that for $70,~00 additional funding the curb and
gutter and storm sewer can be extended from Georgetown to Whitewood Road. Therefore, he
recommends that $70,000 be added to get a four-lane, curb and gutter roadway, with a
fifth lane as a turn lane at Albemarle High School, the entire distance from Georgetown
Road to Whitewood Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the $70,000 will have to be made a part of
Secondary Six-Year plan over the next few years.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked what will be lost by adding this additional amount into the six-
year plan. Mr. Roosevelt said the six-year plan carries $100,000 in "undesignated funds"
which can be used for this project. Mr. Roosevelt said the undesignated funds would
probably go toward the Meadow Creek Parkway (Rio Road/McIntire Road Extension) project if
there are no other uses for the funds. He did not feel that this additional portion of
the Hydraulic Road project could ever be built for $70,000 in the future, and strongly
recommended approval.
Mrs. Cooke said she would accept the recommendation of the Highway Department since
this is a heavily travelled road and she agrees with Mr. Roosevelt's analysis that this
can not be done for this amount again. Mr. Fisher asked how many feet of roadway are
involved. Mr. Roosevelt said.approximately 1,500 feet. He also pointed out that when
curb and gutter are installed, storm sewer is also required. The cost of the storm sewer
is being shared between the County and the State. This additional curb and gutter will
require some 500 feet of storm sewer pipe and about four additional drop inlets which is
estimated to be about $14,000 with the County's share being no more than 50%. Therefore,
he noted that the County will have to finance an additional $6,500 for this project in
the future. Mr. Agnor said this project is a part of the County Capital Improvement
program and there are sufficient funds to cover the estimate plus the additional storm
sewer.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to accept the Highway Department's recommendation to
extend the curb and gutter and storm sewer from Georgetown Road to Whitewood Road for the
Hydraulic Road project as requested by the Resident Highway Engineer, with the County
paying its appropriate share of the storm sewer cost from County general funds. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Roosevelt then noted for the Board's information that the Highway Department,
after review and negotiation with the General Assembly and the Joint Legislative and
Audit Review Committee, can now consolidate some of its maintenance areas. The five
current maintenance headquarters in Albemarle County will be consolidated into four
closing the one at Batesville.
Mr. Fisher asked what will happen to the property at Batesville. Mr. Roosevelt said
a decision has not been made, but the Department will keep the property for some time to
determine if this consolidation works as envisioned.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Resolution: Western By-Pass Alternative.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has drafted a resolution to request the Metropolitan Planning
Organization to study methods of dealing with the traffic problems in the Route 29 North
Corridor and also dealing with the question of how the county might facilitate transportation
between the Piney Mountain/Hollymead areas to the north of Charlottesville and the Pantops
area to the east of Charlottesville in a way that is consistent with the Board's attempt
to preserve public water supply watersheds. Mr. Fisher asked if the words "the possibility
of a by-pass to the said corridor connecting the Piney Mountain and Hollymead communities
with the Pantops area" meant directly from Route 29 North to somewhere in the Pantops
area. Mr. Lindstrom said that does not mean to specifically tie the two communities
together, but rather somewhere in the general area. Mr. Henley expressed concern with
the last sentence of the resolution "that no alternative shall be studied which would
impact or intrude upon any public drinking water impoundment watershed". Mr. Lindstrom
said if the Board sends a resolution to the MPO which does not explicitly state the
Board's wishes, then the MPO may say that no other alternative is available thus putting
the original recommendation back before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom did not want to leave
the "door open" but rather make the request as emphatic as possible. Mr. Henley said he
did not know the costs of the first study and was concerned about spending more funds.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is just asking the members of the MPO to examine the question
rather than hiring consultants.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom if he would consider inserting the words "Route 29
North Corridor" instead of "Hollymead and Piney Mountain communities" in the last paragraph
of the resolution. He felt this would give the MPO a broader area to examine as far as a
location where the by-pass would start.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution with the above
amendment. He did not feel the position of the Board is changed relative to location of
the by-pass, and makes it emphatic that the Board does not want to see any alternatives
considered within watershed impoundments. Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Mrs. Cooke was concerned that this requested study take into consideration that
areas south of the river are highly developed. She knows that something needs to be done
about the traffic in the Route 29 North Corridor, but hopes that the Committee would take
into consideration the residential areas already established south of the river so that
no people would have to be relocated. Mr. Fisher said limiting the by-pass geographically
is different from stating that established neighborhoods should be protected and he
preferred the latter. Mrs. Cooke had no problem with that lang ~u~ change. Mr. Lindstrom
said that another sentence could be added at the end of the resolution to reflect the
concern about protecting established neighborhoods. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his
motion to adopt the following resolution with the addition of language to protect existing
neighborhoods. Miss Nash accepted the amendment. Roll was called and the motion .carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley (preceded his vote by stating that he felt the Route 29 area had been
studied enough to almost build a by-pass and he did not feel this resolution will bring
about a solution. Therefore, he felt there has been enough studies and it is time to
make a decision.)
February,9 _ 1983 (Reg~ular Da~ Meeting)_ _
0?
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has recently
received the final report of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation
Study Committee, and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has accepted
all of the recommendations contained in that report with the exceptions
of the so-called "Route 20 North Connection" and the "Western By-Pass",
and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shares the
concern of the "CATS" committee over improving traffic flow in the
29 North corridor, and is further concerned about facilitating
transportation between the HOllymead community and the Piney Mountain
village shown on its Comprehensive Plan and the areas designated for
growth in the Pantops sector of the Urban Area of said Plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that the Metropolitan Planning Organization made up of
representatives of Albemarle County, Charlottesville, the University
of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be, and it hereby is, requested to study method of alleviating congestion
in the Route 29 North Corridor including but not limited to, the addition
of extra lanes, express lanes, etc., and grade separation interchanges at
critical intersections within the Route 29 North Corridor, and the
possibility of a by-pass to the said corridor connecting the Route 29 North
Corridor with the Pantops area, provided, however, that it is the expressed
desire of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, consistent with its
concern for the protection of public drinking water supplies, and the
protection of existing neighborhoods that no alternative shall be studied
which would impact or intrude upon any public drinking water impoundment
watershed located in Albemarle County, or impact or intrude upon any
existing neighborhoods.
Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Zoning Violation [SP-77-83), David Spradlin.
This was deferred from January 19, 1983, as requested by the applicant's attorney,
Mr. George McCallum, in order that a report could be made about the removal of the vehicles
in violation of the special use permit.
Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, said this matter was on the Board's agenda
January 12, 1983 and an inspection was made on that date. Approximately sixty-five to
seventy vehicles were there at that time. This morning an inspection was made and only
twenty-five vehicles are remaining on the property. According to the photographs taken
this morning, the vehicles have been moved to the side of the road where they can be
flattened or crushed and loaded on flat bed trucks. The inspector had been to the property
yesterday and the owner of the property had attempted to obtain the services of the
crusher, but the operator of the crusher was unable to work because of the inclement
weather. Mr. Vaughn said efforts are in progress to remove the vehicles, but another
concern is that in addition to the vehilces on the property there are tires, wheels and
miscellaneous debris from the junk vehicles that should also be removed.
Mr. George McCallum, attorney for the applicant, was present and noted that the
vehicles were scattered over the site when the January 12 inspection was made and those
vehicles remaining on the property are concentrated in one place. He then noted that the
owner of the property, Mr. David Spradlin, is trying to get the car crusher to the site
and progress is being made with the crushing of the vehicles. Mr. McCallum then requested
deferral of this matter to February 16, 1983, to allow another progress report to be made
at that time. He also noted that the property is located behind a ridge and quite a
distance from the road. Therefore, the site is not visible from adjacent properties.
Mr. Fisher asked when the first notice of violation was sent to the applicant.
Vaughn said June, 1982 but he felt an honest effort is now being made to remove the
vehicles. The vehicles have been moved from visibility and staged for car crushing.
Mr o
Mr. Fisher recommended deferral as requested since progress is being made. Motion
was then offered by Miss Nash to defer the discussion of the zoning violation (SP-77-83)
to February 16, 1983, in accordance with Mr. McCallum's statements. Mrs. Cooke seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6.
Crozet Library.
Reapproval:
Contract with Perry Foundation re:
Building for
Mr. St. John said the Board approved a contract on January 19, 1983, for the purchase,
construction and use of the old C & O Railroad Company Depot building for use as a branch
library in Crozet. M~. St. John said some changes have been made in the contract which
are not substantive, but the Board should reapprove this contract. Mr. St. John said the
changes in the contract were .requested by the Perry Foundation after the approval by the
Board on January 19. Mr. St. John then summarized the changes in the contract.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash questioned the addition of the words "The County will, if necessary, take
action to remove any cloud upon the title to the property after it has accepted and
recorded the deed." Mr. St. John said he thought this was in accord with what the Board
desired. Miss Nash agreed, but suggested the word "will" between "County" and "if" be
changed to "may". Mr. St. John said that would be satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to authorize the Chairman to execute the following agreement with the
above amendment for the purchase, construction (renovation) and use of the old C & 0
Railroad Company Depot building for use as a branch library in Crozet. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
THIS AGREEMENT made this (17th) day of (February), 1983, by and between
THE PERRY FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED (the Foundation), and the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the County),
WI T NE S S E T H :
A. RECITALS
1. The C & 0 Railway Station and the .land on which it stands, are
available from the C & 0 at a price of Forty-Five Thousand ($45,000.00)
Dollars.
2. The Foundation is willing to purchase this property and to renovate
and alter the existing building for the purpose of providing a branch library
for Crozet and the surrounding community, provided it is assured by the Board of
the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that there is a public need for such a branch library., and that upon
acquisition of the property by the foundation the County will accept title
to the property and that it will be used as a branch library.
3. The Board of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has reviewed
the conceptual plans for the proposed building and has assured both the
Foundation and the County that there is a public need for such a facility
and that if the facility is constructed and tendered to the Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library Board for use as a branch library, it will be so used.
B. AGREEMENT
In consideration of the public benefits to be bestowed upon the citizens
of Albemarle County by the premises hereof, parties agree as follows:
1. The Foundation will undertake to obtain a contract to purchase the
property and tender a quitclaim deed to the County; and will at its own
expense without use of County or other public funds, proceed to renovate and
alter the existing building according to plans approved by the Board of the
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and the Foundation.
2. The County will accept and record a quitclaim deed to the
property from either the C & 0 Railway Company or the Foundation, as the
case may be, when such a deed is tendered regardless of the status of the
title. The County may, if necessary, take action to remove any cloud upon
the title to the property, after it has accepted and recorded the deed.
3. There being no public funds expended for either the acquisition
of the property or construction of the building, the Foundation will not
be required to submit the construction to bids, and shall have the right to
select both the architect and the contractor in its own absolute discretion,
and to construct the building at a cost agreeable to it, provided only that
the building is constructed according to plans approved by the Jefferson-
Madison Regional Library Board.
4. Upon delivery of title to the property to the County, and
completion of the building, the property will be leased to or otherwise
turned over to the Board of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library or its
successors by the County, for use as a branch library.
5. A plaque, monument, or other suitable memorial, shall, if
requested by the Foundation, be located on the property to commemorate
the Foundation and its founder, for having donated the property to public
use.
Agenda Item No. 7.
rates through VACO/VML.
Authorization to sign new contract with VEPCO re:
negotiated
Mr. Agnor said the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal
League have been negotiating for almost a year with power companies in Virginia concerning
the rates which will be charged to local governments. Those negotiations have been
consummated and Vepco has presented to his office a purchase agreement for electric power
for a three-year period with rates negotiated by these agencies. In general, Vepco began
by asking for a one-year agreement and for a rate increase that would generate 21 million
dollars in revenues. The result of the negotiations is a three-year agreement which has
staggered increases with the most significant in the first year of approximately ten
percent to generate 10 million dollars, second year with six percent to generate seven
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
million dollars, and the third year five percent to generate six million dollars. Mr.
Agnor said the agreement being presented for approval today would make a retroactive
change on all billing which has occured since July 1, 1982~. The new agreement will
expire on June 30, 1985. Mr. Agnor said since the Virginia Association of Counties and
the Virginia Municipal League both undertook the negotiations, which in earlier years had
to be paid for by the County, he recommends approval and-authorization for him to execute
the new contract.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the
agreement for the purchase of electric service by municipalities and counties of the
Commonwealth of Virginia from Virginia Electric and Power Company as on file in the
Clerk's office with the term of the agreement being.July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1985 and
authorizing Mr. Agnor to execute same. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Lottery Permits and conditions of approval placed
on same.
Mr. Agnor said this item is on the agenda as a result of an application presented to
the Finance Department for approval of a bingo permit top?Jay games on Sunday. Mr. Agnor
said since the first'policy was adopted by the Board in 1973 for local regulations attached
to the issuance of lottery permits games have been excluded on Sundays. Mr. Agnor said
the question is if the Board desires to amend the policy to include Sunday operations.
Mrs. Cooke said she had no problem with the present policy and did not feel there
was any need for lottery permits to include games on Sundays. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St.
John if there was any problem with continuing the present policy. Mr. St. John said no.
Mr. Fisher said without any action to amend the policy, the present policy remains in
effect.
Agenda Item No. 16. Agreement: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company.
Mr. Agnor said this agreement is to provide for the disbursement of funds from the
Capital Improvement Budget to the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company. This agreement
sets out the amount of funds that the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company will receive
from the County each fiscal year and the repayment schedule of those funds.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the following
agreement between the County and the Earlysville Fire Company with the Chairman authorized
to execute same. Mr. Lindstrom questioned the legality of binding funds for a future
fiscal year. Mr. St. John said that is the reason this is in the form of a service
agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follOwing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this day of February, 1983, by
and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and EARLYSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY,
INC. ("Earlysville");
WI TNE S SETH
That for and in consideration of the operation by Earlysvi!le of a
volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and
human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement,
the County shall pay to Earlysvil!e the sum of FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED ($56,500.00) DOLLARS in fiscal year 1982-83 and the sum of
FORTY-THREE THOUSAND FiVE HUNDRED ($43,500.00) DOLLARS in fiscal year
1983-84, from the County's capital fund. Thenceforth, the sum of FOURTEEN
THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED ($14,500.00) DOLLARS per year shall be withheld each
year by the County from the County's annual grant to Earlysville for a
period of six consecutive years beginning fiscal year 1983-84 and the sum
of THIRTEEN THOUSAND ($13,000.00) DOLLARS shall be withheld by the County
from the County's annual grant to Earlysville during fiscal year 1989-90,
so that at the end of the seventh year, which is the term of this service
agreement, a total of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND ($100,000.00) DOLLARS shall have
been withheld.
Agenda Item No. 3. .Approval of Minutes: September 1 and December 1, 1983.
Mr. Lindstrom felt more discussion had occurred at the September 1, 1982 meeting
than is shown in the minutes, particularly his statements and conversation relating to
the Service Authority as opposed to the County's general fund paying for fire hydrants.
He felt the conclusion of the minutes was accurate. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that
the minutes be reexamined and approved at a later date.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of December 1, 1982 and found no errors and
offered motion to approve same. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
At 10:50 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:02 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 8. ?ublic Hearing: Budget Amendment re: Lickinghole Creek Detention
Basin. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 2, 1983.)
Mr. Agnor said the report regarding this item was presented at the January 12, 1983
meeting and the budget amendment then scheduled for-public hearing. The money is for
preliminary design and development costs associated with a project for a detention basin
on Lickinghole Creek; estimated by the County Engineering Department to cost $6,000.
This appropriation is for the surveying and engineering work which cannot be done in
house. The funds are to come from the Cap±tal Improvement Fund. A report will be made
to this board of the project cost estimates after preliminary design work. Mr. Agnor
noted that three designs will be studied.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the
budget amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the B~rd of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $6,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Capital Budget Fund Balance and coded to 9700-7060.85 -- Lickinghole
Creek Basin Project; said appropriation for the Lickinghole Creek
Detention Basin.
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on
February 16, 1983.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Community Development Block Grants for 1983.
Mr. Tucker was present and summarized the following two staff reports and noted that
this year there are two requests for community development block grant funding, one from
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, and one from the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Mr. Tucker noted that the County is limited to making only one application
from the locality, but there can be a regional application. Each locality is limited to
$700,000 for all grants. Mr. Tucker then summarized the following reports:
"Potential Community Development Block Grants
Housin~ Rehabilitation Program
Introduction: The Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) Board
of Directors has requested that the Board of Supervisors apply for Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to support additional rehabilitation
activities. The majority of these improvements are focused on three
strategy areas (Esmont, Blenheim and Boonesville) as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002.
As you may be aware, the County applied for similar funding in 1982
and was ranked twenty-six out of one hundred fifty applications. Of
the total applications, only twenty-two received funding. Albemarle did
have the highest number of points of the housing proposals submitted for
funding. Albemarle also submitted a regional grant for rehabilitation
funds along with Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson counties. This application
was ranked thirty-six out of the total one hundred fifty proposals.
According to officials from the Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD), both applications were excellent and could possibly
be funded with some slight modifications.
CDBG Summary: To assist in the discussion of the proposed application,
the major points in DHCD's review for funding are summarized:
Community Relative Need Criteria (income, population change,
unemployment and tax effort/ability): Account for a possible
340 points in the review. Albemarle received 160 points for
these data items in last year's funding. Much work has to
be done in the other review sections to make up the loss of
points.
State Priorities: Housing rehabilitation projects are one of
four top projects for the Governor.
Regional Priorities: Top priority also.
Impact on Local Objectives: Past grant received maximum funding
due to the strategy area identification in the Comprehensive Plan.
Reasonable Project Cost: Due to AHIP's past record, costs of
rehabilitation activities were given maximum points.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Leveraging: Credit was given for all money leveraged in the
past grant. The amount $421,000, however, was ranked low
considering the $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 amounts leveraged by
successful applicants.
Benefit to Low and Moderate Income: Past grant received 140
out of 150 points in this category. The grant could be
improved through the careful scrutiny of project service areas
(reducing areas to exclude persons who could not benefit
otherwise).
Impact on Objectives: Improvement in this area could be made
by utilizing a different code compliance standard and supplying
the AHIP waiting list to indicate need. Number of units, which
will not change, was ranked average.
In summary, the housing rehabilitation grant has an excellent chance of being
funded. A few improvements to the grant should place it in a high position
as localities which received funding last year cannot reapply this year.
Of course, other localities could also improve their grant applications
following the results of last year's funding. The County could split the
request for funding, as in last year's request, to improve the chance of
being funded. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has indicated
other localities' willingness to pursue the regional grant again. Finally,
the excellent comments received in last year's review are favorable toward
the County reapplying for a similar activity."
"Crozet Waste Water System
Introduction: The Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors has
requested the Board of Supervisors to prepare a Community Development Block
Grant application for $700,000 to assist in the construction of the Crozet
collector system. (Letter from the Service Authority dated January 7, 1983 on
file in the Clerk's Office.) As you may be aware, the County is limited to
one application (unless a participant in a regional project) and is limited to
$700,000 for total funding.
Water and waste water system projects fared well in last year's competition;
a total of twelve facility projects (four water and eight waste water) were
funded from CDBG monies.
CDBG Summary: A summary of the major points that will be important in the
review of the proposed funding application are presented below. Most of the
remarks presented are from discussions that the staff of the Planning Department
has had with officials from the Department of Housing and Community Development
(DHCD). As such, the comments are preliminary and general and could be altered
somewhat following careful review by DHCD.
Community Relative Need Criteria: The County has no control
over this data.
State Priorities: Wastelwater projects (not mandated) received
a second priority from the Governor. The State is considering
combining both mandated and nonmandated projects to form a
single top priority.
Regional Priorities: ReCeived a second priority. The Plann.ing~
District Commission willlbe reviewing priorities shortly.
Impact on Local Objectives: The proposed project should score
high in this category. The Crozet interceptor and collector
system has been discussea in terms of comprehensive planning for
'a long time. Also, the ~rozet Land Use Plan is dependent upon
the Completion of waste Water facilities. Finally, protection of
the major water source f0r the County and City is clearly dependent
upon the completion of t~e proposed facilities.
Reasonable Project Cost:l Estimates for the collector are at
$5,000,000. These costsiappear to be reasonable; however, they
are inflated figures fro~ the 1976 McNamr report. DHCD may have
some concern with the utilization of these figures, but they
should understand that f~nal engineering work was dependent upon
the interceptor funding ~pproval.
Leveraging: According t
received for the interce
for the total project.
monies such as that obta
in the leveraging, but o
to benefit to low and mo
final ranking. Also, mo
for commitments; therefo
Service Authority will b
need to be nearing appro
therefore put this proje
projects.
~ discussions with DHCD, ail of the money
~tor may be allowed to count as leveraging
~here has been some comment made that
~ned for the interceptor might be counted
aly that portion that directly relates
~erate incomes would be given points in the
aies that are leveraged will be scrutinized
re, monies that the Albemarle County
s acquiring from bonds, loans, etc., will
~a! stages. Total monies leveraged could
ct in a top ranking for all leveraged
February 9, 1983 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
Benefit to Low and Moderate Zncome: The project will provide
direct benefit to some low and moderate income persons in the
Crozet service area. According to some preliminary figures,
developed by the Planning Dpeartment, approximately 715
residential dwelling units would be served by the proposed
collector system. Utilizing Census information for Crozet,
approximately thirty percent of those proposed to be served
at this time would qualify according to DHCD guidelines. This
percentage may be low, considering the waste water facilities
funded this year represented a low of forty-five percent to
ninety-five percent benefit to low and moderate income. This
is a very important category worth 150 points.
Impact on Community Facilities: The proposed project could
impact approximately 1,800 persons based on the residential
dwelling unit count alone. This represents about sixty-five
percent of the total persons in Crozet Census Designated Area.
In terms of persons served, the number is comparable to last
year's grants, but the percent of need being met in the
total area is low.
In summarY, this proposed grant application should fare excellently in terms
of priorities, impact on objectives and leveraging. It will, however, rank
on par or below par with benefit to low and moderate income and impact to
community needs with other similar projects. The leveraging factor, if all
the monies are accepted, may be enough to bring the proposal close to funding
possibilities. Also, DHCD is considering awarding a range of points for
health hazards. The Crozet area has been described as a moderately potential
health hazard."
Mr. Tucker said this is presented for the Board's consideration in order that the
staff will have the Board's direction when preparing applications in mid-April.
Mr. Fisher said it is clear that the impact on low and moderate income persons is
important. Consideration is definitely given to those agencies serving these people 100
percent and since AHIP is designed for such service, a lot of points were given to them.
However, if the Board chooses a facilityw~ will serve only a minority of people,
points will be lost. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the
Albemarle County Service Authority, for comments on the Authority's request.
Mr. Brent said everyone present knows the necessity for the Crozet Interceptor and
has known the necessity for many years. When the Crozet Interceptor finally became a
reality and funding was granted, the Service Authority began to get everything in order
to develop plans for the sewer colleotor system within the community of Crozet and to
determine how to fund same. At this time, there does not seem to be any source of outside
funds for the collector system for community development block grant funds. Therefore,
Mr. Brent said the request to the Board is to consider making an application for the
maximum grant since the Service Authority itself cannot make the application. The project
in Crozet itself is estimated to cost five million dollars and at this time there appears
to be no way to fund~ same except by the users of the service authority. Mr. Brent said
that is about 5,000+ customers paying for a five million dollar system. The Service
Authority would appreciate the Board's consideration of this matter since the $700,000
would reduce the burden on the users.
Mr. Fisher said he has asked Mr. Agnor to examine the Service Authority's retained
earnings. The audit report for the Authority last year indicated more than five million
dollars in retained earnings which is more than twice the annual operating budget. Mr.
Fisher asked what the plans are for those funds and if they can be used for this type of
project. Mr. Brent referred to the audit report, in particular page 18, showing the
retained earnings for 1982. However, on the prior page, almost two million of the five
million is restricted for unemployment, revenue bond service, construction and replacement
costs. Therefore, an unrestricted amount is left of $3,243,000. However, that amount is
not in the form of cash in the bank. That is explained in the assets section of the
audit report under contract receivable in the amount of $3,673,000. This is a part of
the Four-Party Agreement in which the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is to buy facilities
from the Service Authority, but not this year. Mr. Agnor, speaking as a member of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, stated that the Agreement requires
that the Rivanna Authority pay for the facilities when the debt service on same had been
paid off and some of that debt goes past the year 2000. There will be a payment in July
for the facilities that are debt free. The Service Authority will not receive the funds
shown in the audit report for app~ximately twenty years. Most of the facilities purchased
by the Rivanna Authority were~tat~¥al~ne~a~.purchased in 1973 so the debt service on
same had thirty and forty year lives. Another point is that the Rivanna Authority pays
that debt during the length of the ~ond indebtedness and when that debt is finished,
Ri~anna will pay for the ~alue of the facilities as appraised in 1973. Mr. Fisher felt
from looking at the revenues and expenses in the audit, that the Service Authority has
the resources and assets for the project.
Mr. Gary Oli~eria, Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present.
He commented on the need for the housing grant and noted the capability that AHIP has to
serve this function. He noved that during a seven month period, February 1982 to August
1982, fourteen major renovavions were completed. These involved installation of bathrooms,
plumbing facilities, etc. This was done with some $70,000 of federal block grant funds.
Mr. 01iveria said without a grant such as the Community Development Block Grant being
discussed today, it is not possible to meet the needs of these families. Mr. Oliveria
noted that families help financially as much as p~ssible but without funds from these
grants, the projects cannot be done. Mr. Fisher asked how many units were proposed for
renovations in the grant application last year. Mr. Oliveria said there were 55 units
and the amount of the request was $500,000 for the local grant and $200,000 for the
regional grant.
February~gj ~gular DHY Me_~. ~ eting)
Mr. Fisher asked if the application is submitted for the Crozet collector system,
how can a benefit be shown for low and moderate income people. He asked if the proposal
is to put the lines into the street and then everyone would have to pay a connection fee
to hook to the sewer line. Mr. Brent said the benefit to low ~and moderate income families
is unknown. Initially, when this request was being prepared, the Service Authority
decided that if any funds were granted they would be lumped into the whole project. If
there is some reasonable and proper means of directing the funds to low and moderate
income families, that would be done. Mr. Fisher asked what the monthly collection fee
will be. Mr. Brent said that will not be known until the engineering work is completed.
Mr. Brent said from all the information he has seen, the project will not be feasible
without a mandatory connection fee.
Miss Nash asked if the request is for two separate applications. Mr. Tucker said
no; 'the request is for one or the other.
Mr. Fisher felt that the County fared so well with the AHIP application last year,
that the Count~ has a good chance of receiving approval this year. The probability for
the application on the sewer system being approved are lower. He felt the one having a
better chance of being approved would be for AHIP. Mr. Tucker said both requests can be
submitted for the regional grant but the limit is $700,000. Miss Nash asked if the
Crozet collector system project would lessen the possibility for approval of the AHIP
project. Mr. Tucker said he was not certain.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has two priorities of almOst equal importance; housing
is a problem and there are health problems necessitating the collector system. However,
he does agree with Mr. Fisher that the application for AHI? will receive a more favorable
consideration. Mr. Henley asked if there is a time limit on spending the funds. Mr.'
Fisher said two years. Mr. Oliveria said there will not be any problem in spending the
funds during that period of time.
Mr. Fisher said another question is whether or not the Board wants to put $200,000
into a regional application or request $700,000 for a local project. Mr. Oliveria said
based on production records and costs involved in major jobs, AHIP feels that $500,000 is
a reasonable maximum figure to utilize in a two-year period.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jim Skove from the. Planning District Commission if there will'
be a regional application in 1983. Mr. Skove did not know. Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal~
Planner, said in discussions with the Director of the Planning District Commission,
indications are that there will be another regional application made in 1983.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to support applications for Community Development
Block Grant funds to be submitted for the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program in the
same manner as in 1982; that being $500,000 for the local application, and $200,000 for
the regional application. Mr.. Butler seconded the motion.
Mr. Tucker asked if the Planning District Commission decided not to submit an applicat
this year, if the Board wanted to pursue the local application. Mr. Fisher said yes.
Miss Nash said the intent is to go forward with the local application as quickly as
possible. ~
Mr. Henley asked when funds are anticipated to be needed for the Crozet collector.
system. Mr. Brent said the engineering work will be completed this year and hopefully,
early in 1984, the project will be ready for advertisement. It is hoped that construction
can begin in 1984 and be completed in the spring of 1985. A brief discussion followed on
applying for grant funds for the collector system in two years. Mr. Keith Mabe did not
feel the County would be able to apply for funds at the end of the project. There may be
some legal problems with that idea. Mr. Brent said he understands that any funds already
expended on a project are not eligible for leveraging.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs.~Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
ANYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Jim Skove - Joint Training Partnership Act.
Mr. James Skove, Senior Planner from the Thomas jefferson Planning District Commission,
present. He noted that the Joint Training Partnership Act replaces the Comprehensive Employm~
Training Act (CETA) on October 1, 1983. This is a new concept in providing jobs and training
for the disadvantaged and unemployed. A significant part of the responsibility for the
program is to be shared by the private sector and the local unit of government through
the creation of private industry councils. One of th~ first Steps in implementing ~this
program is the designation of service delivery areas. The Governor of Virginia has
decided that he does not want anymore than ten or twelve geographic areas to be the
service delivery areas to receive funds. The funds are going to be proportioned on a
formula and a great deal of emphasis will be given to unemployment. Mr. Skove said the
Governor's office originally came up with three different proposals. The proposals were
to use the congressional district, combine planning districts 10 and 6 into a service
delivery area, or to combine planning districts 9, 10 and 16. In the meantime, Planning
Districts 6 and 7 decided to form a service delivery area. Planning District 16 has
decided to join with 17, 18 and 22 on the Eastern Shore. Therefore, the °nly choice left
for this area is to join with Planning District 9 which is Rappahannock-Rapidan Planning
District Commission. Mr ' Skove said there is some debate going on about this choice.
The City of Charlottesville wanted to join with planning districts 6 and 7 because more
funding would be going to those areas. If planning districts 6 and 7 joined with 9 and
10, there would be about two million dollars made available.~?~r planning districts 9 and
10 alone, there would be just over one million dollars. The S~aff of Planning District
10 feels that the problem with combining 6, 7, 9 and 10 is that this would be too large a
number of jurisdictions, twenty-six in total. There would have to be some agreement
worked out to decide how to handle the funding. The staff does not feel that is a workable
February 9, 1983 (Regular ~ay Meeting)
area and it would be difficult to get representatives from twenty-six Jurisdictions
together. Planning District 9 adopted a resolution on January 27, 1983, and forwarded
same with a letter requesting Albemarle County to join with them as a service delivery
area. (Copy of letter and resolution on file in Clerk's Office.) The City adopted a
resolution requesting that planning districts 9 and 10 be combined, but inserted a clause
asking that 6 and 7 be included with 9 and 10, if this proposal does not work.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution on the Joint
Training Partnership Act as presented by the Planning District Commission with the Chairman
authorized to act on behalf of the County. Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Mr. Butler noted that he would like the inclusion of planning districts 6 and 7
considered if the Governor decides that planning districts 9 and 10 are too small a
service area. In other words, he supported the resolution adopted by the City. Mr.
Butler said with the low funding for planning districts 9 and 10 alone there will be
serious problems. He has been involved in the OIC program and feels the combination of
these districts should be considered since 6 and 7 have higher unemployment rates. Mr.
Lindstrom amended his motion to accept the inclusion of planning districts 6 and 7 as a
separate clause in the resolution. Miss Nash seconded the amended motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
WHEREAS, the federal Joint Training Partnership Act of 1983 authorizes
the governor of each state to designate Service Delivery Areas within their
respective states, and
WHEREAS, the Joint Training Partnership Act authorizes the governor
of each state to approve a request from a consortium of local governments
having a total population in excess of 200,000 people to be designated
as a Service Delivery Area, and
WHEREAS, the Counties of Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, Madison, Nelson, Orange and Rappahannock and the City of
Charlottesville, which together comprise all of the jurisdictions in Planning
Districts 9 and 10, and together have a population of over 200,000 people as
reported by the 1980 census, and
WHEREAS, the above jurisdictions are contiguous, share a common
geography, have similar problems in the areas of unemployment and Job
training, and serve a substantial part of the labor market area within their
boundaries,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County agrees to request the Governor to designate a Service Delivery Area
containing the above jurisdictions under the terms of the Joint Training
Partnership Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-300).
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission be designated as the administrative entity authorized to request,
accept and assume responsibility for funds under this act for all
jurisdictions in the consortium until such time as the Private Industry
Council is established under the provisions of the act.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governor consider the creation of
a Service Delivery Area containing the jurisdictions in Planning Districts 6,
7, 9 and 10, as these four planning districts have worked well together in
the past on employment training programs.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
is authorized to enter into a consortium agreement on behalf of Albemarle
County.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Historic Preservation Zoning District.
Mr. Tucker said the Board had recently requested the staff to reexamine the work of
the Historic Preservation Committee in an attempt to explore some less controversial
approaches to a historic zoning district. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff
report:
"Background: During 1978 and 1979 and again in 1981, the Planning Commission
considered several drafts of a Historic Preservation zoning district prepared
by the Board-appointed Historic Preservation Committee. (Mr. Tucker noted the
most recent proposal presented to the Planning Commission on June 2, 1981 had
been sent to the Board. Same is on file in the Clerk's Office.) During work
sessions and public hearings, two major issues arose. One was a desire that
inclusion under the ordinance provisions be voluntary as opposed to mandatory.
The other was the question of whether the ordinance should be applicable to
the historic site itself or should adjoining properties also be designated
as part of the district.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Voluntary v. Mandatory: Section 15.1-503.2 of the COde of Virginia provides
the enabling legislation for historic preservation through local zoning'
measures. As a part of the zoning ordinance, such provisions would be mandatory.
The Code does not provide for zoning on a voluntary basis only. Furthermore,
Mr. St. John expressed his opinion to the Planning Commission in February, 1979
that designation of all sites on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register
is required by the Code for a locality adopting zoning measures under 15.1-503.2.
Shou'ld the Board feel that a voluntary ordinance is preferrable to a mandatory
ordinance, staff offers two strategies:
1) Seek amendment to the Code of Virginia - This amendment would be for
enabling legislation to permit historic preservation through a means separate
from zoning. A problem with this approach would be duplication of
ordinances with similar purposes (i.e.-physical development).
2) Limit application of the ordinance to sites on the ¥irginia Historic
Landmarks Register - Participation in the Virginia Historic Landmarks' Register
is voluntary. If the zoning provisions were applicable only to sites on the
Register, then the individual property owner would decide whether or not to
participate in the Register and become subject to the zoning provisions. This
approach could result ±n fewer applications for the Register and withdrawal
from the Register of some of the current 26 sites. Also, only those sites
qualifying for the Register could be designated under zoning.
Staff offers a closing comment about a voluntary ordinance. During the several
years that a conservation zone was a part of the zoning ordinance, many people
spoke in favor of such zoning, however, only one property owner voluntarily
made application for conservation zoning.
Intent of Historic Preservation Zoning District - Another unresolved issue
was whether the regulations should apply to the historic site only (i.e. -
preserve site) or should adjoining or other properties in the area also be
designated as part of the district (i.e. - protect site) or both (i.e. - preserve
and protect site). If a voluntary approach is pursued, then it is recommended
that only the site be designated. That is to say, if the County does not
exercise its full zoning powers and permits the ordinance to be voluntary,
then subjecting other properties in the area to the regulations would not
seem appropriate.
Summar~y - With certain language changes, the Historic Preservation Committee's
proposal could result in substantially different products:
- A mandatory ordinance applicable to Virginia Historic Landmarks
and any other sites deemed to be of significance which would
preserve and protect such sites through developmental and other
controls imposed on the sites and any other properties in the
area deemed necessary to ensure such preservation and protection.
- An ordinance applicable only to sites on the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Register which would preserve such site so long as
the owner chose to participate in the Register and would not
be applicable to other properties in the area.
Regardless of the approach taken, if the County adopts an ordinance under
Section 15.1-503.2 of the Code of Virginia, then, at a minimum, designation of
the 26 Virginia Historic Landmarks on the zoning map simultaneously with
adoption of the text would be appropriate. Recent amendments to
Section 15.1-431 require that written notification be sent to these owners.
Miss Nash asked the definition of the word "site". Mr. Tucker said that has yet to
be defined and probably would be whatever the Landmarks Commission chooses. It might be
just the house, or the house and surrounding area having a historic value. Miss Nash
asked if this zoning has been imposed anywhere else in the state. Mr. Tucker said Williamsbu~
and James City County have this type of district but there are not many in the state.
Miss Nash suggested requesting comments from the Virginia Historic Landmarks staff.
Mr. St. John said when the new Zoning Ordinance was being discussed during work sessions,
it was concluded that the new RA district would probably take care of some concerns from
people in the areas surrounding these historic places and that a separate ordinance was
not necessary.
Mr. Fisher supported the suggestion of Miss Nash to communicate with the Director of
the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission about the Commission's experience With other
counties concerning historic preservation zoning. Also, he suggested compiling a list of
other counties have ordinances in regards to this designation. The Board members agreed.
At 12:21 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch.
At 1:34 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order.
Agenda Item No. 13. Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Fisher presented a Certificate
of Appreciation to Mr. James Garrett White, upon his retirement from the Albemarle County
Sheriff's Department. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. White served in the Sheriff's Department
for twenty years and officially retired on October 29, 1982. Mr. Fisher noted that due to
illness, Mr. White could not be present to accept this certificate, but that he would
personally deliver the certificate to Mr. White at his home.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Sheriff George Bailey was present and stated he has had another employee retire, that
being Mr. E. B. McCormick, who was a part-time deputy. (NOTE: Although Mr. McCormick
retired as a deputy, he transferred as a full-time employee to the School system, so a
certificate was not presented at this time.) Sherigf Bailey said in reviewing the current
budget and Mr. McCormick's salary, it is felt that there is sufficient money in the budget
to hire a full-time deputy to assume Mr. McCormick's position. Sheriff Bailey requested
authorization to employ a full-time deputy in that capacity. Sheriff Bailey added that
the half-time position was and would continue to be funded by the State Compensation
Board. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend this position be authorized as a full-time
position, with Albemarle County funding one-half of the costs.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the recom-
mendation of the County Executive to change the part-time position vacated by E.B. McCormick
to a full-time deputy with same being funded partially by the State Compensation Board and
the remainder by the County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Sheriff Bailey then requested a moment to discuss the Consultant's study of merging
the Sheriff's Department and the Charlottesville City Police Department into a single
police department. Sheriff Bailey said he felt the report was prejudiced toward a joint
police department, and was based on information obtained during only two brief interviews
with himself. Sheriff Bailey said he has always provided the most police protection for
the funds budgeted, and presented crime statistics for the City and the County indicating
a lower level of crime in Albemarle County compared to Charlottesville. Sheriff Bailey
requested future time before the Board to discuss in depth possible solutions to some of
the problems which exist in the Sheriff's department. Mr. Fisher said he did feel there
were areas which needed improvement and he was willing to discuss those problems with the
Sheriff at some future meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Quarterly Ra~..m~t'~. AHIP
Director Gary 01iveria was present and presented statistics and slides of major rehabil-
itation jobs completed during the second quarter of fiscal year 1982-83. Mr. Oliveria
said the total number of families served during this quarter was eleven, at a cost of
$2,973.14 in grants to families.
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion, Polling Place at Scottsville. Mr. John W. Burns of
the Albemarle County Electoral Board was present. Mr. Burns said the current polling
location for the Scottsville Precinct is in the Scottsville Town Hall (and firehouse).
The fac.ility has been unsuitable for many years. Mr. Burns stated that the Town of
Scottsville has eighty registered voters, whereas the Scottsvitle Precinct as a whole, has
a total of six hundred and ninety-nine voters. Mr. Burns said the proposed new location
is the new Scottsvil!e Elementary School on Route 20. Lastly, Mr. Burns said this pro-
posed location is just over the boundary of the Scottsville Precinct being located in the
Porters Precinct. Mr. Burns said this is allowed by State Law because the structure is
within the three hundred foot limit as stated in Code of Virginia Section 24.1-37.
Mr. Fisher asked if local town elections would be affected by this proposed relocation.
Mr. Burns stated that the town elections are held in May and would nov be affected by this
move; same could still be held in the Town Hall.
Mr. Caldwell, an election official for the Scottsville Precinct was present and said
he had no complaint with the Town Hall location and felt it was extremely convenient for
many Scottsville residents, but he would not object if the polling location were changed.
Mrs. Elizabeth Haugh of the Electoral Board said that in the last general election
only forty. Scottsville residents voted. Miss Nash added that she felt the new Scottsville
Elementary School is a more central location if the entire precinct area is considered.
Mr. Fisher said the action required to make a precinct change is to adopt a resolution
and send same for approval to the United States Department of Justice. Miss Nash offered
motion to approve the proposed move as reconnr, ended by the Electoral Board and that the
necessary steps be taken to obtain approval from the Justice Department. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Miss Nash then asked if she could amend her motion to include
that a public hearing be held on this question and that said public hearing be advertised.
Mr. Fisher suggested the night of March 16, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom said he would accept the
amendment to the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appeal; Cason Final Plats. (Plat showing redivision of Lot 34,
Franklin and parcel 28D, Tax Map 62, Rivanna District, dated March 16, 1979, Plat showing
a redivision of Lots 37, and 38, Franklin, Rivanna District, dated March 16, 1979.) Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Directo~ of Planning, was present and read the Planning Staff report and
the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows:
LOCATION: Parcels 125, 128, 129 and 28D on tax map 62; Rivanna District;
located off the south side of Franklin Drive, east of Route 20 North.
History and Proposal.: The subdivision plat, noting the redivision of four
tax map parcels into eight lots, was approved by the Commission on
April 24, 1979, subject to conditions.
l?
February~9~ular Day_ Meetin~g~)
One of the Commission's conditions was for written Health Department
approval. A soil scientist's report was prepared in May, 1981, and
the Health Department approved it subject to the following: "Proper
legal easements must be obtained and recorded for those lots which
will require needed easement areas".
A septic easement is shown on lot 38A to serve as a primary and/or
secondary site for lot 37A. Easements are also shown on lots 34A and
34B to serve lot 34, which has no location for either a primary or
secondary drainfield.
This matter is brought to the Commission because it has never been the
staff's policy or procedure to approve septic easements; plats being
taken back to the Commission for reconsideration when septic easements
were an issue.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 18, 1983, voted
to reconsider the Cason Final plat in regard to the placement of septic easements. In
addition, the Commission took action to add the following condition to those already
imposed on the plat on April 24, 1979:
That lots 37A and 38A be approved with drainfield easements provided that
a primary drainfield site be located on lot 37A and that the septic easement
be used only for a secondary drainfield site, and provided further
that lots 34 and 34A be joined together.
Mr. Tucker said that after the Planning Commission action, the following appeal was
filed:
"January 27, 1983
Robert Tucker, Director of Planning
Mason Caperton, Senior Planner
County Office Building
Re: Dr. Johnson and Hilda Cason, Notice to Agent
Dear Mr. Tucker and Ms. Caperton:
For presentation of appeal rights only, this letter is to serve notice that
Dr. James A. Johnson and Mrs. Hilda Cason wish to note an appeal to the
Board of Supervisors being aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission
of January 18, 1983, that compels certain changes in the previously appro-
ved subdivision as such relates to septic easements on the plat approved by
the State Health Department.
I am discussing this matter with Dr. Johnson and Hilda Cason. They may
agree to do what is requested and yet they have not so decided. They do
object to the imposed requirements. I shall promptly advise you of their
decision.
Respectfully,
(signed) J. Benjamin Dick, Counsel"
Mr. Fisher asked what the normal procedure is when there is a situation requiring
drainage easements. Mr. Tucker said normally the easement is approved, but the lots using
that easement are combined.
Miss Nash felt if the entire septic system serving the lot with no drainfield located
on it should fail, there might be some difficulty in developing a new septic site within
the easement since it appears to be on someone elses lot. Mr. Butler agreed that it would
cause problems in the future for all the property owners involved. Mr. Butler said he
would be in favor of eliminating all the proposed drainage easements.
Mr. Ben Dick, representing Dr. Johnson and Ms. Cason, was present and said that in
accordance with the conditions set by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1979, a soil
scientist has studied the property and the Health Department has approved the plan as
required. Mr. Dick said his client has met the conditions of the Planning Commission
(except road bond requirements which are still being worked out with the County Engineer
and County Attorney) and he did not feel the Planning Commission could impose additional
conditions on this plat. Mr. Dick said he felt the Planning Commission was obliged to
sign the plat as originally approved.
Mr. TuCker stated that he, as Director of Planning, does not have the authority to
sign a plat which differs in any way from the plat approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tucker said he felt the additional easements required by the Health Department made
the plat different and necessarily required reapproval of the plat by the Planning Com~
mission. Mr. Tucker noted that in the past the Planning Commission could approve a plat
prior to soil tests being completed, but now that is not the case; all soil tests must be
completed before plat approval. Mr. Dick said he felt Dr. Johnson should not be penalized
because of a change in requirements since 1979. .Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John for his
opinion as to whether or not the additional review by the Planning Commission was in
order. Mr. St. John said he felt the placement of drainage easements in the subdivision
was a substantial change on the original plat; those drainage easements would have a
bearing on the plat and future property owners and therefore was properly put before the
Planning Commission.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting~
There being no one else present wishing to speak either for or against this appeal,
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with
the whole idea of easements, and felt same are inconsistent with County policies. Mr.
Lindstrom said he felt a subdivision lot should not be allowed if the septic drainfield
serving that lot is on adjoining property. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with Mr. Butler's
earlier comment that all the drainage easements on this proposed plat should be removed.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that this plat be approved with two additional con-
ditions (#1 and #2 which follow) and all of the original conditions of approval (#3 and
sub-parts which follow):
1)
Lots 37 and 37A will be combined, thus eliminating the easement on
lot 38A.
Lots 34 and 34A be combined and the easement on lots 34A and 34B be
eliminated.
3)
The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a) Compliance with the private road ordinance, including:
1)
County Engineer approval of road plans;
Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney;
b) Written Health Department approval;
c)
Compliance with technical requirements of the Land Subdivision
and Development ~Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance on pipestem lot 34A serving three lots;
e) Joint entrance for lots 37 and 38, 37A and 38A.
Mr. Butler seconded the motion adding that the elimination of easements would avoid
possible future confusion to the property owners.
Mr. Dick asked if he must bring newly drawn plat back before the. Board of Supervisors
for approval. Mr. St. John stated that a plat showing the combined lots with drainage
easements removed could be approved administratively, but if the applicant wished to
submit a new plat with a different lot design, such plat would have to be reapproved
through the normal planning process.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session. At 3:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of
discussing personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
At 4:13 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting back into open session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to appoint Reverend Rebecca Jordan of Esmont, Virginia, as the at-large repre-
sentative on the Advisory Council on Aging. Reverend Jordon's term would be scheduled to
expire on February 28, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to appoint Messrs. Joseph H.
Jones and Corwith Davis, Jr., to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee,
as farmer representatives, as required by Virginia State Code Section 15.1-1510. It was
noted by Mr. Fisher, that Mr. E. N. Garnett had declined to serve on this committee (NOTE:
Mr. Garnett was appointed on January 12, 1983.) Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. BUtler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mrs. Treva
Cromwell as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mrs. Cromwell's term would
be scheduled to expire on May 1, 1984. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February
1, 1983, from Mayor Francis L. Buck, noting that City Council endorses Mrs. Cromwell's
reappointment to this post. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
February 9, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke noted that she had received a letter of resignation from Dr. James Walker
resigning as a member of the Albemarle County School Board, to become effective as soon as
a replacement is found. Mrs. Cooke said she wished tO appoint Mr. Charles S. Armstrong as
the Charlottesville District representative to the School Board, to replace Dr. Walker,
effective immediately. Mr. Armstrong's appointment term would expire on December 31,
1985. Mrs. Cooke's motion to accept Dr. Walker's resignation'and appoint Mr. Armstrong
was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom noted with
reference to agenda item 4c regarding the resolution for a Western By-Pass Alternative, he
suggested that copies of the. resolution be given to Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash to present to
the Metropolitan Planning Organization for action. (Mrs. Cooke and Miss Nash represent
Albemarle County on this committee.
Mr. Michael Trudgeon requested the Board of Supervisors to consider setting a public
hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow special events in the Rural Areas district.
Mr. Trudgeon stated that in 1979 he was informed by members of the County staff that when
the revised Zoning Ordinance was adopted, special events would be allowed in the Light
Industrial and Rural Areas districts. Mr. Trudgeon said when the Zoning Ordinance was
adopted, such events were only allowed in the Light Industrial district. Mr. Trudgeon
said he has already spoken to Messrs. Fisher, Tucker and Vaughn regarding this matter, and
hoped the Board of Supervisors would favorably consider his request for a hearing.
Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors could not deal with this on a verbal request.
Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Trudgeon that he must make a request for a zoning text amendment
through the proper channels which would require submitting an application and then hearings
by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. At 4:40 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke,
seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn this meeting to February 16, 1983, at 4:00 P.M., in
Meeting Room #11 of the Albemarle County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Chairman
February 16, 1983 (Adjourned Meeting from February 9, 1983)
An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was scheduled for
February 16, 1983, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room #11 of the Albemarle County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from February 9, 1983.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:12
P.M.), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 4:10 P.M.), C. Timothy
Lindstrom (arrived at 4:10 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICER PRESENT: Mr. Guy B; Agnor, Jr., County Executive.
Agenda item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Gerald Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 4:11 P.M. by
Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session. At 4:12 P.M., motion was offered by Miss
Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing
personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn.
session and immediately adjourned.
At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open