1983-11-16437
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
November 16, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
ABSENT: Mr. James R. Butler (attending a state-wide conference on poverty sponsored by the
Secretary of Human Resources and the Virginia Association of Community Action Agencies. Mr.
Butler is participating in a workshop on economic development.)
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mr. Butler was absent this date for reasons set out
above.
Not Docketed. Appeal: Cason Fruit/Vegetable Specialty Store Site Plan.
from the afternoon meeting.)
(Carried over
Mr. Fisher noted that this appeal was made by Mr. Cason on October 28, 1983. A meeting
was scheduled for earlier in the afternoon today to hear the appeal. On November 15, 1983 a
written request was received by Mr. Cason asking that~the appeal be deferred until January 11,
1984. Mr. Fisher then recommended that the Cason appeal be deferred only until the December
14, 1983 meeting. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer the
Cason site plan appeal to the December 14, 1983 meeting. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler
Agenda Item No. l(a). Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss
Nash, to accept the consent agenda ~with the items presented as information. Roll was called ~' ~
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Item No. l(a)l. Report of the County Executive for the month of October, 1983, was
presented 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 October, 1983,
were also presented as information:
State Account Fund $
General County Fund
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Projects Fund
Metro Planning Grant
Community Development Block Grant
County School Fund
TIPS
Secondary Advocates for Gifted Students
Cafeteria Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Mental Health Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Capital Improvement Fund
1,911.64
8,277,640.58
467,565.92
1,064,912.67
2,969.62
2,084.46
6,098,331.37
14,906.56
224.41
11,931.87
340,636.40
1,026,410.57
98,982.89
4r467r029.41
GRAND TOTAL
$ 21,875,538.37
Item No. l(a)2. The Revised Monthly Building Activity Report from the Department of
Planning and Community Development for the month of September, 1983, was presented.
Item No. l(a)3. The Monthly Building Activity Report from the Department of Planning and
Community Development for the month of October, 1983, was presented.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-83-15. Gleco Mills, Inc. Request to rezone 1.8 acres from RA
Rural Areas to LI Light Industrial. Located east side of Route 29 South at Gleco Mills.
County Tax Map 88, Parcel 26A, Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 1 and November 8, 1983).
November 16. lg8R (Regular Night
Mr. Fisher said this matter was heard before the Planning Commission last night and parts
of the staff report, including the latest proffer, have not been received by the Board. Mr.
Fisher noted there were two persons present to address the zoning map amendment. He recom-
mended deferring the request until the December 21, 1983 meeting as per a letter to Mr. Fisher
dated November 16, 1983, from Mr. Edward Bain, attorney for Gleco Mills. Inc. Motion was
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer ZMA-83-15 to December 21, 1983. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. L±ndstrom.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-71. Dallas F. Gentry. Request to locate a public garage on 5
acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located on the west side of Route 631, 1800 feet south of its
intersection with Route 706. County Tax Map 89, Parcel 83. Samuel Miller District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress November 1 and November 8, 1983).
Mr. Ronald Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Public Garage (Section 10.2.2.37)
5.0 Acres
RA Rural Acres
Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 83, is located on
the west side of Route 631, approximately 1800 feet south
of Route 706.
Character of the Area:
This property is developed with a single-family dwelling and garage to the
rear. The garage is partially visible from a dwelling to the north.
Staff Comment:
In the past, Staff has recommended that public garage uses are more
appropriate to designated growth areas of the Comprehensive Plan than to
random location in the rural areas. In SP-8t-ll, Edward Anderson, Staff
stated that 'commercial use of the property be evaluated in terms of
appropriateness to the Rural Areas. That is to say, a determination should
be made as to whether or not this garage would provide service to the area.'
While this property is situated about a mile south of the Urban Area of the
Comprehensive Plan, there are no other garages in the immediate area.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the criteria for
issuance of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and offers the following
comments:
a. The garage would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property -
In an attempt to make such uses unobtrusive in rural locations, Staff has in
the past recommended conditions that limit operations to mechanical repair and
service. Spray-painting, body work, gasoline sales and sale/rental of
vehicles should be prohibited. Hours of operation should be limited.
b. The character of the district would not be changed by the presence of
the garage - No other commercial uses exist in the immediate area. Approval
of this garage could set a precedent for other commercial uses in the area.
c. The g~rage would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and with the uses permitted by right in the district - A purpose of
the Zoning Ordinance is to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive,
and harmonious community. (Section 1.4.e). The Commission and Board should
consider whether the proposed conditions of approval adequately accompliSh
this purpose.
d. The garage would be consistent with the public health~ safety and welfare -
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that sight
distance to the south is about 200 feet and to the north is 150 feet. The
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommends a minimum sight
distance of 400 feet and commercial entrance. In order to obtain adequate sight
distance, the banks on either side of the existing entrance would need to be
graded and sloped. It does not appear that the applicant has adequate frontage
on Route 631 to accomplish this work; slope easements on adjoining properties
would likely be required. Additionally, the grade of the existing entrance may
be required to be reduced due to steepness.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends
the following conditions:
The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping
of vehicles. No bodywork or spray-painting of vehicles shall be
permitted. No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted;
2. Ail work shall be conducted within the garage;
439
November 16~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
Refuse
Not more than four (4) vehicles awaiting repair shall be parked on the
property outdoors at any time;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance;
No operation until site plan approval has been obtained and improvements
completed or bonded. Site plan to include buffering/screening as deemed
appropriate by the Planning Commission. Conditions #5 and #6 shall be met
prior to Commission review of the site plan;
Hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and no
operation of the garage on Sunday."
Mr. Keeler noted the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 3, 1983, recommended
approval of SP-83-?1 subject to the above eight conditions.
Mr. Fisher asked if a new building is to be constructed for this use. Mr. Keeler said
there is a private garage structure already in existence on the applicant's property, and it is
the building subject to the permit request. Mr. Fisher said there is nothing in the staff
report to tie the permit to the existing building, and asked if this is the intent of the staff
recommendation for approval. Mr. Keeler replied in the affirmative.
Miss Nash noted that Route 631 has a bad curve which makes it a dangerous road. She
asked if the commercial entrance requirement would create a more dangerous situation along this
road. Mr. Keeler said the critical factor in this case is sight distance.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Gentry came forward at the request of the Chairman.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Gentry intended to use the existing building on the property. Mr.
Gentry said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Gentry had any objection to a condition which speci-
fies that the existing building be used as a public garage and prohibits construction of
another building for that purpose. Mr. Gentry stated he had no objection.
With no one else present to address the above application, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said a condition should be added relating the permit to the existing building.
There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash,
to approve SP-83-71 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and
adding condition number 9 to read: "Operation is limited to the existing garage building."
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-83-77. Willis J. or Margaret M. Martin. Request to locate a publi
garage on 1.3 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located south side of private easement, 1000 feet
~e~t~.Qf-~R~t~ 20 South. County Tax Map 102, Parcel ii. Scottsville Magisterial District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1983.)
Mr. Keeler noted that the Martin application for a special permit shares a common feature
with Agenda Item No. 4 (Maynard Wood Jr., Preliminary Plat Appeal)~ in that both properties
have access over the same private access road. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission's
recommendations relative to Mr. Martin's request and Mr. Wood's request (to be heard next),
differ with respect to the road. Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
"Request: Public Garage (Section 10.2.2.37)
Acreage: 1.3 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Locations: Property described as Tax Map 102, Parcel ii, is located on a
private road west of Route 20 south.
Character of the Area:
The garage building was constructed as an accessory structure to a dwelling
located on an adjoining property. The garage is located on a private ease-
ment about 1,000 feet from Route 20 South; this easement currently serves
seven dwellings. The garage is visible from some of these dwellings.
Background
This special use permit petition seeks to correct a zoning violation of about
one and a half years duration. The applicant, who operated a non-conforming
body shop at another location, relocated his business to this site some time
prior to August, 1982.
440
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Staff Comment
The applicant, who has one part-time employee, stated that most of his work is
mechanical, although the County's Business License Division has the business
listed as Martin's Body Shop. The business is not listed in the telephone
directory. The applicant stated that the majority of his work is reconditioning
vehicles for auction sale (14 to 21 vehicles per year).
In the past, Staff has recommended that public garage uses are more appropriate
to designated growth areas of the Comprehensive Plan than to random location in
the rural areas. In SP-81-11, Edward Anderson, Staff stated that commercial use
of the property be evaluated in terms of appropriateness to the Rural Areas.
That is to say, a determination should be made as to whether or not the garage
would provide service to the area. This garage is remote from any growth area.
The applicant's prior location at Carter's Bridge (about seven miles) is the
closest garage.
Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the criteria for issuance
of a special use permit (Section 31.2.4.1) and offers the following commenvs:
a. The garase would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property -
In an attempt to make such uses unobtrusive in rural locations, Staff has in
the past recommended conditions that limit operations to mechanical repair and
service. Spray-painting, body work, gasoline sales and sale/rental of vehicles
should be prohibited. Hours of operation should be limited.
b. The character of the district would not be changed by the presence of the
garage - No other commercial uses exist in the immediate area. Approval of
this garage could set a precedent for other commercial uses in the area.
c. The .garage would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and with the uses permitted by right in the district - A purpose of
the Zoning Ordinance is 'to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive,
and harmonious community.' (Section 1.4.3). The Commission and Board should
consider whether.the proposed conditions of approval adequately accomplish
this purpose.
d. The garage would be consistent with the public health~ safety and welfare -
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that 'sight
distance to the west on Route 20 is only 310 feet and a minimum of 550 would be
required. A vertical curve on Route 20 causes the sight distance problem and the
Department recommends a private street commercial entrance and a full width right
turn lane of 200 feet with a 200 foot taper lane.' While Staff has no objection
to home-oriented business uses on private roads (i.e., home occupation; limited
scale day care), uses of a purely commercial nature should not be permitted on
private residential roads. Such use would be contrary to the interest of other
property owners on t~e road, since pro-rata maintenance would be difficult to
determine. If such use were to be permitted, the County could be faced with
demands for road improvement at some future date by current or subsequent property
owners. (While Staff does not support location of a public garage in a residential
subdivision, the applicant has obtained signatures in support of his petition from
several property owners along the private road.)
If approved, Staff would recommend that the road be upgraded to State standards
and dedicated to public use. An alternative would be to require a 20 foot paved
travelway (as required in the site plan ordinance) with appropriate maintenance
agreements. Staff does nov think it appropriate to permit this commercial use on
a private road without consent of all property owners served by the road.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends
the following conditions:
The public garage use shall be limited to the repairing and equipping of
vehicles. No bodywork or spray-painting of vehicles shall be permitted.
No gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted.
2. Ail work shall be conducted within the garage;
e
No outside storage of parts including junk parts and junk cars.
awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers;
Refuse
Not more than four (4) vehicles awaiting repair shall be parked on the
property outdoors at any time;
5. Fire and Building Official approval;
6. Health Department approval;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans
and commercial entrance;
Current operation shall cease until site plan approval has been obtained
and improvements completed or bonded. Site plan to include buffering/
screening as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Conditions
#5, #6 and #7 shall be met prior to Commission review of the site plan;
Hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and no
operation of the garage on Sunday."
44!
November 16~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Keeler presented the Board with photographs of Mr. Martin's building. He stated that
the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 3, 1983, unanimously recommended approval
of the above-referenced special permit subject to the nine conditions recommended by staff with
one exception. The condition prohibiting bodywork or spray-painting and limiting the public
garage use to repairing and equipping of vehicles was not a condition recognized by the
Commission, but was changed to read: "no gasoline sales or sale or rental of vehicles shall be
permitted." This decision is based on the nature of Mr. Martin's work which demands both
spray-painting and repairing and equipping of vehicles. Mr. Keeler noted that as with the
prior application, this approval does not speak directly to the existing garage building nor
limit the size of the building.
Mr. Fisher asked if it is the applicant's intent to use the existing building. Mr. Keeler
said yes, but he did not know if the applicant intended to expand the existing structure. Mr.
Lindstrom asked why the staff recommended no spray-painting as a condition of approval and the
Planning Commission voted to negate this condition. Mr. Keeler answered that Mr. Ira Cortez,
the Fire Prevention Officer, expressed concern regarding spray-painting as this represents a
fire hazard of an explosive nature. Mr. Keeler stated that Mr. Martin is aware of Mr. Cortez'
requirements regarding spray-painting. Under prior Zoning Ordinance provisions, bodyshops were
permitted only in heavy industrial districts as special permit uses. Staff has pointed out to
the Planning Commission in the past that the definition of public garage in the current Zoning
Ordinance is very comprehensive and includes a number of activities not supported by Staff in
any rural location. Mr. Lindstrom noted there were several undeveloped lots as well as exist-
ing residences in relatively close proximity to the existing garage. Mr. Keeler stated that
there are nine houses using this private road, and he did not know if the two lots fronting on
Route 631 use this road.
Miss Nash asked if the Martin request involves the same exit onto Route 20 as the Wood
request to be heard next, and if t~he conditions requiring upgrading of the road would apply to
both Mr. Martin and Mr. Wood. Mr. Keeler said that condition #7 requires that Mr. Martin
upgrade the road from his building out to Route 20, to state road requirements. In Mr. Wood's
case, the conditions of approval require that the road be upgraded to County private road
standards. Miss Nash noted the requirement on the Wood plat for a deceleration lane. Mr.
Keeler said that the Highway Department recommended additional sight distance for both the Wood
and Martin petitions as well as a deceleration lane. The Highway Department recommendations
for both cases is the same.
Mr. Lindstrom referred to a memorandum from Mr. Jesse Hurt, dated October 19, 1983 (copy
of memo is on file in the Clerk's Office) in which Mr. Hurt mentions a complaint registered by
a Mr. Thomas concerning the use of the existing garage as a commercial operation. Mr. Keeter
said that Mr. Thomas is a property owner in the area but does not live on this road.
Mr. Fisher clarified the Planning Commission's recommendations that the private road be
brought up to state standards with a commercial entrance, the intent being to bring the road
into the State system from the point where the garage is located to Route 20. Mr. Fisher then
asked Mr. Keeter to present the Maynard Wood Preliminary Plat appeal which is the nex~ item on
the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing. Appeal: Maynard Wood, Jr., Preliminary Plat.
(Preliminary Subdivision Plat of 2.00 acres, a portion of parcel lC Tax Map 102, Scottsville
District, prepared by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated September 15, 1983).
Mr. Keeler presented the following staff report:
"Location:
Zoning:
Proposal:
Located off the west side of Route 20 about three
miles south of the intersection with Route 742
Scottsville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 102,
Parcel lC)
RA, Rural Areas
To create one 2.00 acre parcel, leaving 9.92 acres
in residue.
Reason for Plannin$ Commission Review: Parcel served by private easement.
Topography of Area: Moderate slopes.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 20 carries an
average of 2,200 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable
by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Property is located in Rural Area IV and
recommended for two-acre density.
Type Utilities: No public utilities available.
Staff Comment:
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommends a private
street commercial entrance, as the current entrance serves six to ten
residences. A full width right turn lane of 200 feet and a 200 foot taper
are also recommended. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
commented that only 310 feet of sight distance exists to the west of this
entrance, minimum sight distance should be 550 feet.
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting0_
The County Engineer commented that aZthough the existing gravel road is in
fair condition, he recommends the road be upgraded to meet current private
road standards. During field inspection of this property and access road,
four residences were located which share the road from the Wood property to
Route 20. Additionally, an automotive garage is in operation on the parcel
across the road from the Wood property. The Planning Commission will review
a special use permit for this business on November 3, 1983. A maintenance
agreement exists between some of the property owners along the right-of-way.
The applicant has obtained written Health Department approval, and submitted
a topographic overlay indicating slopes of greater than 25 percent as well as
buildable areas.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission waive Section 18-36(c)1,
private road standards, of the Subdivision Ordinance. This section of the
ordinance specifies a private road serving six to ten lots should have a travel
width of 14 feet with 6 inch compacted stone base and surface treatment of prime
and double seal.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission waive
ali the recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation, Section 18-37(o) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
This final plat will meet the requirements of Section 18 of the subdivision
ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The final plat will not be signed unt~t the following conditions have
been met by the applicant:
a)
b)
c)
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance onto Route 20;
County Engineer approval of private road provisions;
County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement."
Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 25, 1983 recommended
approval of the request subject to the above three conditions, but did not grant the two
waivers requested by the applicant, and this is the basis of Mr. Wood's appeal to the Board of
Supervisors. The reason Mr. Wood is appealing the preliminary plat is because the Planning
Commission authorized staff to approve the final plat once the conditions are met.
Mr. Fisher asked if some individuals living along the road in question are already partie:
to a maintenance agreement. Mr. Keeler said yes. Mr. Fisher said that since both Mr. Martin
and Mr. Wood's requests are related by the common road serving both, he would suggest hearing
both requests before the Board acts on either one. Mr. Fisher then asked for Mr. Willis
Martin to come forward.
Mr. Martin said that if he is forced to comply with the conditions set down by the
Planning Commission, he would have no alternative but to turn in his business license and work
for himself. He cannot afford to upgrade the road in accordance with Highway Department
specifications. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Martin is doing spray-painting and body work and Mr.
Martin replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fisher asked if there is a dwelling on this same
parcel. Mr. Martin indicated that the residence is on the adjacent lot. Mr. Fisher asked the
size of the garage building. Mr. Martin said the garage building is 30 feet by 50 feet, large
enough to accommodate four cars. Mr. Fisher asked when the garage was constructed. Mr. Marti~
said he built the garage in 1981 or 1982 and that the structure, and all wiring, was inspected
Mr. Fisher noted that this size structure seemed rather large for a private garage and asked i:
the building permit was issued for a private garage. Mr. Martin answered yes. Mr. Lindstrom
referred to the memorandum from Mr. Jesse Hurt dated October 19, 1983 which indicated the
garage was to be used for residential purposes only.
With no one else present to address SP-83-77, the public hearing was closed and the matte:
placed before the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said that even without the road situation, he would be concerned about
permitting a public garage in an established residential area. He referred to the staff repor
which noted concern regarding spray-painting and the possible fire hazard this represents. He
feels he cannot support the request because of the inappropriat~eness of the use in a resi-
dential area. Mr. Lindstrom referred to the memorandum from Mr. Jesse Hurt, dated October 19,
1983 as follows:
"In reference to Ron Keeler's memo of October 14, 1983, the following
information is provided:
Mr. Martin applied for a building permit for a detached garage on
September 24, 1981. The permit and plans were approved and the permit
issued on October 1, 1981. This garage was to be used for residential
use only. The final building inSpection was made and the Certificate
of Occupancy permit was issued on February 24, 1982 for a detached
garage for residential use.
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeti.ng)
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Mr. Henley said that while he does not think a public, garage is appropriate to the
location, he would like to see Mr. Martin be able to restore cars privately. Miss Nash said
she would like to see Mr. Martin be able to make use of the garage as a lesser use.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing on the Maynard Wood, Jr. preliminary plat appeal,
noting that the staff report has already been presented by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Fisher noted the
applicant's objection to the requirement that a road be constructed to meet the standards for
private roads as set out in the County's current subdivision ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained
that the applicant is appealing upgrading the road to the current standards, and all of the
recommendations of the Highway Department, so is seeking relief from Section 18-37 of the
Subdivision Ordinance as well as the private road standards.
Mr. Maynard Wood, Jr. said the requirements of the Highway Department for the entrance
onto Rou~e 20 are unreasonable considering the fact that he is only selling two acres of land.
Mr. Wood said in the twenty years he has lived on this property, there has never been an
automobile accident pulling out of the driveway into Route 20. Where this private road enters
Route 20, Route 20 used to run in another direction and the currenv problem was created when
the Highway Department rerouted the road. Mr. Wood said several years ago several property
owners requested that a sign be placed below the curve where the school bus stops, but the
Highway Department said it was not dangerous enough to justify a sign at that point. There
are currently eight residences using the driveway; only one more residence is being considered
With regards to the road itself, Mr. Wood said it cannot be widened to the County's speci-
fications because the right-of-way which goes by Mr. Johnson's property has no specific width.
Conformance to county standards would require purchasing land from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Wood feet~
that for two acres, the Highway Department's requirements are inappropriate and unreasonable.
Mr. Wood then referred to the maintenance agreement requirement stating that most of the
people living along the road are related and were granted these lots by one family member. Thc
outsiders living along the road have a road maintenance agreement written into their deeds.
However, the family members have traditionally taken care of the road by verbal agreement.
Mr. Fisher asked specifically what must be done to bring the road to county standards.
Mr. Wood replied the County requirements are for the road to have a minimum of foUrteen feet
travel width, with six inches of gravel and prime and double seal. The present width is -
approximately twelve to fourteen feet with the exception of the area near the Johnson property
where the right-of-way is narrower. Mr. Wood said he is planning to sell the lot to Mr. Pete
Morris who is aware of the maintenance agreement and is willing to have this made a part of hit
deed. Mr. Wood added that he does not plan to subdivide his land any further. Mr. Fisher said
his concern is of a general nature - at what point does addition of just one more lot to a
private road warrant improvement of a road? Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wood if he had any
objection to adding a condition of approval to his request that no further subdivision of his
land will be permitted. Mr. Wood stated he had no objection.
Mr. Wood said that with regard to sight distance on Route 20, the road itself is in the
way. In order to gain the proper sight distance as recommended by the Department of Highways
and Transportation, the road would have to be lowered at the entrance because it is difficult
to see over the existing hump. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt what would have to be done a'
the entrance in order to obtain Highway Department approval. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department is recommending that sight distance be improved to 550 feet. He agreed with Mr.
Wood that this would involve grading the road. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board should consider
this issue as though the road were part of a new subdivision. Mr. Fisher noted that gaining
the required sight distance would require a private individual to reconstruct a portion of the
state highway. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged this to be fact. Miss Nash asked who would bear
the cost of this work. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the responsibility would rest entirely with
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to estimate the cost of reconstructing the portion of
Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said he did nov know. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler how many lots
having access to the private road in question are large enough for further division. Mr.
Keeler said there might be another five or six parcels using that private access which are
large enough for further division.
Mr. Fisher asked where the road actually stops. Mr. Wood answered that the road
physically stops on the large tract of land owned by his mother-in-law, Stella Morris. Mr.
Wood added that he did not intend to subdivide the five-acre tract being discussed. That trac
did convain a mobile trailer which has now been moved off, so a septic tank and well are
already on the lot and Mr. Wood plans to build only on this five acres.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if approving the request based on Mr. Wood's offer to
forego further ~subdivision on his lot, would be an enforceable arrangement. Mr. St. John said
yes, adding that this would not preclude a future Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission
from reversing this arrangement. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Wood if he lives on the road in questior
Mr. Wood answered yes. Mr. Henley said he will support a motion along the lines Mr. Lindstrom
mentioned. However, he did not think Mr. Wood should be required to try and execute a
maintenance agreement with all of the property owners on the road.
At this point, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the preliminary plat waiving the
improvement requirements but nov the maintenance agreement, based on Mr. Wood's verbal agree-
ment to waive further development rights on Parcel lC and Parcel iA, Tax Map 102. Mr. Lindstr¢
then asked Mr. Wood if he agreed with the motion. Mr. Wood asked how he would get a mainte-
nance agreement put into effect. Mr. Henley asked why maintenance of the road cannot be
included as a deed restriction. Mr. Wood said he thinks that all of the deeds for properties
on this road, except for the first three lots, have a note in the deed about road maintenance.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Johnson has an outlet on this private road. Mr. Wood said the
right-of-way of the road is entirely on Mr. JJohnson's property.
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeti,ng)
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Mr. Henley said that while he does not think a public garage is appropriate to the
location, he would like to see Mr. Martin be able to restore cars privately. Miss Nash said
she would like to see Mr. Martin be able to make use of the garage as a lesser use.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing on the Maynard Wood, Jr. preliminary plat appeal,
noting that the staff report has already been presented by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Fisher noted the
applicant's objection to the requirement that a road be constructed to meet the standards for
private roads as set out in the County's current subdivision ordinance. Mr. Keeler explained
that the applicant is appealing upgrading the road to the current standards, and all of the
recommendations of the Highway Department, so is seeking relief from Section 18-37 of the
Subdivision Ordinance as well as the private road standards.
Mr. Maynard Wood, Jr. said the requirements of the Highway Department for the entrance
onto Route 20 are unreasonable considering the fact that he is only selling two acres of land.
Mr. Wood said in the twenty years he has lived on this property, there has never been an
automobile accident pulling out of the driveway into Route 20. Where this private road enters
Route 20, Route 20 used to run in another direction and the current problem was created when
the Highway Department rerouted the road. Mr. Wood said several years ago several property
owners requested that a sign be placed below the curve where the school bus stops, but the
Highway Department said it was not dangerous enough to justify a sign at that point. There
are currently eight residences using the driveway; only one more residence is being considered
With regards to the road itself, Mr. Wood said it cannot be widened to the County's speci-
fications because the right-of-way which goes by Mr. Johnson's property has no specific width.
Conformance to county standards would require purchasing land from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Wood feet~
that for two acres, the Highway Department's requirements are inappropriate and unreasonable.
Mr. Wood then referred to the maintenance agreement requirement stating that most of the
people living along the road are related and were granted these lots by one family member. Thc
outsiders living along the road have a road maintenance agreement written into their deeds.
However, the family members have traditionally taken care of the road by verbal agreement.
Mr. Fisher asked specifically what must be done to bring the road to county standards.
Mr. Wood replied the County requirements are for the road to have a minimum of fourteen feet
travel width, with six inches of gravel and prime and double seal.. The present width is
approximately twelve to fourteen feet with the exception of the area near the Johnson property
where the right-of-way is narrower. Mr. Wood said he is planning to sell the lot to Mr. Pete
Morris who is aware of the maintenance agreement and is willing to have this made a part of hi
deed. Mr. Wood added that he does nov plan to subdivide his land any further. Mr. Fisher sai(
his concern is of a general nature - at what point does addition of just one more lot to a
private road warrant improvement of a road? Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Wood if he had any
objection to adding a condition of approval to his request that no further subdivision of his
land will be permitted. Mr. Wood stated he had no objection.
Mr. Wood said that with regard to sight distance on Route 20, the road itself is in the
way. In order to gain the proper sight distance as recommended by the Department of Highways
and Transportation, the road would have to be lowered at the entrance because it is difficult
to see over the existing hump. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt what would have to be done at
the entrance in order to obtain Highway Department approval. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department is recommending that sight distance be improved to 550 feet. He agreed with Mr.
Wood that this would involve grading the road. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board should consider
this issue as though the road were part of a new subdivision. Mr. Fisher noted that gaining
the required sight distance would require a private individual to reconstruct a portion of the
state highway. Mr. Roosevelt acknowledged this to be fact. Miss Nash asked who would bear
the cost of this work. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the responsibility would rest entirely with
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt to estimate the cost of reconstructing the portion of
Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not know. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Keeler how many lots
having access to the private road in question are large enough for further division. Mr.
Keeler said there might be another five or six parcels using that private access which are
large enough for further division.
Mr. Fisher asked where the road actually stops. Mr. Wood answered that the road
physically stops on the large tract of land owned by his mother-in-law, Stella Morris. Mr.
Wood added that he did not intend to subdivide the five-acre tract being discussed. That trac~
did contain a mobile trailer which has now been moved off, so a septic tank and well are
already on the lot and Mr. Wood plans to build only on this five acres.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if approving the request based on Mr. Wood's offer to
forego further subdivision on his lot, would be an enforceable arrangement. Mr. St. John said
yes, adding that this would not preclude a future Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission
from reversing this arrangement. Mr. Henley asked Mr. Wood if he lives on the road in questiol
Mr. Wood answered yes. Mr. Henley said he will support a motion along the lines Mr. Lindstrom
mentioned. However, he did not think Mr. Wood should be required to try and execute a
maintenance agreement with all of the property owners on the road.
At this point, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve the preliminary plat waiving the
improvement requirements but not the maintenance agreement, based on Mr. Wood's verbal agree-
ment to waive further development rights on Parcel lC and Parcel iA, Tax Map 102. Mr. Lindstr¢
then asked Mr. Wood if he agreed with the motion. Mr. Wood asked how he would get a mainte-
nance agreement put into effect. Mr. Henley asked why maintenance of the road cannot be
included as a deed restriction. Mr. Wood said he thinks that all of the deeds for properties
on this road, except for the first three lots, have a note in the deed about road maintenance.
Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Johnson has an outlet on this private road. Mr. Wood said the
right-of-way of the road is entirely on Mr. Johnson's property.
445
NDvember 16~ 1982 fRegular Night MeetqnX)
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to grant the waiver requested with the exception that
the requirement of a maintenance agreement be applicable to the lot that is being created only
and the nine-acre residue, maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney's Office
on the condition that the applicant waives his development rights on the balance of Parcel lC
and Parcel iA, Tax Map 102. After several suggestions from the County Attorney as to language,
Mr. Lindstrom reworded the motion to state: Waive conditions A and B of the Planning
Commission regarding road improvements, and modify condition C to read: "County Attorney
approval of road maintenance agreement applicable to parcel iA, the new parcel to be divided,
and parcel lC on Tax Map 102; and that the applicant waives further development rights on the
balance-of parcel lC and parcel iA; and this to be noted on the plat to be put to record."
This final version of the motion was seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 5, ZMA-83-14, Lucilte Tirrell, and Agenda Item No 6, ZMA-83-!6, Ruth
Morris, both being contiguous parcels of land under the same family ownership and both request-
ing the same rezoning, were heard together.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-83-14. Lucille Tirrell. Request to rezone 5 acres (Parcel 9D)
and 4.020 acres (Parcel 9E) from LI Light Industrial to RA Rural Areas. Located off private
easement 600 feet east of Route 606, 2200 feet north of its intersection with Route 649.
County Tax Map 32. RiVanna Magisterial District. (AdvertiSed in the Daily Progress on
November 1 and November 8, 1983).
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-83-t6. Ruth Morris. Request to rezone 2.30 acres from LI Light
Industrial to RA Rural Areas. Located off private easement 600 feet east of Route 606, 2200
feet north of its intersection with Route 649. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 9D(1). Rivanna
Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and November 8, 1983).
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report, which was prepared by the Planning Department
as a joint application:
"ZMA-83-14 Lucille Tirrell (9.02 acres)
ZMA-83-16 Ruth Morris (2.30 acres)
Re. quested Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Acreage: 11.32 acres
Existing Zoning: LI Light Industrial
Location: Properties, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 9D, 9E and
9D(1), are located on a private road to the east of Route 606
across from the north end of the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Airport.
Character of the Area
These properties, located in a moderately wooded area, are developed with
two dwellings. Property adjacent to the west, owned by the airport, is
vacant, undeveloped, and zoned Rural Areas. Property to the east is zoned
Rural Areas. To the north are vacant properties zoned Light Industrial and
PD-IP Planned Development - Industrial Park. Three single-family dwellings
on small lots are to the south, as is Crutchfield Enterprises; these
properties are zoned Light Industrial.
Comprehensive Plan~ Airport Master Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends industrial development in this area. The
Airport Master Plan proposes relocation of Route 606 westward. Airport
property in this area is not proposed for development. The 1990 Noise
Forecast shows this as an area of "significant exposure" (Ldn 65-75) not
particularly suited to residential use. The Airport Impact Area regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance require special noise attentuation construction for
residential uses.
Staff Comment
The Tirrell family has lived in this area several years. Currently Mrs.
Tirrell and her daughter, Mrs. Morris, have dwellings on these properties.
The purpose of this rezoning is to make these existing dwellings conforming
and permit another daughter to construct her home.
Based on strict analysis under the Comprehensive Plan, Airport Master Plan
and Zoning Ordinance only, staff could not recommend favorably on these
petitions..~[However, Staff opinion is that the issue is reasonably debatable,
based on the following comments:
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)___~
1. The airport property to the west and Crutchfield Enterprises and
dwellings to the south pose no problems in terms of incompatible use.
Buffer areas are proposed within the undeveloped industrial park;
2. While these properties are zoned in accordance With the Comprehensive
Plan (i.e. Light Industrial), the COunty cannot require their development.
Substantial vacant industrial land is available in the area;
3. The Zoning Ordinance requires noise attentuation construction and
disclosure statements on subdivision plats. Most other properties adjacent
to the airport are zoned Rural Areas;
4. Generally, Staff views residential use of land by its owner as a
reasonable use which should be afforded by zoning so long as such use is
not clearly contrary to the public interest.
Should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on these petitions,
Staff would recommend that subsequent residential development of these
properties be available only to the extent necessary to accommodate the
applicants' family."
Mr. Keeier noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 3, 1983, voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the above applications as requested.
The public hearing was opened. Ms. Lucille Tirrell (presently Mrs. Miller) said she had
lived on the property for 31 years. Her daughter, Mrs. Morris, also owns 2.30 acres which is
requested to be rezoned. Her purpose in requesting the rezoning is so her younger daughter ca~
build a house on the property. Mrs. Brown, the younger daughter of Mrs. Miller, represented
Mrs. Morris and said her intent is to build a home on the property.
With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by
Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve both ZMA-83-14 and ZMA-83-16 as recommended
by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr; Butler.
Agenda Item No. 8. Vacation of Ashmere Subdivision (Deferred from November 9, 1983).
Mr. Leroy Hamlett, attorney for the bankruptcy court, said a contract has been signed witt
A. G. Dillard Paving Company for construction of the road. Mr. Hamlett told the Board that a
completion date of December 11, 1983 can be anticipated. The money for completion of the road
is available in a trust account controlled by Mr. Hamlett. Mr. Hamlett said the amount of
money in trust is $500 less than the contract with Dillard Paving Company, however, Mr. Maynar(
Elrod has stated there is more than that amount remaining from the bond funds which will cover
the additional cost. Mr. St. John recommended that the vacation of the Ashmere plat not be
consummated on Mr. Hamlett's assurance that the money will be used to pay for the paving
contract and his belief that~the contract will be fulfilled. Mr. St. John further recommended
that the ordinance be deferred until January 11, 1984 in order that the Board can review a
report concerning the status of the road construction at that time. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to defer the ordinance for vacation of a portion of Ashmere
subdivision to January 11, 1984 with a report due at that time as to the status of road con-
struction. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-83-3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 4.12.6.5(e) as
related to handicapped parking provisions. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1
and November 8, 1983.)
Mr. Keeler said the idea for this amendment originated with the Fire Official. Its
purpose is to change the parking requirements related to handicapped parking to comply with
1983 BOCA requirements. The current zoning ordinance provisions require a twelve-foot parking
space width for handicapped parking spaces. The new BOCA provisions require less width but
require an adjacent five-foot access aisle. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on Octobe:
11, 1983, adopted a resolution of intent to amend certain sections of the Zoning Ordinance
related to handi, capped parking. On November 3, 1983, the Planning Commission voted unanimousl
to recommend to the Board of Supervisors, the following amendment to the Zoning Ordinance:
(Mr. Henley left at 9:28 P.M.)
4.12.6.5(e)
~e-¢e~e~e&~-~e~w&~e~a~&~ The minimum width for
handicapped parking spaces shall be Swe&~e-~&~'~'_.'eight
(8) feet with an adjacent five (5) foot Wide access
aisle. ~e-~m~e~-e~a~-be-&~-aeee~a~ee-w&~-~e
~A-Ge~e-a~-~eea~&e~-e~-e~e~-e~aeee-e~a&&-~e-e~ee~
~e-A~ema~e-Ge~-~e-Q~&e~a~-a~e~a&. The
number~ location~ siEnage~ and other specific, ations
of handicapped parking shall be subject to Albemarle
County fire official approval in accordance with the
Statewide Uniform Building Code requirements.
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. John Carter commented that in applying for a
handicapped parking sticker, there is nothing available for someone who is temporarily
handicapped. Mr. Carter questioned the five-foot access aisle and wondered about the actual
mechanics of this requirement. Mr. Keeler noted that the number of spaces to be provided has
been increased to three percent of all parking spaces in any given facility. Mr. Lindstrom
said his concern is with regard to the required aisle on each side of the parking space which
would mean one extra aisle regardless of the number of parking spaces. Mrs. Cooke wondered if
there is really a need for additional handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Keeler said that the
State has determined there is a need for additional handicapped parking spaces. Mrs. Joan
Graves said she had spoken with Mr. Ira B. Cortez, the Fire Prevention Officer, who told her
the three percent figure is being studied, as this would mean an additional 165 handicapped
parking spaces for Fashion Square Mall. With no one else to speak on this proposed amendment,
the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that the wording suggested by the Planning Commission concerning the
five-foot wide access aisle needs to be qualified. He suggested that these access aisles be
provided on each side of the handicapped parking spaces and shared between adjacent spaces.
Mr.. Lindstrom felt this would provide necessary and adequate access between parking spaces and
eliminate excess space. Mr. Lindstrom suggested adding the words: "to be provided on each side
of such handicapped parking space. Access aisles may be shared between adjacent handicapped
parking spaces", and then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 4.12.6.5, sub-section (e), of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
4.12.6.5 PARKING SPACE SIZE
(e)
The minimum width for handicapped parking spaces shall be
eight (8) feet with an adjacent five (5) foot wide access
aisle to be provided on each side of such handicapped
parking space. Access aisles may be shared between
adjacent handicapped parking spaces. The number, location,
signage, and other specifications of handicapped parking
shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval
in accordance with the Statewide Uniform Building Code
requirements.
The motion previously offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the aforementioned ordinance was
seconded by Miss Nash. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-83-6. Amend the Zoning Ordinance in Section 5.6.1.1.(d) as
related to notification for mobile homes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 1 and
November 8, 1983).
Mr. Keeler explained that the County Attorney's office has indicated that past notificatio
procedures for mobile home applications have been incorrect. The purpose of this proposed
amendment is to attempt to maintain current application scheduling which is seven to eight
weeks from the time an application is filed until it is heard by the Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors, if the permit is appealed. This amendment will also reduce the waiting
period for administrative approval by approximately two weeks. The Planning Commission, at its
meeting on October 11, 1983, adopted a resolution of inten~ to amend Section 5.6.1.1(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance as it relates to notification for mobile homes. On November 3, 1983, the
Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board of Supervisors, the following
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance:
By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper
of general circulation in the county not less than
$~-~ fifteen (15) nor more than ~-~$~
thirty (30) days prior to the proposed date of issuance
of such permit.
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Joan Graves asked if this proposed amendment alters
the number of notices in the newspaper. Mr. Fisher responded that the proposed amendment does
not change the number of notices but changes the lengt~ of time one must wait after advertisin
before a permit can be issued. With no one else present to speak on the proposed amendment,
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
ordinance:
BE IT' ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 5.6.1.1, sub-section (d), of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended and reenacted to read as
follows:
5.6.1.1 NOTIFICATION
(d)
By publication on at least one occasion in a newspaper
of general circulation in the county not less than
fifteen (15) nor more than thirty (30) days prior to
the proposed date of issuance of such permit.
November 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. ll(a). Public Hearing. Amendments to 1983/1984 County Budget:
Appropriation: CAC3-Recycling Center (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 8, 1983).
Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum dated October 26, 1983 from Melvin A. Breeden,
requesting the Board to appropriate $11,629 for the Clean Community Commission. Mr. Agnor
explained that the City and County have received the 1983-1984 grants from the Department of
Conservation and Economic Development - Division of Litter Control in the amount stated. In
the past these monies have been used by the CAC3 group for the recycling center. Mr. Agnor
noted the amount requested for appropriation is $5,000 less than it has been in previous years
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this budget
amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $11,629 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Grant Fund and coded to 1-1200-93000-930300 for the Clean
Community Commission.
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1983-1984
County Budget is hereby amended by the addition of $11~629 to the
following code:
2-1200-93000-800010
Clean Community Commission
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this
date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. ll(b) Public Hearing: Appropriation:
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 8, 1983).
Brinnington Road - Resurfacing
Mr. Agnor referred to the memorandum from Melvin A. Breeden, dated October 26, 1983
requesting an appropriation from the General Fund Balance in the amount of $4,896.01. The
money being requested for appropriation is from a bond called by the County in September, 1982
due to the failure of the developer to complete Brinnington Road. Bids have been taken for
completion of this project and an appropriation is necessary in order to proceed.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this budget
amendment, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virgina, that $4,896.01 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to code 1-1000-41000-309904 - Contracted
Services - Roads, for work on the road in Brinnington Subdivision due to
the failure of the developer to complete this project.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. County Government reorganization - Personnel.
Mr. Fisher said that at the November 9, 1983 meeting, the Board directed the Staff to
comprise a proposal dividing the County's general government departments into two divisions
with a deputy county executive responsible for each division and also to include separating
zoning administration from the Inspections Department to become a separate department.
Mr. Agnor referred to his memorandum addressed to the Board of Supervisors dated
November 10, 1983, as follows:
November 16~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
449
"In accordance with your instructions of November 9, attached is an organizational
chart dividing the County's general government departments into two proposed
divisons, with a deputy county executive responsible for each division, namely:
1) Division of Administration and Public Safety comprised of the departments
of Finance, Data Processing, Staff Services and Police.
2) Division of Physical and Human Development comprised of the departments of
Engineering, Inspections, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Community Development,
Social Services, Zoning, and the Office of Watershed Management. Zoning
administration would be separated from its present function in the Inspections
Department and be considered a separate department.
Liaison responsibilities of each division with County-City, Regional, and State
agencies are also listed on the proposed chart.
Job descriptions for inclusion in the County's Pay and Classification Plan for
the deputy county executive assigned to each division have been prepared for
your review and approval. Additionally a job description for a zoning
administrator is included, as well as revisions to the director and deputy
director of inspections job descriptions. Presently zoning administration is
a function of the director of inspections position, and the job description
separates zoning administration from the Inspections Department.
Amended job descriptions of existing positions are ~also included for your approval
which reflect department heads administrative relationships to the deputy executives,
assigns Animal Control as a function of the Police Department and corrects an error
in the Purchasing Agent's position which makes the position an administrative function
of the Finance Department where it has operated for several years, rather than the
County Executive as shown in the current description.
A salary range for the deputy executive positions has been calculated in the Pay
and Classification Plan to be a Range 34, and for the ~oning administrator to be
a Range 26. The salary ranges of other positions will not be affected by the
proposed changes. A Range 34 annual salary is $39,187 - $54,956, and a Range 26
annual salary is $26,261 - $37,281. It is the Staff's understanding that the Board
will appoint Ray Jones to be Deputy County Executive for Adminstration and Public
Safety in addition to his duties as Director of Finance, and that Robert Tucker will
be appointed Deputy County Executive for Physical and Human Development in addition
to his duties as Director of Planning and Community Development. It is proposed
that Mr. Jones continue as Director of Finance until June 30, 1984, and that Mr,
Tucker continue as Director of Planning and Community Development until the
separation of zoning administration has been accomplished, and is functioning
satisfactorily, estimated to require four to six months. Their assignments are
promotions in the County's Pay and Classification Plan and will increase their
salaries as follows:
Current Proposed
Ray Jones
Robert Tucker
Range/Step Salary Range/Step Salary
32-L $47,534 34-L $52,360
30-L $43,157 34-I $47,534
It is recommended that the Deputy Zoning Administrator, Andrew Evans, be appointed
as interim Zoning Administrator until the department is formed and the application
process completed for the department head position.
Budget amendments to accomplish the changes that you approve will be provided at
your next meeting."
Mr. Fisher briefly discussed the changes the County has undergone since 1972 when he
became a Board member stating the population has increased from 38,600 to about 58,000 in that
period. He noted the increased demands which have been placed on the position of County
Executive with the addition of Building Inspections, Parks and Recreation, Watershed Management
Data Processing and increased activities in planning. Mr. Fisher said he had not considered
this increased activity until Mr. Agnor's recent illness, and when he sat down and looked at
the number of department heads reporting to the County Executive, in addition to the number of
outside agencies reporting to him and the various boards and commissions he is required to
attend, he was astounded. He feels the addition of the two deputies will provide a better
organization for the county for services, and possibly quicker decisions. Both deputies will
have the authority to make decisions for all of the departments under their responsibility.
Mr. Fisher said he does not feel this action should be taken for the person holding office now,
but for any person the Board may hire in the future.
Motion was offered at this time by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the amendments to the Pay and
Classification Plan as set forth in the attachment to Mr. Agnor's memorandum dated November 10,
1983, and the organizational chart also attached. This motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
450
November 16~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeti~
Mr. John Carter interrupted and chastized Mr. Fisher for not inviting public comments.
Mr. Fisher invited Mr. Carter to speak. Mr. Carter referred to an article in the Daily Progre:
which stated that the cost of this reorganization will be about $125,000. He demanded to know
the "bottom line" costs of creating these two new positions. Both Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Agnor
attempted to quell his concerns by assuring Mr. Carter that the figure quoted was fairly
indicative of the total costs involved. Mr. Carter would not be placated. Mr. Lindstrom
reiterated that the figure quoted by the Daily Progress is a close estimate of the costs. Mr.
Carter then asked if this reorganization was the subject discussed at the many recent executiw
sessions. Mr. Fisher acknowledged that this was so. Mr. Lindstrom once more attempted to -
assuage Mr. Carter's anger by assuring him that the quoted figure is all the information
available to the Board, and in so far as Mr. Lindstrom is aware, this is the only cost involve~
At some point in the future a Zoning Administrator will be hired, but that salary information
is not known at the present time.
Mr. Rick Bowie, supervisor-elect, expressed his concern over expanding a large staff in
order to eliminate control problems. He feels the figure quoted is only the beginning of the
costs. He mentioned the costs of secretarial positions for the new deputies, furniture, and
suggested a more likely cost of between $300,000 and $500,000. He feels that within the next
six months the County will be short at least that amount £~r school appropriations, for the
capital budget or the police and that this is not the time to execute a reorganization.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the present County Executive has worked virtually without
assistance during a period of time when the County has grown by almost 20,000 people. He
regrets this reorganization did not occur sooner. Mrs. Cooke stated her support of the
reorganization. Miss Nash said she supported the proposal and could not in good conscience
oppose it. Mr. Lindstrom acknowledged Mr. Bowie's mention of the added costs for supporting
the two deputy positions and while he realizes that both deputy county executives will
require assistance at some point in the future, that cost cannot be calculated at the present
time. Mr. Lindstrom restated his belief in the necessity for this reorganization. Mr. Agnor
said there will be no additional clerical staff or support staff for the two deputies for
several years. He pointed out that the Board has, in the past, authorized the streamlining of
county operations by reducing the number of people answering to the County Executive and by
merging several offices into single departments.
With no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to appoint Ray B. Jones as
Deputy County Executive for Administration and Public Safety; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., as
Deputy County Executive for Physical and Human Development, both appointments to take effect
immediately; Mr. Jones is to remain as Director of Finance until June 30, 1984; Mr. Tucker is
to remain as Director of Planning and Community Development until such time as a suitable
replacement is found; and to appoint Andrew D. Evans as Acting Zoning Administrator until such
time as the job can be advertised and interviews held for this new position; all appointments
effective immediately. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler and Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: September 7, 1983.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not read the minutes of the September 7, 1983 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher mentioned a conversation with a county citizen having a problem with ~peopla
shooting on posted property off Rio Road near the Charlottesville/Albemarle Technical Educatio~
Center. Mr. Fisher had promised the citizen he would bring the matter before the Board. Mr.
Fisher said enforcement of posted signs on private property is the responsibility of the
property owner. However, hunting violations can be enforced by. game wardens and other police
officers. Mr. St. John said he would bring a list of all state and county ordinances regardint
hunting, shooting, use of firearms,~e~$~t~t~.next scheduled Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:12 P.M.
~~A I~MAN