1983-07-13280
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day MeetinM)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on July 13, 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. Fish-er,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:20 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney, George
The meeting was called to order at 9:05-A.M. bY the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by
Miss Nash, to accept and approve the consent agenda as presented. 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.
Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month
of June, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional
Jail were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Change Order #6 dated June 14, 1983 in the amount of $5,476.00 for
Phase II of the County Office Building, was received.
Item No. 2.3. Notice of State Aid Funds in the amount of $358,925 for the Jefferson-
MadisOn Regional Library for 1983-84 was received from the Virginia State Library and
the County Executive was authorized to'execute an authorization form for the expenditure
of said funds.
Item No. 2.4. A request dated November 29, 1982, was received from Mr. Kenneth Mt
Holet, for a street sign to identify Spring Lake Drive in Windrift Subdivision, Section
1. Mr. Holet has already purchased the sign. The following resolution was approved for
same:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Spring Lake Drive (State Route 1543) at the southwest corner
of its intersection with State Route 664; and
WHEREAS, a citizen, has agreed to purchase this sign through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State
Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
Item No. 2.5. Take Road into State Secondary System--Candlewyck Drive. Mr. Frank
A. Kessler, by letter dated January 28, 1982, requests that Candlewyck Drive in Candlewyck
Subdivision, be taken into the State Secondary System. All the necessary requirements
are in order and 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 Seconday System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following road in Candlewyck Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+08 on Candlewyck Drive, a point
common with the edge of pavement of State Route 677 and
the centerline of Candlewyck Drive; thence with Candlewyck
Drive in a southwesterly direction 1,329.82 feet to station
23+37.82, a cul-de-sac and the end of Candlewyck Drive.
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 plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 696, page lB1.
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
28!
Item No. 2.6. Readopt Resolution to take Court Place, Georgetown Court Subdivision,
into State Secondary System. The original resolution was adopted on January 12, 1983 and
was incorrect as to the length of the road. The following resolution to correct this
error 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 Georgetown Court Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 of Court Place, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Court Place and the edge
of pavement of Georgetown Road; thence with Court Place in a
southeasterly direction 628.02 feet to station 6+28, the end
of the cul-de-sac of Court Place in Georgetown Court
Subdivision. ~
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 42 foot unobstructed right-of-
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court o£ Albemarle County in
Deed Book 699, page 118.
Item No. 2.7. Report of the Department of Social Services for the months of May and
June, 1983, were presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63~1-52.
Item No. 2.8. Report dated June 1983 from the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distr~ct
Commission regarding the progress of the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 was received.
Item No. 2.9.a. Letter dated June 15, 1983, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was received:
"As requested in your resolution dated March 16, 1983, the following abandonment
from the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
June 15, 1983.
ABANDONMENT
LENGTH
TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE
Route T-i306 from its intersection with Route T-1304
to its intersection with Route T-1307.
0.09 Mi."
Item No. 2.9.b. Letter dated June 20, 1983, from Mr. John M. Wray, Jr., Chief
Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was received:
"Changes in the primary system made necessary by relocation and construction
on Route 22 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Highway and Transportation
Commission on June 16, 1983, as shown on the. attached sketch, described as follows:
SECTION ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950 CODE OF
VIRGINIA:
Section i - Old location of Route 22, south of the new location,
from the new location at Station 660+20 westerly 0.31 mile,
being within the property purchased by Richard D. Sullivan."
Item No. 2.10. Letters re: State Corporation Commission hearings.
a) Notice dated July 5, 1983, from VEPCO regarding a public hearing to be held on
December 6, 1983 to increase annual revenues was received as information.
b) Notice dated July 6, 1983, from Commonwealth Gas Services regarding a proposed
increase in rates approved by the State Corporation Commission until such time as a
hearing can be held was received as information.
c) Notice dated June 8, 1983, was received from Centel regarding an investigation
involving intrastate toll service as ordered by the State Corporation Commission.
d) Notice dated June 15, 1983 was received from Appalachian Power Company regarding
a public hearing to be held on October 4, 1983 to increase rateS.
e) Notice dated June 10, 1983, was received from Columbia Gas regarding proposed
amended tariffs applied to service rendered on and after July 10, 1983 and that such
tariffs remain in effect until such time as a hearing can be held by the State Corporation
Commission.
Item No. 2.11. Audit for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for the
year ending June 30, 1983, was received as information.
Item No. 2.12. Audit for the General District Court for the years ending June 30,
1981, and June 30, 1982, was received as information.
282
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3.
Approval of Minutes:
May 4, May 11, May 18, June 1 (Night),
Miss Nash had read the minutes of May 11, 1983, and noted the following correction
on page 159, agenda item #20, fourth paragraph, fourth line, change the word "Committee"
to "Board".
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of May 18, 1983, and noted one typographical error.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes of June l, (Night) 1983 and noted no corrections
were necessary.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to approve the minutes
of May ll, May 18 and June l, (Night) 1983, with the above noted corrections. Roll was
c~lled 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. 4. Highway Matters.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and announced that Mr.
Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, who has been with the Charlottesville
office for seven years, has been promoted to Resident Engineer in Saluda, Virginia. The
promotion is effective July 18, 1983.
Mr. Coburn was present and extended appreciation to the Board and its staff for all
the cooperation he has received during his employment with the Highway Department. He
noted in particular, the staffs of the planning and engineering departments have made his
Job a lot easier.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Coburn will be missed and he wished him well in his new assignment.
Mr. Roosevelt announced that the new Park Street Bridge (Route 631) will be opened
on July 18, 1983. He also noted that once the bridge opens, trucks which have been
prohibited from using this route during construction will start using the area again.
Miss Nash said she understands that the Rural Addition funds for the improvements on
East Market Street and in the Lakeside Subdivision have not been used at this time because
the property owners have not contributed their share of the matching funds. Mr. Roosevelt
said that is part of the problem and the question of right-of-way has not yet been resolved.
Miss Nash asked what will happen if these monies are not spent this year. Mr. Roosevelt
said the State law allows the Board to carry the Rural Addition funds forward for three
years or the funds can be reverted to secondary improvements in next year's budget. Mr.
Roosevelt noted that when the Board approved the Rural Addition Funds for Lakeside Subdivision
it was stipulated that the property owners had until December 30, 1983, to meet stipulations.
This was done because there were not sufficient Rural Addition funds in just one year's
budget to accomplish the improvements. Therefore, the Board will have to make a new
decision on that date if the property owners have not contributed the funds by that date.
Mr. Fisher said many people swim in the Hardware River and park their vehicles at
the intersection of Routes 631 and 712. He has received numerous complaints about the~
parking along Route 631 and asked if "No Parking" signs could be erected in that area.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would report the concern to the proper division and did not feel
there would be any problem with getting signs erected.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Soil Erosion Ordinance--Wendell Wood.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present. He said Mr. Wendell Wood, developer
of the River Heights Hotel on Route 29 North has by letter dated July 5, 1983, requested
the Board to hear his appeal regarding the issuance of a soil erosion permit for the
hotel project (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). (Mr. Lindstrom
arrived at 9:20 A.M.) Mr. Elrod then summarized the following memorandum from the
Engineering Staff dated July 8, 1983:
"Mr. Wendell Wood requested our approval to extend the limits of his grading
permit into property which he owns adjacent to River (Hilton) Heights Road. The
property is zOned R-15 Residential and there is no approved subdivision
plan for that land. We, therefore, nOtified him under Section 7-5(c) of the
Erosion Control Ordinance that we cannot issue him approval to clear or grade
without an approved subdivision plat or site plan.
Mr. Wood has requested a hearing before the Board to clear and grade the
area shown on the attached sketch shaded in yellow to obtain fill for his
Hotel project which is now under construction [Copy of sketch is on file
in the Clerk's Office). The Engineering Department agrees that from a
construction standpoint this is the logical place to obtain the needed fill.
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
283
This land is now heavily wooded and is approximately 25 feet higher in
elevation than Route 29 and the adjacent commercially zoned area. This
proposed excavation will lower the property to the level of the commercial
land and Route 29. After this grading, the propertY will probably
be more satisfaCtory for commercial use than for the R-15 that it is
currently zoned."
Mr. Elrod said grading has occurred on the hotel site over the past couple of years
and some grading has been done to the west of the hotel site on the land zoned R-15; that
grading was done under an approved erosion control plan. Additional fill dirt is now
necessary for the hotel site to bring the site up to final grade and the R-15 property is
the closest site for obtaining this fill material. Mr. Elrod noted that Mr. Wood has
indicated that he does not feel the R-15 property is usable for residential purposes.
Mr. Elrod said he therefore assumes that Mr. Wood is going to request a rezoning on the
property to a commercial designation. Mr. Elrod concluded by stating that he did not
feel allowing Mr. Wood to use the fill dirt on the R-15 property creates any problem.
However, a grading permit cannot be issued without an approved site plan or subdivision
plat.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for his comments on the procedure involved in this
request. Mr. St. John said Section 7-7 of the County Code contains the procedure by
which the ruling of the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the Board. He then
referred to a recent request similiar to this (Pepsi Cola Site Plan). Mr. Fisher said in
that situation there could not be a subdivision plat or a site plan developed because
nothing was proposed for the site. Mr. St. John said in that case it was felt that the
grading being done on the one parcel was being done legitimately in conjunction with a
site plan on another parcel of land which was actually located in the City. As fOr the
request today, Mr. St. John felt the procedure was proper, and the grading could be done
in conjunction with the site plan for the entire hotel complex project.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod the meaning of the statement made about the R-15 property
being more suitable for commercial use after the grading was completed. Mr. Elrod then
pointed out the contours on the R-15 property and noted that the land will be level with
Route 29. 'Basically, the land which is zoned commercial and is being levelled will be
extended into the R-15 property. Mr. Wood feels theR$15 property Will not be suitable
for residential use because there will be no buffer between this property and the hotel
complex. Mr. Fisher said granting the request today does not mean the Board is committing
itself to approving any rezoning of the R-15 property. Mr. Elrod said he was only alerting
the Board to the fact that grading of the property will lower the level of the property
twenty-five feet and make it the same level as the property already zoned commercial.
Mr. St. John said rezoning the R-15 property is not before the Board at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said in looking at the site plan before the Board today it appears
that some grading has already been done on the R-15 property. He asked if the grading
took place before a site plan was required and prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Mr. Elrod said the grading~was done after the Soil Erosion Ordinance was amended in 1981
to require an approved site plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a site plan had been presented.
Mr. Elrod said he was not employed by the County at that time and could not answer that
question. Mr. Agnor said the absence of a site plan was overlooked during the review for
the grading permit. Mr. Lindstrom felt this is further exasperating a problem created by
failing to originally comply with the ordinance. If the ordinance had been complied
with initially, the R-15 property would have been left in a state that would have created
some distinction between that property and the commercial property. Personally, he
agrees with Mr. Elrod that if the grading on the R-15 property is permitted, then the
property will be better suited to commercial zoning.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any development on the R-15 property at this time. Mr.
Elrod said no; he pointed out that the R-15 property extends over to the SPCA road and
most of the development alOng that road is single-family.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Elrod agrees that fill is needed on the complex site.
Mr. Elrod said some fill is needed in order to meet the requirements of the site plan.
He pointed out Parcel A of the complex site which has been preserved with large trees.
He understands that this area is for the future hotel office building. Also, Mr. Wood
desires to preserve as many trees as possible on the commercial property. Therefore,
much of the excavation cannot occur on the hotel complex site.
Mr. Wendell Wood was present. He said at this time eight to ten feet of fill is
needed on the hotel site. The most economical place to obtain the fill is from the R-15
property. He noted that there are no plans at this time to request any rezoning of the
R~15 property. Mr. Wood did nOt feel there had been any violation of ordinance provisions
because the grading permit was obtained two and one-half years ago, and no site plan was
required at that time. The only grading done has been within the boundaries of the site
plan. If fill dirt had to be obtained elsewhere, he would have to file a site plan on
another parcel of land and that would take time, which he does not have. In conclusion,
Mr. Wood said the logical place to obtain the necessary fill dirt is from the R-15
property. He is aware that approval of this request would have no ramifications on the
R-15 property. He also noted that the R-15 property is not desirable for commercial
usage because there is no way to get t~o the property off of Route 29 North nor off of the
River Heights Road since the only entrance would be off of a bank.
Mr. Fisher said the Board adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance last week
regarding borrow areas. He asked if that ordinance applies in this situation. Mr. Elrod
said that ordinance provision applies only to rural lands; those zoned RA. Mr. Fisher
asked the status of the R-15 property if this appeal is approved. Mr. Elrod said the
land slopes gently in each direction and there is a twenty-five foot embankment at the
rear of the property. Mr. Fisher said he is particularly interested in whether the area
will have a bank left at the rear. Mr. Wood said the embankment would be lower than that
currently in existence. Mr. Elrod said the slope will be planted, seeded and stabilized
with berm ditches at the top to direct the runoff.
£84
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked what action is necessary by the Board. Mr. St. John said a
grading permit has to be approved. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the grading on the R-15
property will make anything worse and the question of how the R-15 property should be
zoned is not before the Board at this time. He said he does not assume that there had
been an ordinance violation since the initial grading occured before a site plan was
approved. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he does not have any problem with approving the
request.
Mrs. Cooke agreed and said she sees this as an expansion of existing development.
She then offered motion to approve the request to extend the limits of Mr. Wood's grading
permit for the River Heights property into property owned by him adjacent to Hilton
Heights Road. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. Cooke would be willing to add language to the
motion that this approval does not have any bearing on any future rezoning requests.
Mrs. Cooke accepted that amendment to her motion. Mr. Butler 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. Fisher asked the target date for opening of the hotel.
20, 1984, and everything is currently on schedule.
Mr. Wood said it is May
Agenda Item No. 6. VaCation:
Ashmere Subdivision (Deferred from June 8, 1983).
The public hearing on an ordinance to vacate a portion of a fifty foot easement on
Ashmere Drive and to vacate that portion of the subdivision shown as lots 9,~10, ll, 12
and 13 was held on March 9, 1983. The public hearing was deferred from that date to June
8, 1983, at the request of Mr. Frederick Payne, DepUty County Attorney, for reasons as
stated at the March, 1983 meeting. The basic reason for deferral was due to negotiations
between the bankrupt developer and a property owner resulting in the sale of one lot;
said proceeds of the sale to be used for completion of Ashmere Drive to the cul-de-sac;
Mr. Payne stated at the March public hearing that if the road construction occurred as
planned, vacation of a portion of the subdivision would not be necessary. Therefore, the
ordinance was deferred to June 8, 1983, and on that date, Mr. George St. John, County
Attorney, had requested deferral to this date since negotiations were not completed.
Mr. Fisher asked the status of this request. Mr. St. John requested deferral of
this ordinance to the September 14, 1983, meeting since the developer is still in bankruptcy
proceedings. He noted that the County has used some of the proceeds (see Order of Bankruptcy
Court dated March 7, 1983) to finish one part of Ashmere Drive, but the part of Ashmere
Drive advertised for vacation has not been completed. Mr. St. John then noted that funds
for this purpose have been taken out of the bankruptcy estate and placed into escrow.
The escrow arrangement is just as good as a bond, and Mr. St. John felt it would be a
mistake to vacate any portion of the subdiVision now that the funds are'in escrow.
Miss Nash then offered motion to further defer action on the advertised ordinance to
September 14, 1983, as requested by Mr. St. John. Mr. Butler 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.
Agenda Item No. 7. Street Lighting Policy, Revision Requested.
Mr. Agnor said when the 1983-84 budget for Street Lights was being reviewed, he had
indicated to the Board that the limitation set on revenue to be used for payment of
street light costs was beginning to cause problems since an insufficient amount of funds
is being set aside for this purpose. Therefore, the staff was to review this policy and
make a report back to the Board. Mr. Agnor said the review has been completed and the
following memorandum from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, dated June 20, 1983, is
being presented for the Board's consideration:
"Attached are two applications for street lights that have been processed by
VEPCO, the Highway Department and the County. Normally we would be recommending
them for approval by the Board of Supervisors, but cannot do so until the 1983-84
budget is increased and the Board's Roadway Lighting Policy is changed.
The 1983-84 budget increase is necessary because our budget request was reduced
to cover only the cost of electric power for the existing lights. Therefore, if
we add new lights we would probably exceed our budget. We feel that the budget
should be increased to allow for at least twenty new lights which would add
$2,500 for electrical service.
Existing 1983-84 budget
Allowance for twenty new lights
Revised 1983-84 Budget request
$39,500
2~500
$42,000
This change in policy is necessary because the present policy limits the amount
that can be spent on electric power to 2.5 percent of the previous year's utility tax
collections. The maximum amount that can be spent in 1983-84 is therefore:
$1,461,507 (the 1981-82 utility tax) x 0.025 = $36,537
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
285
which is less than we need to pay for the existing lights next year.
are two reasons for this situation.
There
1)
2)
Power costs increased 10 percent in 1982-83 and will increase
6 percent in 1983-84.
The amount of utility tax collected dropped in 1981-82 and is
expected to drop again in 1982-83.
We recommend that the percent allowed for power costs be increased to 3 percent.
This amount will cover our expenses for 1983-84 and probably for 1984-85.
$1,461,507 x 0.03 : $43,845 which exceeds our budget request for this year
by $1,845 but will probably be enough for 1984-85 depending upon how many
new lights are installed.
The above requests do not allow for any installation costs because so far
the County has not paid for any. One of the two attached applications
however, the one in Hessian Hills, does have a charge which the homeowner
requests that we pay. If the Board approves the above budget request we
will pay 1/2 of this charge ($223 x 0.5 = $111.50) out of the budget. The
policy requires Board action for us to pay the entire amount.
There are several requests now being processed. One request involves the
entire Northfields Subdivision. At this point, we do not know if there will
be any installation charges for these projects and therefore suggest that we
bring them back to the Board as they occur rather than trying to budget for them."
Mr. Agnor said based on the above information from Mr. Elrod, it is evident that the
existing policy does not set aside sufficient funds for the 198~,84 budget and for the
above reasons, he recommends the street light policy be amended as requested.
Mr. Fisher said as the County becomes more and more urbanized, he can see that more
and more lights will be requested. When the original percentage rates were established,
it was assumed that the utility tax would increase as growth occurred and there would be
sufficient funds to take care of this expense. Mr. Fisher said he does not understand
why the gross amount of the utility tax has decreased with the amount of new construction
occurring. Mr. Agnor said there have been cutbacks in the commercial area and that is
where the major portion of the dollars are collected.
Mr. Agnor then noted that the two applications received today were not placed on
this agenda for action, but will be presented for Board action at a later date.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following
Roadwa~ Lighting Policy to amend paragraph (3) by increasing the amount budgeted for
electrical lighting charges from two and one-half percent of utility tax collections to
three percent of said collections. Mr. Henley said he thought the Board had decided that
the County would pay for the electricity and the residents would pay for the equipment.
Mr. Agnor said that was the initial policy which required a fifty-fifty match. Mr.
Henley felt the Board may desire to remove the fifty-fifty match and let the installation
be paid for by the person or persons making the request. He felt doing that would eliminate
so many requests. Mr. Agnor then commented that the County has never had to pay any
installation costs to date.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(Note: The policy, as adopted, is set out below.)
ROADWAY LIGHTING POLICY
FOR THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
The County of Albemarle will engage in a roadway lighting program as
defined and limited by the following conditions:
1. Existing roadway lights shall remain in use and the cost of
their lighting paid for by the County until such times that, in the
opinion of the Board changes in circumstances may make their removal
and/or relocation desirable.
2. New lighting shall be considered upon the request of an
individual or group or on the action of the Board-itself. Any such
group or individual must be directly affected by the lighting requested.
The requested lighting must be clearly a public necessity rather than a
private or individual benefit in order to be considered by the Board, and
there must be no objection to the lighting on the part of anyone who is
directly affected by it. Areas within the County for which this policy
may be applicable include: community buildings, growth areas as designated
in the Comprehensive Plan, and nondesignated growth areas where existing
residential density exceeds one dwelling unit per acre (1 du/ac).
286
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Me~ting)
3. The County's financial effort toward the roadway lighting program
shall be limited to a certain percentage of the utility tax collected
for the use of electrical current, the amount budgeted for any succeeding
year being computed on the last year preceding for which a total may be
ascertained; the percentages as shown below:
For the installation and/or relocation of lights: 0.50%
For electrical current used in lighting: 3%
The County shall continue to pay the cost of electrical current used
in lighting the street lights which have been accepted by the County previous
to the adoption of this Roadway Lighting Policy and will also pay the cost
of electrical current used in lighting such additional lights as the County
may from time to time accept into the system.
In such cases where there is a charge for installing a street light
sub-system, the County will participate in such installation in an amount
not to exceed fifty percent of the cost, provided, however, that the
applicant will match this amount. The Board may waive this limitation
where the Board finds that such would impose such an unusual hardship on
the applicant and the sub-system lighting in the opinion of the Board is
of such value as to warrant the cost to the County.
4. Lighting systems shall be designed and installed in accordance
with the policy of the Department of Highways and Transportation, as set
forth in the Department's memorandum entitled Guide Policy for Roadway
Lighting Facilities and Security Lighting Facilities, dated July 26, 1973,
as amended.
5. The CoUnty Engineer shall review all applications for roadway
lighting and recommend action to the Board of County Supervisors. The
County Engineer may set rules for procedure for the processing of
applications.
6. Except in such cases where the County itself instigates the
installation of a roadway lighting system, the'County of Albemarle shall
have no part in securing or purchasing any easements which may be necessary
for the installation of a roadway lighting sYstem. Acquisition of such
easements shall be responsibility of the applicant and/or the power
company which will serve the system.
7. In such cases where the County itself instigates the
installation of roadway lighting and there are costs incurred for such,
the County of Albemarle may defray costs to the full extent of the funds
provided under Item 3 of this policy.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Amend and Reenact Police Force Ordinance to
Change Effective Date of Hiring Personnel (Enacted as an emergency measure on June l, 1983)~
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28 and July 5, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher said the ordinance being presented today was adopted by the Board at its
meeting on June l, 1983, as an emergency measure. The amendment regards the appointment
of the personnel for the police force which change basically deleted the date of "June l,
1983" and inserted the words "on or after June l, 1983, but not later than June 30, 1983".
The purpose of this advertisement is to hold a public hearing before adopting the ordinance~
on a permanent basis with the above change.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the
amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley (preferenced his vote by stating he did not realize he would be able to
vote against the establishment of the police force so many times).
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE FORCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
A police force as defined in Virginia Code Section 14.1-84.2(L) is hereby
established which shall be responsible on and after June l, 1983, for the
prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard
of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and
local laws, regulations and ordinances.
This police force shall be and hereby is designated the Albemarle County
Police Force and shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police
officers.
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
287
The chief of police and all other personnel of the Albemarle County Police
Force shall be appointed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-598 and shall
constitute a division of the County's Department of Law Enforcement under
Virginia Code Section 15.1-608. All initial appointments to the positions
established hereby shall take effect on or after June 1, 1983, but not later
than June 30, 1983. The salary scale for members of the Albemarle County
Police Force shall be prescribed from time to time by the County Board of
Supervisors within the regular budgetary and appropriation process.
It is the intent of this ordinance that the Albemarle County Police
Force shall be jointly responsible with the Sheriff's Deprtment for Law
Enforcement in the County, and this ordinance is not intended to diminish
the present authority or responsibility of the Sheriff.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing:
Fringe Benefit Costs for School Employees.
1983)
Budget Amendment Relative to Accrual of Certain
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5,
Mr. Agnor said this public hearing was scheduled on a budget amendment which will use
Federal Revenue Sharing funds and he then summarized for the Board a memorandum from Ray
B. Jones, Director of Finance, which was presented at the Board's meeting on June 29,
1983. (Note: see the minutes of June 29, 1983, for the details of this budget amendment.)
The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against this
budget amendment, the public hearing was closed.
After a brief work session in which the accrual method of accounting relative to this
item was explained, and some explanation given as to the gradual change from ten-month to
twelve-month paychecks by most of the teaching personnel in the schools, motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution. Miss Nash 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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $404,620.46 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to the School Fund and Coded to the
following for payment of certain fringe benefit costs for School employees:
Code 17G-295.01 FICA
Code 17G-295.02 VSRS
Code 17G-295.03 Life Insurance
$191,292.06
198,348.32
14~980.08
$404,620.46
Mr. Agnor noted that information about the School Budget for Fiscal Year ending June
30, 1983 will be presented to the Board in August.
Agenda Item No. 10. Report on Charlottesville-Albemarle Student Ambassador Program.
Dr. Pete Eberhart, Chairperson for the Joint Planning Committee for the City and
County School Boards, was present to make a report concerning the Student Exchange Program
with the County and City twin communities of Prato and Poggio a Caiano. Dr. Eberhart
noted that a number of organizations have been involved in this program, in particular the
Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber agreed to assist in raising funds for scholarships to
help participating students who need financial assistance for the trip, as well as to
raise funds to pay costs of hosting the Italian students while they are visiting here.
Dr. Eberhart noted that the students from Charlottesville and Albemarle have been in Prato
and Poggio a Caiano since June 20, and the response from the students has been wonderful.
Dr. Eberhart said host families are being secured for the Italian students who will visit
here. Dr. Eberhart said activities planned for the Italian students visit here include
such items as touring Monticello and viSting Richmond, and Washington, D.C. Dr. Eberhart
said Mrs. Mary Ann Elwood is present for the Chamber of Commerce and will comment on the
Chamber's involvement.
Mrs. Elwood said the Chamber of Commerce has been thrilled with this program and its
involvement in same. She noted that each student has a local sponsor. There is a wide
range of sponsorship from fashion industry to banking. Mrs. Elwood said the original
amount of money to be raised for the program was $15,000, with the scholarships estimated
at $10,000 or $11,000, and with the remaining funds to be used for the traveling and
hosting of the students. However, only $5,500 in scholarships were awarded and the total
commitment then is $10,000 from the Chamber. Mrs. Elwood said $7,500 has been raised and
the Chamber is still actively trying to raise the remaining funds.
Mr. Fisher said he received a call yesterday from the Consulate and the Italian
Students are now scheduled to arrive in charlottesville on July 29 instead of August 1.
Dr. Eberhart said the Committee is attempting to get as many in-kind contributions
for the program as possible and the Chamber does feel it will be able to fulfill its
obligation to raise the funds necessary for this visit.
Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation to Dr. Eberhart and Mrs. Elwood for the work
that has been done on this program and hoped same will be a success.
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. ll.
Courthouse.
Proposal to place Memorial Bench in front of Albemarle County
Mr. Fisher said a letter dated June 9, 1983, has been received from Van Yahres Associates
regarding a proposal to place a bench in. the courtyard of the Albemarle County Courthouse
in memory of Eaton Brooks; the bench being donated by Mr. Brooks' parents (Copy of this
letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher said he had requested Mr. William
Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, to review the proposal and to comment on same. He
then recognized Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres to explain the.proposal.
Mrs. Van Yahres said the proposal is to place a mahogany bench measuring six feet by
two feet in the Courthouse courtyard. Although simple in design, the bench will reflect
the historical architecture of the Courthouse. Mrs. Van Yahres said both Judge David
Berry and Judge Gerald Tremblay have seen the proposal and approved the design. Two
proposed locations have been chosen for the bench. One is known as Location A and is
directly in front of the Courthouse where two benches currently exist. The second location
known as Location B contains one bench at the present time and is to the extreme left of
the Courthouse.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Sullivan in his review of this proposal had recommended Location
B since only one bench is being proposed. Also, Mr. Sullivan has indicated that the two
benches in Location A will have to be removed when the renovation of the Courthouse is
completed. However, Mr. Fisher said the request before the Board is to approve the
donation of the bench.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the
concept as contained in the letter dated June 9, 1983, for a memorial bench to be donated
to the community in memory of Eaton Brooks and that the bench be located at Location B.
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. 15. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority re:
of Well in Stoney Point Subdivision - Scottsville.
Fluoridation
Mr. Agnor reviewed the following letter dated June 20, 1983, from Mr. J. W. Brent,
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority:
"Several years ago I advised the Board of Supervisors that grants could be
obtained from the State Health Department to install fluoridation equipment
at Scottsville, Crozet, and North Rivanna water treatment plants if the
local governing body approved. The Board concurred and asked the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority to apply for the grant. The grant was received
and these systems are now operational.
Through all of this we failed to consider the Stoney Point water system.
Stoney Point is a small subdivision of 26 homes near Scottsville served
by a central well system. Several customers in this subdivision have
requested that fluoride be provided in their water. In the attached
letter, the~¥anna Water and Sewer Authority estimates the cost of
installation of a fluoridation system to be about $4,000 and is not
optimistic that a grant would be awarded for such a small system.
I feel we should aPply for the grant. Since the governing body must
approve, would you bring this matter to the attention of the Board?
If they concur, they should advise Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
to make application for the grant.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information."
Mr. Agnor said there is some speculation that because of the size of the Water system
and the number of homes served, the requirements for a grant will not be able to be met.
However, to be certain, application for a grant should be made. As noted in the correspondenc
from Mr. Brent, the Albemarle County Service Authority recommends the addition of the
fluoride equipment and requests the Board to allow the Rivanna Water and ~Sewer Authority
to apply for the grant.
Motion was then of.fered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to apply for a grant from the State Health Department t6~
install fluoridation equipment in the well in the Stoney Point Subdivision in Scottsville.
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. 20. Discussion: Request to Reestablish Resource Recovery Commission.
Mr. Fisher said a letter dated July l, 1983, has been received from Mr. Laurence A.
Burton, member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, regarding the Resource
Recovery Commission. Mr. Fisher noted that for a number of years there was a joint
City/County/University Commission studying, with the help of federal grants and consultants,
the possibility of establishing a resource recovery system for the co~unity. The Commission
finally recommended that a recovery system be instituted using part of the heating system
modified at the University of Virginia since the University is a user of steam. However,
the University was not able to raise the capital funds needed to convert their heating
facilities. The Commission was then disbanded. With the University again planning to
upgrade its heating system, the old Resource Recovery Commission reports have been brought
to the attention of the University. Mr. Fisher said if something could be worked out with
the University, the amount of materials going to the Ivy landfill could be reduced, making
the landfill last longer. Mr. Fisher then summarized the following letter concerning the
request to reestablish the Resource Recovery Commission:
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
"Several days ago I attended, along with Wayne Harbaugh from the Planning District
Commission, a presentation on the University's utilities plan which included a
discussion of plans to upgrade the University's heating plant.
At the presentation, William Middleton, Assistant Vice-President, Physical Plant,
repeated a statement he had made earlier to the Planning District Commission
about the University's interest in working with local governments to look further
into the feasibility of resource recovery in connection with the changes that need
to be made to the heating system. Mr. Middleton expressed a regret that the
Resource Recovery Commission, composed of members from the University, the City
and the County, had been disbanded, suggesting that such a group would be useful
at this point in working with the University's consultants.
I am writing Frank Hereford and Frank Buck as well as yourself to request that
the Resource Recovery Commission be reestablished for such a purpose.
Although the regional solid waste plan approved by the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission recommends representation from all six local governments
on such a working group, the TJPDC's executive committee has expressed support
for a City-County-University committee, recognizing that the three entities
have the largest interest in the possibility of resource recovery in connection
with the University's .heating and energy needs. The executive committee asks
only that the possibility of future resource recovery of waste from the four rural
counties be addressed by any group you designate.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED BY)
Laurence A. Brunton"
Miss Nash said Mr. Middieton was present at a recent Planning District Commission
meeting and did not appear very enthusiastic about the plan. She said the feeling is that
the program should be on a regiOnal basis rather than just for the City and County. Mr.
Fisher did not feel there is much collection of solid waste in any of the rural~counties.
Mr. Agnor said this subject has been discussed at some of the monthly meetings
between the City, County and University officials. The University people have several
problems with the idea. l) The heating plant is not going to be moved away from the
entrance to the Hospital. Therefore, the flow of vehicles generated by this type of
system would create a problem. 2) The University is having difficulty with capital
planning for a project of this significance. 3) The free use of a government-owned
landfill does not help to encourage the University to change its system. Mr. Agnor said
the City Director of Public Works and the County Engineer are jointly responsible for the
operation of the landfill and discussions have been held recently to discuss the idea of
processing waste into fuel at the Ivy Landfill. This would mean that the flow of waste~to
the landfill would continue, but instead of being buried, this waste could be converted to
process fuel. The fuel would then be delivered to a heating plant in a much lesser quantity.
This concept was also discussed at the City, County and University meeting and the University
was interested in the idea since this would eliminate processing at the heating plant.
Mr. Agnor said since Federal funds were initially involved with the work of the Resource
Recovery Commission, he does not feel there will be any funding available from either
Federal or State sources if this Commission is reactivitated. Mr. Agnor suggested that
perhaps the staffs of both the City and County could provide some assistance to the Commission~
Mr. Butler said there has been some mention of a commercial group building a plant in
a location away from the University to generate energy to be sold to the community. He
said the University people felt that was a more feasible approach to this concept. Mr.
Fisher said he would be willing to explore anything that would prolong the life of the
landfill. The idea of being able to reuse resources and create something that has a
market value appeals to him. He also noted that over the last ten years, a lot of cities
and some counties have started their own system. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that he
felt the Board should communicate with the City and the University expressing the County's
willingness to reestablish the Resource Recovery Commission and receive their reaction to
the proposal.
Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Fisher about the past problems of establishing a landfill,
and felt that as communities grow, a larger landfill will be needed, so some other method
of handling wastes should be examined.
~ Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to communicate with the
City and the University the County's interest in reestablishing the Resource Recovery
Commission. 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. 17. Request: Christian Mission Aid.
A letter dated June 6, 1983, from Mr. R. V. Finley, Chairman and President of Christian
Aid Mission, was received by the Clerk of the Board requesting amendment to the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area to allow Christian Aid Mission to hook into a
six-inch sewer line approximately 1200 feet down the established easement from the Mission
property to the Route 250 pump station. On July l, 1983, another letter was received from
Mr. Finley to further clarify the request of the above date. Based on the above letters,
Mr. Fisher said he had requested the planning staff to prepare a report and that the
report be done in light of other properties in the subject area to determine what could be
done in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and the utility system. (Copies of the above
letters are on file in the Clerk's Office.)
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, was present
and summarized the following staff report:
".P.r?posal: Christian Aid Mission is~uesting amendment of the Albemarle
Qount~ Service~ Author~ty's service area to provide for access to the
~rozet Interceptor. oewer service will soon be necessary for future
development of the ~property.
~ing.~nd Current Utility Service: Christian Aid Mission consists of
~pp~O~imai~ly sixteen acres presently zoned Commercial Office. They
are presently located within the 'Water Only' service area of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Public water is not being
utilized at this time however.
Comprehensive Plan: This property and others to the east are located
outside of the Urban Growth Area because of their location in the
South Fork Rivanna Watershed.
Staff ' Comment: It has been the Board of Supervisors' policy in the past
to limit utility service to those areas located outside of the
County's designated growth areas and/or those areas lOcated within
the watershed of a drinking water impoundment' This policy is used
as a tool for discouraging intensive development in those areas not
designated for future growth and development,~as, well as. those· . areas
of drinking water impoundments which are most sensitive to development
impact. Christian Aid Mission, as well as thOse properties located
eastward between Route 250 West and the C & 0 Railroad, fall for the
most part within the Board's criteria for~limited utility servic'e.
For the Board's information, some of the properties mentioned above
have approximately one hundred feet in depth along Route 250 West.,
which drains into the Morey Creek Watershed rather than the South Fork
Rivanna Watershed.
Based upon this information, th~ Board may wish to consider two
alternatives for service area amendment:
- Allow sewer service to this area for existing buildings (as of
this date) only; and/-or
- Allow both water and sewer service to the areas along Route 250
West which drain outside of the South Fork Rivanna Watershed."
Mr. Tucker then listed for the Board the properties located in the water and sewer
service areas in the subject area. Mr. Fisher asked the location of the boundary of the
growth area. Mr. Tucker said all of Flordon~and Farmington lie within the Rivanna Watershed,
which is. to the east and north of this property. Mr. Tucker said one site that could
utilize the second alternative above would be the Kirtley Office building. Mr. Lindstrom
said the entire reason for the jurisdictional area distinction was to discourage any urban
type development that would be associated with a sewer line in the watershed. ~
Mr. Butler asked about the existing development on the Christian Aid Mission property.
Mr. Tucker said there is development on a portion of the property, but Christian Aid
Mission intends to develop further. Therefore, sewer will be needed because a septic
system is being utilized.
Mr. Tom Bond, representing the Christian Aid Mission, was present. Mr. Bond said
Christian Aid Mission cannot further expand its operation without hooking onto the sewer
line and the Mission is willing to conform to any County specifications.
Next to speak was a Mr. Landess representing Christian Aid Mission. He said when the
Mission moved to the subject location in 1976, it was their intent to expand the facilities.
This has been the long-range plans and no such restrictions as this problem with hooking
to public sewer were anticipated. Mr. Landess noted that the Mission would be severely
restricted if this request is not approved. He noted that using septic systems would be a
problem because that would mean going'into the wooded areas and removing a considerable
amount of trees. The land without trees is not suitable for a septic system for public
health reasons. Therefore, Mr. Landess noted that the Mission would be severely impacted
if this request is denied.
Mr. Fisher said he had not envisioned Christian Aid Mission developing to the extent
proposed in the letter from Dr. Finley. He added that the development proposed is a very
intensive use of the property and if that is the int~ent, he personally has serious reservations
about approval of the request. This property is in the South Fork watershed and if this
request is granted to connect to public sewerage, he could not visualize anyway the Board
could ever deny anyone else the right to connect and there are many areas along the interceD~or
line which could be developed intensively. Mr. Fisher said he had originally thought that~
the intent was to connect existing buildings and perhaps a small addition to the facility.
In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said that although he would like to approve the request, approval
would present problems for the County in the future.
Mrs. Cooke said it appears that the proposal is for eleven additional buildings.
asked the amount of students to be housed in each dormitory. Mr. Landess said twenty
students will be housed in each building.
She
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
291
Mr. Lindstrom questioned the alternative in the staff report relating to sewer service
being allowed to this area for existing buildings on this date only. His concern is with
defending the County's watershed policy. Approval of this proposal, even if for only one
additional building, would violate the County's watershed policy. He said it is ridiculous
to destroy trees in order to install a septic system instead of allowing the sewer connection
which is a clean proposition. However, the issue has to be examined in terms of the
overall precedent that this approval would establish. He said he agrees w±th Mr. Fisher
that the Board would have a difficult time denying another person a connection in the~
future if this request is approved. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the implication-~f the~words
"as of this date" in the staff's alternatives. Mr. Tucker said the attempt was to align
this amendment with the policy adopted in reference to water connections. Mr. Tucker also
added that he is not aware of any problems with the existing septic field on the Christian
Aid Mission property.
Mr. Lindstrom said in thinking only about this specific application, allowing the
existing structures to hook to the sewer line would be best since less area would be
disturbed. Mr. Fisher said with the interceptor line going across the county for eight or
ten miles, the Board may have many other applications for connection for much more intensive
development. Mr. Fisher said the biggest problem facing the Board will be the establishment
of a uniform policy on how to deal with connections to the Crozet Interceptor line over a
period of time. Mr. Lindstrom agreed but felt the same policy should be established
relative to connecting to the Crozet Interceptor as was established to connect to the
public water line for areas in the watershed.
Miss Nash said she felt one of the reasons that sewer was not included in the policy
was because having the availability of sewer would encourage intensive development. She
felt the watershed POlicy should be eliminated if this request is approved.
Mr. Fisher said the Ultimate plans for this property are not in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and with such intensive development proposed, he could not support the
request.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the property is zoned Commercial Office. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the uses as proposed in Dr. Finley's letter could be contained on
this sixteen acres. Mr.. Tucker said not without public utilities. Mr. Tucker said he
understands the proposed dormitories are not for year round facilities, but rather accessory
type uses to the office building.
Mr. Lindstrom said considering all the time and effort that the Board has spent to
develop and defend a policy for discouraging development in the South Fork Rivanna watershed,
he would agree that approval of this request would be opening the doors to a concept not
desired by the County.
Mrs. Cooke said she would not object to providing the sewer for the existing buildings
but could not support the request for all the reasons stated by the other Board members.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to deny the request
for Christian Aid Mission to connect to the Crozet Interceptor line. 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. 14. Public Hearing: Amend Service Areas of Albemarle County Service
Authority to Conform Said Areas with Recent Revisions to the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 6, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker explained the key distributed regarding the jurisdictional areas which was
color coded with the map (Copy of this key is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker
then reviewed the following staff report:
"Staff has proposed amendments to the service areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to comply with recent amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan, as well as to provide a consistent policy for service areas throughout
the County. (Mr. Tucker noted that certain policies were adopted in 1982
relevant to service in the Route 29 North area, which do not apply in
other areas of the County.)
CROZET
- Areas north of the current growth area have been broken down into water
and sewer service for the existing small lot development experiencing septic
field failure, and where there are already preliminary plans for
sewer connections. (Mr. Tucker explained the areas involved and noted
that these are areas developed in very small lots and which are having
septic system problems. Mr. Tucker said the staff has met with
representatives of the Health Department and the areas having problems
have been identified by the Health Department.); areas presently being
served with water only (Mr. Tucker said this is primarily the Thurston
Subdivision which is not developed but has been platted and where
waterlines exist.); areas contiguous to an existing waterline for
existing structures only; areas which are undeveloped but which are
proposed for sewer connection (Mr. Tucker said the staff is suggesting
that these areas either be allowed to have a sewerage connection or
permitted one residential connection per parcel.).
July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Me~ting)
- Service area for existing growth area is unchanged, except for commercial
areas south of Route 250 West, which is for water only. (Mr. TUcker said
the growth area was extended in the area around Gola's ReStaurant so
the~area could be included for water service only~)
- Area south and southwest of the growth area is deleted from utility
service, except for existing structures contiguous to existing Waterline.
(Mr. Tucker pointed out the Yancey Mills area and noted that this
recommendation is in keeping with the Board's policy used in other areas
such as the Route 29 North area.)
Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Brent how much new line would be involved for w~ter and
sewer service to the areas north of Route 240 between Beaver Creek Reservoir and 'Del
Monte. Mr. Brent was not certain because the Service Authority is working from a preliminary
master plan started in 1976. (Mr. Tucker said the Service Authority is also working from
a map of the old growth area for Crozet.) The problem is that on the north side Route-
240, the whole area would have to be pumped to the south side of Route 240. The siting of
a pumping station wouldalso be critical because the pipe would have to go under the
railroad and the highway, and the effluent would then be drawn by gravity to Lickinghole
Creek and then to the interceptor.
Mr. Tucker said a site plan for the "western &lbemarle shOpping center" is still
pending before the Planning Commission. While the applicant could locate this shopping
center on a septic system, he noted that the Board may want to allow the applicant to pump
the effluent over to the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr. Henley asked if the shopping
center property abuts a waterline. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the sewer line is located
outside of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Henley asked if this property should be colored
light green which would place it in the "water and/or sewer available to existing structure~
or one residential connect for vacant lots of record" category. Mr. Tucker said it probably
should be since it does abut the waterline, but there are no existing structures on the
parcel.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if private structures will be treated the same as the Board's
policy on public structures (showing only the building on the property as receiving service,
and not the entire parcel). Mr. ~u.cker said the policy was worded this way in order to
take in Bloomfield property. Mr. Tucker said public and private structures are treated
the same.
IVY
- Water service only to those areas currently being served or having approved
plans for water, and those parcels with existing structures conginguous to
existing waterlines.
- Spring Hill Subdivision and Ivy Creek Farm (Winery) have been maintained
in the service area because of their request for inclusion, even though they
are not currently using public water. (Mr. Tucker said these two areas fall
outside of the existing service area but Spring Hill Subdivision recently
made a request to the Board for inclusion. The properties were left in so
the Board could decide whether or not to delete them. Mr. Tucker said Mr.
Brent has indicated that he is having discussions with the owners of the
winery for the extension of water service. Mr. Tucker then pointed out
Kearsarge Subdivision and noted that this subdivision has been experiencing
problems with its well. He noted that there is not a waterline to this
property. Mr. Lindstrom asked why Spring Hill was included originally.
Mr. Tucker said Spring Hill was in the growth area at that time.)
SCOTTSVILLE
- Provides for water to existing structures contiguous ~ to waterline.
- Expands service area for water and sewer to conform with new growth area
boundaries.
- Deletes service to areas outside of existing growth area except for the
Scottsville Shopping Center, and for commercial uses and other uses in
need of fire protection along Route 6."
Mr. Tucker noted that this completed the staff's recommendations. In reply to a
question from Mr. Henley, he said the properties of Acme Visible Records and Del Monte in
Crozet have been included for water and sewer even though some of these properties are
outside of the new growth area. Mr..Fisher asked how much of the area is undeveloped.
Mr. Tucker said the only area that is undeveloped is an area zoned industrial.
The public hearing was opened.~ Mr. Allen Benn, owner of the property proposed for a
western Albemarle shopping center, was present. Mr. Benn said seven and one-half acres of
his property is currently zoned for shopping center development and the remaining thirty
acres is zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Benn said he had a site plan approved for this property
in the past and septic tanks were proposed at that time. However, at that time the Planning
Commission requested that this site connect to the public sewerage if, and when, same
became available. Therefore, Mr. Benn said that had been his plans and he would request
the seven and one-half acres be included in the service area. Mr. Benn said another point
he would like to mention is the issue of runoff in the area. The RA part of this property
not only has natural runoff into Lickinghole Creek but also collects the runoff from the
property across the road on the northern side of Route 250. Mr. Benn said the runoff plan
that has been prepared for this site, will show that runoff can be contained as per County
ordinances, but will also contain that runoff from across the road. Mr. Benn said there
would be no problem putting in a septic field on this property, but he is suggesting that
in accordance with good planning and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that
this property be connected to public sewer when same becomes available, and he personally
feels that was a reasonable request of the Planning Commission.
JUly l~, 198B (Regular Day Meeting)
g93
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Brent if he had any comments. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority
Board of Directors has not seen this information and therefore, he had no comments at this
time.
With no further comments for or against the amendments, the public hearing was closed.
A brief discussion followed and the consensus of the Board was to defer this discussion
until August]~0~, 198B, in order that the Service Authority Board of Directors could respond
to the proposed amendments.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest that the word "public" be deleted in the key
regarding "water and/or sewer to public or existing structures" because he felt public and
private structures should be treated the same.
Mr. Brent noted that there have been discussions about expanding the Airport facility
itself and the Airport was included in that category. Since the property is not within
the watershed that should probably be looked at again. Mr. Tucker said the staff would
examine the suggestion because if that language is changed, an impact may occur on other
areas, and the Airport property may need to be included in the water and sewer area. Mr.
Lindstrom said if a public structure needs water and sewer, he would rather amend the
Comprehensive Plan at that time and attempt to be consistent with the service areas-.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to defer the amendment
of the ServiCe Areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to conform to recent revisions
of the Comprehensive Plan, until August 10, 198~. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the followiing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session.
Mr. Fisher said the County Executive has requested an executive session for discussion
of land acquisition and/or sale. At 12:B1 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition and/or
sale. 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.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:42 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 18. Notice from Virginia Housing Development Authority re: Development
called Heritage Acres V. letter dated June 25, 198~, signed by John Ritchie, Jr., Executive
Director of the Virginia Housing Development Authority, brought this matter before the Board.
The letter stated that the County was being notified pursuant to Section ~6-55.~9 of the Code
of Virginia, that VHDA was considering the financing of a multi-family residential, rental
housing development consisting of approximately l~0 units of which only thirty-two units
would be subsidized by the HUD Section 8 Program. The development .is to be situated on a
parcel of approximately 8.65 acres in size located in the northern end of Branchlands PUD
adjacent to Fashion Square Mall, Squire Hill Apartments and Chapel Hill Subdivision. Mr.
Ritchie had noted that the Board would have sixty days in which to disapprove the development
proposal, if so desired.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, read the
following staff report:
"Current Zoning: This portion of Branchlands PUD was approved under ZMA-80-26
for a maximum of 82 dwelling units. This proposal would raise gross residential
density from about l0 dwelling units per acre to about 15 dwelling units per
acre. Conditions of approval of ZMA-80-26 require facilities improvements
such as: construction of a portion of the Branchlands Collector Road, a major
parallel road to Route 29 North; and provision of open space and developed
recreational areas (some improvements are based on phasing of development).
Staff understands that to achieve the proposed l~0 dwelling units, a rezoning
petition to amend the PUD will be submitted. Staff understands this proposal
would reallot units from another area of the PUD. (Staff would emphasize that
no proposal has been submitted at this writing).
"Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density resi-
dential and commercial uses for Branchlands, based on the approved PUD.
"Need for Subsidized Housing: The need for subsidized housing in Albemarle
County can be documented from these sources:
- Section 8 Rental Program Waiting List
- U. S. Census Poverty Statistics
- Uo S. Housing and Urban Development Needs Assessment
"The first source of data and probably one of the more important local sources
is the waiting list compiled by the County,s Section 8 Rental AsSistance Program.
The list of households waiting for assistance is presently in the 50 - 100 range
with special emphasis needed in the two to three bedroom size unit.
July 13, 1983~.(Regular Day Meeting)
"Secondly, data from the U. S. Census indicates that persons who had below
the poverty~.le~el in Albemarle County in 1980 numbered 4,902 or 8.8 percent
of the total population.
"Finally, composite, data developed by the U. S. Housing and Urban Development
Department (HUD) indicates a sUbstantial need of renter households in Albemarle
County for assistance. Approximately 2,171 renter households in the County in
1981 were in need of assistance in securing access to adequate housing. The
criteria used in this assessment includes both overcrowded and Substandard
housing, household~income andhousing costs required beyond a normal percent
of income. Again, the greatest need appears.to be concentrated in the small
family households.
"The proposed project would assist in meeting some of the needs of low- and
moderate-income families in Albemarle County. Both the Comprehensive Plan for
Albemarle County 1982 - 2002, and the Thomas Jefferson Areawide Housing Oppor-
tunity Plan (AHOP) contain goals and objectives relating to providing assistance
to low- and moderate-income families for housing. A goal of the Comprehensive
Plan is to provide sefe~ sanitary and adequate housing for Albemarle County
residents of all income groups. The Plan recommends that the County take advantage
of and promote Federal and State programs as they relate to Albemarle's housing
problem.
"The AHOP also suggests housing oppcrtunities should be made available to all
income groups, especially those in need of special assistance. Numerical goals
suggested in the AHOP for Albemarle County are 25 percent of the number of renters
eligible for assistance."
Mr. Tucker noted that he had received a copy of a letter this date from Charles W. Hurt
addressed to R. W. Frizzell, President of HCMF Development Corporation stating that he would.~
apply for an amendment to ZMA-80-26 to increase the number of units in Area A and decrease
the number of units in Area D of the Branchlands approved PUD plan. Mr. Tucker said this
request would require amendment of the PUD plan and apprOval of a site plan, all through the
normal planning process.
An unidentified gentlemen was present for the applicant, but said he had nothing in
particular to say about the request, except that this approval is only for financing purposes
and has nothing to do with any of the planning aspects. The development will meet all local
code requirements.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board wished to approve this developments and sign the certificatior
which had been furnished with the papers on the request, a sentence should be added that the
land in question does rot currently meet zoning required for such a project. Miss Nash said
she felt the Board should go on record as approving the project and offered motion to authorize
the Chairman to sign the certification of approval, putting in a provision that this approval
has nothing to do with zoning and the project will be subject to all County ordinances. The~
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
The gentleman said that all local codes will be adhered to, but it might be better to
include a statement about complying with codes so that the Virginia Housing Development ~
Authority does not get bogged down in just zoning. Mr. Lindstrom clarified the motion by
stating that it already included a statement about the project being in compliance with mm~
applicable local ordinances.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
The Certificate signed by the Chairman read as follows:
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
In accordance with Virginia Code Section 36-55~39(B), the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies to the Virginia
Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed multi-family resi-
dential housing development called Heritage Acres V, as expressed in this
resolution adopted on July 13, 1983, provided that all approvals necessary
under all applicable local ordinances and regulations are duly obtained.
Agenda Item No. 16 (discussed out of order). Clarification of Intent. re: Rezoning of
Land for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this Work session
is to seek the guidance of the Board prior to advertising for a public hearing on the rezoning
of certain lands in Crozet, Ivy, Scottsville and Earlysville. Mr. Tucker then mentioned
several areas in each of the areas listed where the staff had questions about the zoning
category which matches recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. After a short discussion,
it was the general concensus of most of the Board members that the changes be set for public
hearing, with property owners being notified, and the Board would take a more in-depth look
at the proposals at the public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 19. Report from Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee. (Mr. Henley
left the meeting at 2:45 P.M.) Mr. Agnor said that legislation adopted in 1982 required that
local governing bodies develop a plan to Coordinate long-term care services to prevent inappro-
priate and unnecessary institutional care and provide appropriate long-term care in the home
and community settings. This task was undertaken by the Planning District Commission and a
report is ready.
J.Uly 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Planning District Commission said there were seventeen
representatives from six different localities who participated in this process. Information
received from the State Long-Term Care Council said that this committee was not to develop a
comprehensive plan for coordinating community based long-term care services for the frail
elderly, but the State Council was only interested in determining the level of services that
are delivered in the community both by the private sector and the public sector. Mrs. Saunier
said that there has been a prescreening process in effect for a long time when a person
wanted to enter a nursing home and received State Medicaid funds, and about seventy-five
percent of the individuals applying are admitted to a nursing home. The State is interested
in finding out what happens to the other twenty-five percent. Does the family care for that
person, is it a combination of public services such as a companion, or just what is the
combination of public and private services that the individual receives, and how much do
these services cost. The Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee developed a procedure to
collect and report information requested by the State's Council (see pages 4 and 5 of the
report). All information is forwarded to the State Council at a given point in time. The
pro~ess for collection of data drawn by this Committee meets the State mandate and if the
Board feels the process is appropriate, the Committee asks that the procedure and report be
approved. Mr. Agnor noted that he had reviewed the report and it seems to meet the State's
mandate, and will have no impact on County staff. Mrs. Saunier said that the agencies involved
haYe helped to design the process and do not feel this information gathering will tax their
resources. There will probably be no more than thirty-five people who will have to be tracked
each quarter from all six jurisdictions. Mrs. Saunier said the information gathering was to
have started in July, but the Virginia Office on Aging asked the staff of the Virginia Long-
Term Care Council to have the localities wait for three months before beginning since they
wanDed to test the procedure first in the Richmond locality.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the "Long-Term Care Report and Plan for
Data Collecting, Virginia Planning District Ten" prepared for the Counties of Albemarle,
Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville, by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, May, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash,
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 21. Disposition of McIntire School Building. Mr. Agnor summarized his
memorandum of July 8, 198B, addressed to the Board on this subject:
"The School Board has declared the McIntire School property as surplus
to their needs effective July l, 1983. Their action, when recorded in
the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office, transfers the property to the
Board of Supervisors.
The building currently houses the following agencies:
1. County School Media Center which will be transferred to the County
Office Building upon completion of Phase II remodeling in October or
November.
2. County School McIntire Day Program, a program for emotionally handi-
capped students, occupying approximately 2,700 square feet, needed for
the 1983-84 school year.
3. County and City V.P.I. and S.U. Extension office which will be trans-
ferred to the County Office Building upon completion of Phase II remodeling
this fall.
4. The Y.M.C.A. which has rented for several years approximately 9,300
square feet, and would like to continue to rent the space for approximately
two more years until the Daily Progress building renovations are complete
(Market Street property given to the United Way).
To my knowledge there is no County government need for the building, other
than the McIntire Day Program. The building contains about 15,650 square
feet and has recently cost $35,000 to $40,000 per year for utilities alone.
Maintenance in recent years has been minimal, and is difficult to estimate.
Insurance costs included in blanket coverage of all buildings will add to
the costs of owning and maintaining the property.
Ownership obviously must continue until present occupants relocate. The
Media Center and Extension Service can move in four to five months. The
McIntire Day Program and Y.M.C,A. have no plans to date for relocating.
I am advised by Mr. Papenfuse that the 1983-84 school budget does not include-
funds for the continued costs associated with the building.
It is recommended.that approval be given for the property to be sold, and
until sold, the use of the building be self-supporting. From July through
October, it is recommended that the four occupants pay a monthly rental fee
sufficient to carry the cost of utilities, insurance, and maintenance related
to usage, divided among the occupants on the basis of the square footage
which they occupy. Upon relocation of two of the occupants in October/November,
it is recommended that the remaining occupants be charged a monthly fee that
will carry the costs of the use of the building that is in excess to the
costs for a maintenance level that prevents freezing and vandalism. Confinement
of the Building's~use to one area, with valving off of the heating system
in other areas, can provide some reduction in utility costs.
It is my'understanding that the McIntire School Day Program can be relocated
through rental of other property, if necessary. Relocation of the Y.M.C.A.
is more difficult. Upon notification of the occupants that the property is
to be approximately self-supporting, a timetable to accomplish the sale and
possibly meet the needs of the occupants can be established."
July 13, 1983 (Re~N~ar Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said this is a large building and hard to operate. Since writing this memo-
randum, conversations with persons at the Y-.M.C.A. reveal that they need more space than iSm!~
presently occupied, and it may be possible for them to pay an increased amount of rent. Mr.~
Agnor said the Board is familiar with the process for selling property, but he would restate
that the property must be declared surplus to County needs, and then a value determined. The
value could be set either through the auction process (which he would not recommend) or by
the taking of bids after an appraisal has been made. This property is located within the
confines of the City of Charlottesville and is actually zoned R-l, which is a low-density
type of residential use. The use of the facility has been allOwed to continue as being
related to its school use.
Mr. Fisher asked what maximum residential use could be made of the entire property based
on its land area. Mr. Agnor said he had not tried to make that determination yet, because he
was not sure the Board would agree to selling the property.
Mr. Fisher said that some of the most imaginative uses of old school buildings has been~
a conversion to housing~ Mr. Fisher said he was not sure that the County hash looked at all
public uses that might be made of the property, and he feels that is needed before the Board~
makes a decision. Mr. Agnor asked if when Mr. Fisher referred to public uses, if he was
referring to uses which are government related, or community related. Mr. Fisher said he had~
not'thought just in terms of agencies which the County partially supports,.but was thinking
about the area of housing because the property is already zoned for residential use. Mr.
Agnor said the appraisal process will appraise the property for its highest and best use.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Planning Staff should look at the building and then give the Board
some ideas for its use taking into consideration such thingS as access, size of parcel, eto~
(Mr. Butler left the meeting at 3:02 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said he would agree to start the
process for getting an appraisal, but felt the staff should make some recommendations on what
might be the greater needs of the community which are not being met at this time. (Mr. Butler
returned to the meeting at 3:10 P..M.)
Agenda Item No. 2~. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that he
had received a letter dated July 7, 1983, from the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors,
asking that this Board chastise the General Assembly for its position on the funding of
Constitutional Officers and the salaries set for said officers. Mr. Fisher said he would not
recommend that any action be taken by this Board on the request. The other members agreed.
Mr. Agnor said that he and Mr. Jones have discussed the change in the budgets of the consti-
tutional officers and will be bringing back budget adjustments at next month's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 22. Executive Session: PerSonnel. At 3:1~ P.M., motion was offered by
Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn into executive session for personnel, namely
to interview applicants for various boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The Board reconvened into open session at ~:~ P.M.
Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Fred C.
McCormick to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals for~a term to expire on August 21, 1988. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded bY Miss Nash, to reappoint George W. Bailey
and James L. Higgins, to the Criminal Justice Advisory Council, for terms to expire on
June 30, 198~. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash to appoint Mrs. Sally Grymes Gieck
to the Library Board of DirectOrs for a term which will expire on June 30, 1986 (this appoint-
ment is to fill out the unexpired term of a person who had resigned) The motion carried by
the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by MiSs Nash, to appoint Ms. J. Rose Farber
to the Youth Commission, said term to expire on Jule l, 198~ (this appOintment is made to
replace a person who had resigned). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
July 20, 198B (Regular Night Meeting)
July ~, 198B (Regular Day Meeting)
297
Mr. Fisher noted that there is some urgency to filling the vacant position on the Jail
Board.
Agenda Item No. 24° Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Butler made a brief
statement about a meeting he attended in Blacksburg last week with the State Extension
Advisory Committee. He attended a lecture by Mr. Whitmere on agriculture, from the present
time into the future. The presentation focused on the United States being the provider of
approXimately one-third of the world's food and the fact that about one million acres of
agricultural land is being lost to development each year. Mr. Butler also noted that there
is a big need for extension work and the fact that the Federal government is cutting back the
amount of funds it has been providing for this purpose. Only two percent of the Congressional
vote is now for agriculture, so a hard sell is needed to get any support of same. Mr. Butler
said the Advisory Committee has been broken into two groups, and he has been put on the
public relations side.
Agenda Item No. 25.
adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
Adjourn.
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was
July 20, 198B (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held,on July 20, 198B, at ?:50 P.M., in Meeting Room 71, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and
J. To Henley, Jr. and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John~ and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ?:B2 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item~No. la. Consent Agenda. The following three street light requests were
presented from the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod, for Board approval:
A street light request on State Route 715 in Esmont;
A street light request on Buck Mountain Road (State Route 789)
approximately 400 feet north of the intersection with St. George
Avenue (State Route 1202);
A street light request in Hessian Hills SubdiMision on the north
side of Angus Road to be installed on pole #X0-78-44. This
request for installation of the light to be on a shared cost basis;
specifically, Mr. James F. Nelms, a homeowner has agreed to incur
one-half of the construction cost, or $111.50, if the County will
incur a similar amount.
Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded
by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda ItemNo. 2. SP-SB-4B. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department/Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. Request to amend SP-78-?0 by deleting condition requiring
emergency connector road between Berkmar and Commonwealth Drives and to require that
alignment of this future road still be shown on the site plan. Located on B.B acres
zoned C-l, 2/10 mile south of Route 6B1 and on west side of Berkmar DriVe. County Tax
Map 61-M-U, Parcels 12-1G and 12-1F. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 5 and July 12, 198B.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the following
staff report:
"Location: Property described as Tax Map 61-M-U, Parcels 12-1G and 12-1F, is
located on the west side of Berkmar Drive, and is zoned C-l, Commercial.
History: In prior special use permit and site plan approvals the applicants
were required to make provisions for a new public road to connect Berkmar
Drive and Commonwealth Drive and to provide emergency access from the
site into Berkeley Subdivision.