1981-01-14.o2 /
January 14~ l~981~(Re,u~lar Day Mee~~
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on January
14, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Char-
lottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M. Mr.
Fisher announced that Mr. Lindstrom would not be present at today's meeting because of an
illness in the family.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Fisher noted that the minutes of March
5, 1980 (Night), were to be read by Mr. Lindstrom and suggested those be carried over.
Dr. Iachetta said in the minutes of April 2, 1980, he noted only one small correction,
that being in the second paragraph on page 422, the sentence reading "She hoped that the
Board would open to the public at an advertised public hearing .... " Dr. Iachetta said
adding the word "to" makes the sentence more complete.
Miss Nash said she had not completed the minutes of May 7, 1980, and wished to have
those carried forward. Mr. Fisher said he had read the minutes of June 4, 1980, and found
no errors or changes he wished to make.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the
minutes of April 2 and June 4, 1980, as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Route 631 (from Route 29 North to Hydraulic
Road) Project. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. Dan Roosevelt of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated December 19, 1980:
"In 1978, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requested the Department
to develop plans for Rio Road from its intersection with Route 29 to its
~nt~e~o~ with Hydraulic Road. These plans were to be used bY the
County to influence developers to dedicate right of way and construct
improvements along the ultimate alignment for Rio Road.
The Department has recently held a preliminary field inspection on the
survey for this section. The Department is recommending a four lane
undivided curb and gutter cross section for the improvement. Since this is
an urban area we are also recommending sidewalk. Department policy con-
cerning curb and gutter improvements in counties is that the cost of the
storm sewer system will be divided between the County and the State on the
basis of runoff ratio. It is, therefore, the purpose of this letter to
request the County's agreement to participate in the cost of the Storm
sewer system. I request that this matter be included in a future Board
agenda.
Construction of sidewalk along curb and gutter projects must also have the
support of the local jurisdiction. Department policy is that right of way
necessary for the construction of the sidewalk beyond normal right of way
limits will be at the cost of the local jurisdiction. The construction
cost of the sidewalk is borne equally between the State and the County. I
am requesting the County's desires concerning sidewalk and some indication
of the locations where it is desired, if any."
Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Director of Planning, dated January 9, 1981:
"In response to Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt's letter of December 19, 1980,
concerning improvements to that portion of Rio Road referenced above, I
have the following recommendation with regard to sidewalks and bikeways.
As I have indicated in the past, my staff has recently completed prelim-
inary work on a Pathways Plan for the Urban Area. Based upon that Plan, I
would recommend that a sidewalk be constructed along the south side of Rio
Road only, between Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road. The need for a
bicycle lane or path in this area is not sufficient to warrant providing
such facilities."
Miss Nash asked if sidewalks would be placed on the north side of the road also. Mr.
Tucker said it could be done if the Board so desired, but he would not recommend sidewalks
beyond the SPCA Road because it would fall outside the urban area.
Mr. Roosevelt said no construction funds have been allocated to this project in the
Six Year Plan. He indicated that $50,000 has been allocated for the preparation of the
right of way plans, but no schedule has been set for the construction phase. Miss Nash
stated her concern that since the trend seems that development of this area will intensify,
she felt sidewalks on the north side were necessary. Dr. Iachetta asked if there were
some R-10 zoning in the area described by Miss Nash. Mr. Tucker said it is mostly off?the
~^.A ~. ~ ~A A~*~ ~ T~nhmttm ~id h~ wo~ld ~.~ree with Miss Na~h
02¸
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
is great potential for pedestrian traffic. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any existing
structures which would interfere with sidewalks on the north side. Mr. TUcker said there
are a few older homes on that side of the road which might be affected, but he suspected
that if development trends continued, those old buildings would be removed and new structures
would be built to conform to setback standards.
Mr. Fisher asked what Mr. Tucker would recommend as a proper sidewalk width. Mr.
Tucker suggested five feet on both sides of the road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would re-
commend four foot sidewalks with a one foot space between the curb and sidewalk, which
would allow space for mailboxes, etc.
Mr. Roosevelt explained the policy regarding storm sewers, stating that "where
construction of curb and gutter is desired and results in the necessity for storm sewer,
the cost of these storm sewers shall be financed from the Secondary Road Fund and other
sources on the basis of runoff ratios and percentages of participation as listed below:
The State would pay for 100% of the runoff within the right of way and
25% outside the right of way and others would pay for 75% outside the
right of way."
Mr. Roosevelt said he does not have estimates on the cost of the storm sewer system,
but would estimate that the majority of the system would fall within the State right of
way. Mr. Fisher said it is obvious that the densities and population in this area will
intensify substantially within the coming years and that it would be foolhardy not to have
the sidewalks and storm sewer system installed. Mr. Fisher said although it will be
difficult to finance such a project, it should be designed to the fullest potential. Dr.
Iachetta agreed with Mr. Fisher and offered motion that "the design .is to be one which has
sidewalks on the south side from Route 29 all the way around to the intersection with
Hydraulic and consistent with Mr. Dan Roosevelt's recommendation that-the al~lowance be
five (5) feet with the option that we go with a four (4) foot walk and leave one (1) foot
space between curb and walk and have the design include sidewalks on the north si~de from
Route 29 north to at least the SPCA Road. Storm sewers are to be included in the design."
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: HydrauIic Road Project. Mr. Fisher said he
has been receiving telephone calls from homeowners on the north side of Hydraulic Road who
are concerned about the proposed design. Mr. Fisher said the main problem is the question
of whether or not curb and gutter will be constructed on the north side of the road even
though the sidewalk has been eliminated. Mr. Fisher noted that representatives from the
Hydraulic Road Neighborhood Association were present, introducing Messrs. Logan, Scott,
Spears and Reverend Brown.
Mr. Alexander Scott spoke, representing the Hydraulic Road Neighborhood Association,
and requested consideration of the following concerns:
"1. As this project has proceeded over the last five or six years it was
explained and confirmed to us by Mr. Roosevelt's office, that curbs and
gutters would be placed on both sides of the road, and that changes from
the then preliminary plans would be presented, discussed and explained in
public meeting.
2. This last proposal and plan embracing options five and three, leaving
out the curbs and gutters on one side were brought to our attention by the
right of way agent, not by a public meeting as we were assured by Mr.
Roosevelt's office.
3. We were informed by Mr. Roosevelt's office that the department plans
to return at some later date (no time schedule given) to finish the job.
Gentlemen, a later date where minorities are concerned too often becomes
never and some of us probably will have quit these mundane shores before
finishing the project becomes a reality.
4. A half-finished job subjects citizens to a double dose of inconven-
iences, dust, wood - pre-painting, traffic congestion, etc. Our focus is
on the completed job on both sides of the road.
5. At the present time, when the snow and ice returns in winter, the cars
are already slipping, sliding, often landing on our lawns, knocking down
fences, mail boxes, and paper tubes. With the smaller front yards, without
curb and gutter impediments, the cars will be landing in our front rooms.
Please install these safety barriers!
6. Anyone who lives in the area is well acquainted with the excessive
flow of water during heavy rains. We note immediately the erosion of ditch
banks; in some cases basement-flooding, etc. The completed project would
deter or probably eliminate this hazard."
Mr. Henley said he did not like the incinuation that the Board was being discriminatory.
Mr. Fisher said he agreed, adding that the Board has gone out of its way not to con~emn
more land than needed in order to leave as much in yards as possible. Mr. Fisher said the
real question is whether or not curb and gutter will be used in this project. Mr. Roosevelt
gave a brief history of the project, but said the major problem is money and the lack of
funds to complete this construction. He said at the Board meeting of June tl, 1979,
several options were presented which would decrease the cost yet still build a portion of
024 ?
~anuary 14, 1981(Regular Day Meeting)
Whitewood Road, and have a ditch on the east side of the road. Also, an intersection
improvement at the point of Hydraulic and Rio Road was scheduled at that time. Mr.
Roosevelt said this was agreed upon as an interim step since the right of way and utilities
would be planned as for the four-lane project. Mr. Roosevelt added that he recommended
the curb, gutter and storm sewer system be placed on the east side of the road because
there are already some sewer lines on that side of the road.
Mr. Fisher said there are many things on the agenda this morning and asked if Dr.
Iachetta would work with Mr. Roosevelt and the homeowners to attempt to work out a solu-
tion and come back before the Board with a recommendation. Dr. Iachetta said he would be
willing to do that. Dr. Iachetta added that he felt the homeowners had a valid complaint
about doing only a portion of the project then years later coming back to complete the
job. He agreed that it would be a terrible inconvenience and would create serious pro-
blems for the property owners.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Highway Matters: Appeal, Polo Grounds Preliminary Plat.
(Dated August 19, 1980, revised September 17, 1980 and prepared by William S. Roudabush.
Subdivision part of Parcel 5A, Tax Map 95) Mr. Tucker reviewed the Planning Staff report
and Planning Commission recommendations, as well as the letter of appeal which follow
consecutively:
Location: Part of parcel 5A on tax map 95, Rivanna Magisterial District,
located south of 1-64, at the end of Mechunk Road, east of Route 616.
Acreage: 23+ acres in lots, 6.4 acres in a lake, and 30.8 acres residue,
for a total of 60.2 acres.
Zoning: A-l, Agricultural.
Proposal: To divide the 23+ acres into nine lots with an average size of
2.5 acres, leaving 30.8+ acres residue.
Topography of Area: Gently to moderately rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The section of Route 616 serving
Mechunk Road and this site carries 914 vehicle trips per day and is
listed as tolerable.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils are less than
--48" to bedrock with some areas being less than 20". The soils also
have a low pH.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation:
density recommended.
Other rural land with a two-acre
School Impact; Total projected enrollment of about five students with a
slight impact.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Staff Comment: Mechunk Road is a 50' dedicated right of way through it was
never built to State standards or accepted by the State for mainten-
ance. The Woodcreek final plat was approved by the Board of Super-
visors on April 9, 1980, with the condition that Mechunk Road be
improved to State standards from Route 616 to the intersection with
Harvestridge Way for acceptance into the State Secondary road system.
As of September 30, 1980, the Woodcreek plat has not been signed or
recorded. There are currently 17 lots in Mechunk Acres.
Staff has recommended that Mechunk Road and a portion of the shown
private road to a point approximately 150' east of the property line
between lots 4 and 5 be improved to State standards for acceptance in
the State system. This division of nine lots, if approved, will bring
the total number of lots with access on Mechunk Road to 28 lots.
Adding the 31 approved lots in Woodcreek and the 15 lots potential of
the residue, the total reaches 72 lots and 504 vehicle trips per day.
If State standards are required, Category II or III standard is
necessary with 20-22 feet of pavement and a minimum of 40' right of
way.
In contrast, private road standards for 28 lots requires 18' of
pavement and a 30' right of way. Private road standards for 72 lots
would be similar to the State standards discussed above in pavement
width and strength.
The Highway Department commented that the entrance to Route 616 should
be improved to commercial standards with a turn lane (100' long, 100'
taper, 12' wide). Sight distance is adequate. The Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways and Transportation cannot require the existing
commercial entrance to be upgraded to current standards, however, the
Cormmission does have discretion in this and compliance with the
current Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards
has been recommended by the Staff.
The Woodcreek Final Plat shows a 50' right of way to Route 250 re-
served for the use of the previous owner of the "Polo Grounds" Pro-
perty. Staff has recommended that this right of way be abandoned.
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Or. dinance and
025
January 14~ 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)_
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
ae
Compliance with the private road provisions for Polo Road,
including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road plans;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenanc~e agreement;
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation approval of road plans from the entrance on
Route 616 along Mechunk Road, to a point approximately 150'
east of the property line between proposed lots 4 and 5 (to
align with Harvestridge Way in the Woodcreek property) for
acceptance into the State Secondary System;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of commercial entrance on Route 616;
d. Written Health Department approval;
e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
Abandon easement through the Woodcreek property to Route
25O.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of September 30, 1980, approved
this plat with the same conditions as recommended by the Planning Staff. Mr. Tucker then
read a letter dated December 29, 1980, which was hand delivered to the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and signed by Mr. William S. Roudabush as follows:
"Mrs. A~ten Icgoren, would like to appeal the action taken by the County
Planning Commission on December 18, 1980, concerning Polo Grounds Subdivision."
Finally, Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of December 18, 1980, the Albemarle
County Planning Commission denied the applicant's appeal for relief of condition l(b) of
the preliminary plat request. Mr. Tucker said the applicant had wished for an agreement
between Polo Grounds Subdivision, Woodcreek Subdivision and Mechunk Acres to divide the
cost of bringing the presently dedicated road up to state standards. Mr. Tucker said
State Code Section 33.1-72.1 gives the County the right to assess properties fronting
along a road for certain improvements; it was suggested by the Commission that the appli-
cant seek relief through this Code section. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would have to
take specific action to place such an assessment on those properties. Mr. Tucker said
yes, that is the way he understood the regulation to work. Mr. Fisher asked how many lots
are presently platted and put to record. Mr. Tucker said 17 lots along Mechunk Road.
Mr. William S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that this subdivision
was done prior to 1975, and approved by the Board of Supervisors. The right of way was
dedicated and put to record although never constructed. Mr. Roudabush noted that at one
time the three subdivisions noted by Mr. Tucker were all one farm. Mr. Roudabush said
road plans were prepared by Mr. Aubrey Huffman according to the original road plans drawn
for Mechunk Acres; these plans were revised by Mr. Roudabus~'s office and sent out to bid
for construction to present State standards. Mr. Roudabush said the low bid was for
$46,928 which makes it economically unfeasible for a nine lot subdivision. He referred to
the State Code Section mentioned by Mr. Tucker and requested the Board to consider imple-
menting same in this situation.
Mrs. Ayten Icgoren, applicant for the Polo Grounds Subdivision, requested the Board
to do whatever possible to allow the cost of road construction to be shared among the
three potential subdivisions in the area and its lot owners.
Mr. St. John said he would like to confer with Messrs. Roudabush and Roosevelt,
because to attempt to solve this question would take too much time. Mr. St. John said the
State Code s~ction referred to by Mr. Tucker is not addressed to subdivision approval.
It was the concensus of the Board that this matter be indefinitely deferred so that
Messrs. St. John, Roosevelt, Roudabush and any other concerned parties can meet to discuss
a possible agreement to share the cost of road improvements.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of
"Valmont Estates" shown on a recorded plat as Lot 24 and Lot X: This property is shown on
a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 644, page 226 and
to vacate a portion of plat of "Valmont Estates" shown on a recorded plat as a portion of
a public street known as "Mundy Drive", reserving certain rights: This property is shown
on a plat recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 643, page 272.
(Advertised in the Daily 'Progress on December 31, 1980, and January 6, 1981.)
Mr. Fisher read the proposed ordinance as follows:
026
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTZON OF
"VALMONT ESTATES", SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS LOT 24
AND LOT X: THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED
IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED
BOOK 644, PAGE 226 AND TO VACATE A PORTION OF PLAT
OF "VALMONT ESTATES" SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS A
PORTION OF A PUBLIC STREET KNOWN AS "MUNDY DRIVE",
RESERVING CERTAIN RIGHTS: THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN
ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE
CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 643, PAGE 272.
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County,
Virginia, has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Valmont Estates, the
original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 643, page 272 and
in Deed Book 644, page 226; and
WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 24 and Lot X shown on the said plat now
desire to vacate the original plats so as to resubdivide the said lots; and
WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is inconsis-
tent with the proposed resubdivision; and
WHEREAS, the said owner has further petitioned the Board of Super-
visors of Albemarle County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it
affects the dedication of a public street;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained, by the Board of Supervisors of Albe-
marle County, Virginia, as follows:
Section 1. That the subdivision of that portion of Valmont Estates
shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 644, page 226 be, and it hereby
is, vacated insofar as the same shall be inconsistent with the resubdivision
of Lot 24 and Lot X in accordance with the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Section 2. That the subdivision of Valmont Estates shown on a plat
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 643, page 272, be, and it hereby is, vacated as to
the dedication to public use of that portion of Mundy Drive beginning at
the easterly margin of the said Mundy Drive with State Route 845 (Totier
Creek Road) and extending thence in an easterly direction to its terminus;
provided, however, that the owner aforesaid enter into an agreement satis-
factory to the County Attorney, granting rights of access over the vacated
portion of Mundy Drive to provide access each to Lot 19 on the last mentioned
plat providing for maintenance of the easements so created.
Section 3. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance
shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly
platted and recorded on the aforementioned plats.
Section 4. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portions
of each of the aforesaid plats the word "VACATED", and shall also make
reference to the same on the same to the volume and page in which the
instrument of vacation is recorded.
Section 5. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid plat shall be
effective on January 14, 1981.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open and the first to speak was Mr. Dale
Bryant, OW.her of the property and person requesting the plat vacation. Mr. Bryant said he
had no comments other than to say he was totally in favor of this action.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded
by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the ordinance as presented. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3e. Highway Matters: Take Road into the State System. Mr. Agnor
noted receipt of a letter from Mr. G. Thomas Forloines, President of the Forloines Con-
struction Company, dated January 8, 1981 as follows:
"I would like to request a resolution from the AlbEmarle County Board of
Supervisors to accept the extension of Leeds Lane, Section Five, Meriwether
Hills into the State Secondary Road System."
Mr. Agnor reported receiving an appropriate description of the road from the County
Engineer, and recommended the Board of Supervisors adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
~T~~ ~ ~h~ V~~. Department of Highways and Transportation be
Janua~14~ 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Beginning at station 1+17.10, a point common to the
centerline intersection of Leeds Lane and Lewis Street;
thence with Leeds Lane in a northwesterly direction
783.52 feet to station 9+00.62, the end of Leeds Lane.
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 510, page 206 and Deed Book 680, page 637.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the
resolution as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Highway Matters: Progress Report, Earth Dam, Woodburn Road.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. James M. Hill, dated
December 4, 1980, regarding the earth dam, and asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain it's intent.
Mr. Roosevelt summarized the letter which follows:
"The Department has reviewed the hydraulic and structural information
concerning the earth dam on Woodburn Road in the Hollymead Subdivision
which you submitted to the Department in October, 1980.
I have attached a copy of the Department's Location and Design Engineer's
report concerning our findings. Basically, it appears the design of the
dam is hydraulically adequate. There are, however, several questions
concerning the structural integrity of the dam. It is the Department.'s
opinion that this dam falls under the Federal Dam Safety Legislation and
must be reviewed by July 1, 1983. If such review designates the dam as
safe, this would satisfy the Department as to structural stability. The
responsibility for scheduling this review or for meeting the concerns of
the Department as expressed in Mr. R. V. Fielding's memorandum of November
21, 1980, rests with you as developer of the dam.
I would like to emphasize that eventual approval of the dam and the roadway
over it does not insure acceptance of this road into the state secondary
system. Department policy is that any roads served by a road over a dam
must have an alternate state-maintained access to the state road system.
Also, acceptance of the road over the dam will depend upon some agreement
making others responsible for the maintenance and replacement of the dam
should such become necessary in the future."
Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Hill could not be present today, and stated that Mr. Hill
requested discussion of this matter be deferred until next month's day meeting.
Mr. Fisher stated his concern that the developer would not be able to meet the July
1, 1983 deadline for Federal Safety Inspection. Dr. Iachetta said he was not aware that
even if the State does accept this road across the dam into the secondary road system,
that the acceptance includes the dam itself. Mr. St. John said this point has been
brought to the Board's attention prior to this time, and that since the County owns the
fee simple for this dam, unless otherwise specified in the agreement, it would be the
responsibility of the County to maintain or replace the dam in case of damage. Dr.
Iachetta said another problem is the statemen~ in Mr. Roosevelt's letter about alternate
state-maintained access. Dr. Iachetta said there are already roads paved throughout the
phase two area of Hollymead without this phase ever having been approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said if the dam is proved structurally sound, it may be an accep-
table risk for such a major growth area.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to defer discussion of
this item until February 11, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Other Highway Matters: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter
dated December 2, 1980, from Mr. Roosevelt regarding erosion control in the Mechum River
Basin as follows:
"Reference is made to your letter dated November 25, 1980, concerning the
use of highway funds in the County's program for erosion control in the
Mechum River Basin.
Based upon the Board's action at the November Board Meeting it is my inten-
tion to allocate a minimum of $8,000 in the 1981-82 Seconda~ry Budget for
Erosion Control, Seeding and Fertilizing. The use of these funds during
the 1981-82 fiscal year will depend upon development of a specific program
indicating location and type of work to be done. If such a program can be
developed prior to the approval of the.1981-82 secondary budget, the $8,000
will be included as specific items in the budget by specific location and
type of work."
028
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day.Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt noted that Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management 0ffic±al, has
also received a copy of the letter.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Milkey Tract Final Plat. (Dated November 25, 1980,
prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman & Assoc. Ltd. Subdivision Plat showing Lot 1 to 13, parcel
32, sheet 44 County Tax Maps.) Mr. Fisher said this appeal comes before at the request of
Mr. William A. Edgerton in his letter of December 19, 1980, as follows:
"As an adjacent property owner, I wish to appeal the Planning Commission's
approval of the final plat of the Milkey Tract.
The Commission's approval was granted on December 18, 1980. I am appealing
this decision on the grounds that Lot 8 of the plat is unbuildable in its
present form and that intermittent streams exist on the site that have not
been taken into consideration by the developer."
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Location: Parcel 32 on Tax Map 44; Jack Jouett District; located on the
south side of Ivy Farm Drive, east of the intersection with Route 658.
Acreage: 38.2234 acres.
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas (previously A-i).
History: The Board of Supervisors on September 10, 1980, denied the plat
showing lots 1-5 "with the provision that the applicant redraw the
plat showing only one entrance, and that entrance shall be on Ivy Farm
Drive."
Proposal: To divide 38.2234 acres into 13 lots with an average size of
2.94 acres.
Topography of Area: Gently rolling to moderate slopes.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 1015 from Route
658 to Routel016 currently carries 115 vehicle trips per day and is
considered by the Highway Department to be tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Rivanna Watershed.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils in this area
consist of heavy clay soils with moderate limitation for septic tanks.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural conservation area (One
dwelling unit per five acres).
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of approximately six students
with a slight impact.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Staff Comment: The Highway Department has commented that adequate sight
distance does exist. A private street commercial entrance should be
constructed, but a turn lane will not be required.
The slope study of this property appears to indicate that ~he desig-
nated septic areas have some slopes of over 25%. However, Mr. Brunger's
soil report shows that the borings on lot 8 are between 12% and 16%
slope and the borings on lot seven are on slopes of 8%.
The previous plat showed Pheasant Lane to be a state maintained road.
This plat shows a private road and staff understands that a request
may'be made in the future to have the road accepted for state main-
tenance. Staff feels that a private road can be proposed but that the
County will not be responsible for improving the road or making the
request to the Highway Department.
The Health Department has approved the soil report (dated 12/1/80) and
this ~ approval is dated 12/4/80. Also, the County Engineer
has determined that the perennial stream locations shown on the plat
are correct and that the swales are not intermittent streams.
Staff has received several letters of opposition to the proposal. The
primary concerns are that the plat is not in accordance with the
character of the surrounding area and the potential detrimental effect
on the watershed. In addition to this letter, other letters have been
received since ~the Commission deferred this item. One letter speaks
to the proximity of septic field locations to an adjacent property
line. This situation has been corrected as shown in the soil scien-
tist's report dated December 1, 1980. Another letter from an adjacent
owner has been submitted to the Commission and discusses several
concerns about this proposal.
At the November 18, 1980, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning
Commission addressed the question of the private road. Staff feels
that i.t wa~ the intention of the Commission to require a State road
and we have modified the conditions to reflect this.
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
029
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. A street sign shall be provided;
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
the private street commercial entrance;
No buildings, septic systems or drainfields are to be
located on slopes greater than 25%;
de
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways &
Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into
the State Highway system;
Stream locatians and septic setbacks from waterways shall be
approved in writing by the Runoff Control Official;
f. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of December 18, 1980,
approved this plat with the conditions listed above and one additional condition:
ge
Correct the technical information on the plat to reflect the
acreage of the lots with a State road.
Mr. Fisher asked about the condition added by the Planning Commission, and if it
would reduce the lot size. Mr. Tucker said it would reduce the lot size, but not below
the two-acre minimum. He explained that the property line runs to the center of the road
for a private road, therefore when the Planning Commission required State roads, the
property lines had to be changed accordingly. Mr. Tucker added that this plat was sub~
mitted under the old Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked if slope figures submitted by the applicant have been verified as
correct by the Planning Department. Mr. Tucker said the applicant took the slope data
from Highway Department maps prepared for an alternate route for 1-64. He said it is
fairly accurate and more current than the U.S.G.S. map for the area. Mr. Tucker noted
further that slope information was also submitted by Mr. Edgerton (the adjacent property
owner who requested this appeal) which seems to vary from the staff report in that it
indicates the slopes to be more critical. Mr. Tucker added that no field studies were
conducted. Mr. Fisher asked if it were up_to the applicant to determine if the slopes
were greater than 25% and would be buildabl.? Mr. Tucker said additional checks on this
requirement come when the Director of Inspections is called on to issue a building permit
and also the County Engineer would be brought in at the time of review for compliance with
the runoff control ordinance. Mr. Fisher next asked about lot 8 and whether or not it was
buildable because of slopes and other factors. Mr. Tucker said the only accurate way to
settle a dispute about slope is to conduct an actual field study.
Dr. Iachetta asked if condition lb was inconsistent with Id. Mr. Tucker said con-
dition lb could be combined with condition id. Miss Nash said she had observed that the
majority of Lot 8 was on slopes of greater than 25% and wished to know if it would be
acceptable even though the location of the drainfield on this lot were on slopes of only
16%. Mr. Tucker said the lot would be acceptable. Mr. McCann said under the old ordin-
ance it was not required that buildings be located on slopes less than 25%, but that it is
stated as a condition. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had a great concern about
the building site, and felt it necessary to place that condition on this plat.
Mr. Fisher acknowledged Mr. William A. Edgerton appellant of this plat. Mr. Edgerton
questioned the vested right of this plat to be heard under the old ordinance. He said in
speaking with Mr. Lindstrom it was explained that this item was already on the agenda
prior to enactment of the new ordinance. Mr. Edgerton said he could understand this plat
having a vested interest if a preliminary plat had already received approval prior to the
adoption of the new ordinance, but, no approval of any kind was granted on this plat. He
said also the three deferrals accepted by the applicant on this plat should have-relieved
the County of any obligation to meet the 60-day requirement~to act on the plat as presented.
Mr. St. John said the statutes state that if an application for plat approval is ~filed and
the Planning Commission does not act on it within sixty days, it can be taken directly to
the Circuit Court for action. The Circuit Court would act on'the'plat under the laws
which existed at the time it was filed. Mr. St. John said this plat also has equities in
that the developer submitted a plat which essentially complied with the Zoning Ordinance,
which represents substantially the major part of this tract, whic~ was approved by the
Planning Commission; however, it was appealed and the applicant was instructed to redesign
the plat with respect to the entrance. Mr. St. John concluded by stating-that there are
at least four Supreme Court rulings in very similar cases which ruled that the applicant
did have a vested interest.
Mr. Fisher said if he recalled correctly, the first plat submitted was actually
denied by the Planning Commission, with the comment that if the entrance were redesigned
it would be reconsidered. Mr. Fisher said this type of redesign would create an entirely
new subdivision. Mr. Fisher then noted that this new plat was dated November 25, 1980 and
received by the staff on December 1, 1980, thereby not running into any sixty day time .
limitation since it was acted on by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1980. Mr. St.
John said the plat which was denied was filed more than sixty days before the new Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Edgerton said he felt the applicant "started over" each time he agreed to
go back and redesign the plat as requested by the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said
the redesign of the plat was done at the request of the Planning Commission, not at the
request of the applicant, and therefore was not subject to a new filing date each time ~t
was brought back.
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Edgerton next presented a slope analysis of the area~and indicated that his
findings show a great deal more land in the 25% slope.range to compensate for the per-
centage of inaccuracy in using aerial topography maps. Mr. Edgerton said the property in
question is in an area which has known water problems, poor wells and two streams which go
directly into the Reservoir. Mr. Edgerton next pointed out several inconsistencies in the
soil survey done bY Mr. Brunger, i.e., intermittent streams, borings for septic systems
and steepness of slope on lots with regard to location of septic systems. Mr. Edgerton~
said development began on the lot fronting on Route 658 (See plat, property ~oted as DB
204-470) in November, prior to approval of this plat. He said in questioning the Director
of Inspections, he was informed that the developer had produced a plat dated 1922 con-
taining the area identical to the corner parcel on this subdivision plat. Mr. Edgerton
said the applicant consistently stated that this subdivision was one single parcel, not
two, and that this is clearly in violation of Section 18-52(i) which requires the developer
to submit all such information prior to review. Mr. Edgerton requested denial of this
application on grounds of conflicting information regarding parcels, soil studies, streams
and topography, as well as being a threat to public health and safety with regard to the
neighborhood water supply and the reservoir.
Mr. Arthur F. Edwards from Huffman & Associates, Ltd., engineer representing the
applicant, said there are two parcels owned at this location, and that the applicant was
not trying to conceal any facts from the Planning ,Commission and Board. With regard to
Lot 8, Mr. Edwards said the applicant is willing to conduct a field survey to determine
whether or not this lot can be used. If Lot 8 is determined unusable, it will then be
combined with adjoining lots. Plans have already been submitted for soil erosion control.
Mr. Edwards said streams have been indicated on the plat, based on the judgment of Mr~ J.
Harvey Bailey, County Engineer.
No one else wished to speak about this appeal, and Mr. Fisher declared the matter
before the Board. Mr. Fisher then proceeded to read a statement from Mr. C. Timothy
Lindstrom regarding this plat:
"I visited this site which is in my district. While it is my understanding
that I must legally defer to the judgment of the Runoff Control Official
in the interpretation of intermittent versus perennial streams, what I
observed on the site certainly appeared to me to be intermittent streams
much longer than those shown on the plat. This is significant because of
the one-hundred foot setback. Secondly, the slopes on the two lots which
front on the cul-de-sac appear from observation to be in excess of 25%,
and it seems doubtful that a building site or drainfield could be located
on either lot. Accordingly, I believe that these two lots should be
combined with lots adjacent to them. Thirdly, I am curious as to whether
this particular proposed subdivision, which has not received preliminary
approval should be considered to have a vested interest in the old Zoning
Ordinance and not be subject to the provisions of the new Ordinance."
Mr. Fisher said he also conducted a field inspection of this area, and viewed areas
which would indicate to him that at some point there was a substantial water flow to
indicate a stream. Mr. Fisher said he felt there is some question as to the interpre-
tation of the intermittent streams, and would like to have more specific information on
this matter. Mr. Fisher said he must leave the procedural question to the County Attorney,
as to whether or not this applicant has a vested right under the old Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. McCann said it seemed like Mr. Fisher was suggesting that the County do a new
topographic study on the property as well as on-site viewing for streams and slope. He
said this sounded like a very expensive proposition, and he felt the opinion and judgment
of the County Planning staff and County Engineer should be accepted.
Dr. Iachetta said he would agree with Mr. McCann except that this parcel is in the
watershed, and he was extremely concerned about the potential of erosion. Mr. McCann said
this sounds like there is a problem with the Runoff Control Ordinance, and if that is the
case, then the Ordinance should be changed. Mr. Henley said he felt the possibility of
Lot 8 not being salable was the problem of the applicant, not the Board.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of the ordinance as to the
type of map to be used for determining topography, and the location and length of streams
and whether or not they are considered to be perennial or intermittent. Mr. Fisher said
he would like to get this item off the agenda today and felt that a determination as to
the usability of Lot 8 should be left up to the County Engineer. Mr. McCann said he would
move that this subdivision plat be approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission but add ih reading "County Engineer to review Lot 8 area and determine if the
lot is buildable as platted or if it should be combined into an adjacent lot(s)." The
motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann.
NAYS: Miss Nash.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Edgerton asked how he could appeal the opinion of the County Engineer in this
matter. Mr. St. John said his best recourse was through the courts.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Other Highway Matters: Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Roosevelt if the
Highway Department would soon be presenting a report on the signalization of Route 29
North. Mr. Roosevelt said this has been reviewed once, and determined inclusive. Mr.
Roosevelt said another review of this area will be conducted in March, 1981.
Agenda Item No. 6. Home Care Services Task Force Committee Report. Mr. Jim Elmore,
Executive Director, Jefferson Area Board on Aging, noted that a copy of this report had
been forwarded to each member of the Board of Supervisors. He then introduced Miss Diana
Gray who is a planner with the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, who as a member of
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Gray said this committee has been formed for over a year to study the needs of physi-
cally and/or mentally ill people who require non-professional assistance in the home. She
noted several agencies which currently provide some assistance to these people, but said
many services are still being unmet. If a home care agency is established, there will be
two levels of workers; one to provide basic home care and companionship, and the other to
provide more personal care to the bedridden. The feasibility of including these services
under already established agencies was studied, but rejected due to the limitation of
space and costs.
Mr. Elmore said in studies made by the National Home Care Association, between thirty
and fourty percent of people in nursing homes could actually be cared for in the home, if
such care were available. Mr. Elmore asked that the Board favorably consider the possi-
bility of funding such an agency during the upcoming budget hearings.
Mr. Fisher said his initial feelings toward such a project are negative, citing
budget short falls, salaries for teachers and large capital expenditures as a more pre-
ssing need. Mr. Fisher added that he felt there has not been sufficient case need pre-
sented, to consider funding during a time when money is so scarce. Mr. McCann said he
agreed fully with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Elmore said he feels what should be done by both the
County and the City is a total review of service agencies to ascertain the area of greatest
need in the community. Miss Gray said she is well aware of the problems local governments
are having due to the cutback of funding on the State and Federal levels. Mr. Fisher
thanked Mr. Elmore and Miss Gray for their presentation, and said it would be considered
along with other services during the budget hearings.
Agenda Item No. 7. Document on History of Old County Jail. Mr. Skip Mullaney of
Offender Aid and Restoration was present. Mr. Mullaney said that when O.A.R. first gained
occupancy of the Old Jail, they applied for a grant to O.A.R. from the National Endowment
for the Humanities in the amount of $6,226 for the purpose of employing historians to
study the jail's history. Mr. Mullaney said this history is now compiled and he presented
copies to the Board and noted that this document will also be made available through other
public institutions. Mr. Mullaney complimented the Board on not tearing down the old jail
and allowing it's use as O.A.R. headquarters. Mr. Mullaney said Mr. Dan Murray of the
National Association of Counties has suggested Albemarle County apply to NACo for an award
for an innovative and adaptive use of an historical building.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor his opinion of seeking an award from NACo. Mr. Mullaney
answered stating that he would be willing to complete the award application and submit it
to the Board for its approval before submitting it to NACo. Mrs. Fisher suggested Mr.
Agnor review the application and wished Mr. Mullaney good luck in his project.
Agenda Item No. 8.
1981, as follows:
AHIP Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor read his memorandum of January 6,
"In presenting the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program FY 80-81 budget
last year, a level of funding was requested by the Director, Ms. Paul, to
establish a base operating budget from County funds, with Federal funding
providing varying amounts for programs relating to approved grants. Fluctu-
ations in funding levels were causing problems in administering the basic
operation.
The staff recommended that a base budget be established, but over a two
year period, rather than in one budget year, in order to spread the impact
of the change. The Board agreed the AHIP program needed stability, in-
creased the County appropriation, and approved the concept of spreading the
impact, encouraging the pursuit of Federal funds to continue to fund a
portion of the basic budget.
AHIP's efforts to acquire Federal funds for that purpose have not been
successful. Ms. Paul is requesting an additional appropriation of $29,454
for FY 80-81, changing the present appropriation from $74,220 to $103,674.
The County's Housing Coordinator, Russell Otis, oversees the AHIP operation
and coordinates that function with other departments. He confirms that
exhaustive efforts have been made since last April to acquire other funds
for the basic budget. Recognizing that those efforts have been made, it is
recommended that the additional funds be appropriated from the General Fund
in the amount requested."
Miss Paul said this request would fund CORE positions which would allow AHIP to
maintain the services of key individuals on staff. Mr. McCann asked about the amount
listed in the budget under "Material Subsidies to Families" in the amount of $15,000.
Miss Paul said that is an amount set aside to purchase materials for home repairs, over
and above the amount the client is able to afford. She stated that in some cases the
County pays as much as 80% and in other cases as little as 5% of those material costs,
noting that the client and other agencies contribute to the remaining expense. Mr. Agnor
noted that AHIP uses large numbers of volunteers. Miss Paul said this budget represents
strictly County needs, not the total overall expenses incurred by the organization.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recom-
mendation of the County Executive and adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $29,454 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to Code 9103-5631 regarding the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
032
January ] 4 ~ 1 qS"l
//
Mr. McCann said he could not support this request, noting that agencies of this type
should phase out governmental support, not expand its needs further. Mr. Henley said he
has seen this agency grow, and feels the money spent in this area is well spent. Miss
Nash said she felt the work of this group was very necessary. Mr. McCann said he wished
to clarify his statement by saying that AHI? has done a very good job, but he is unwilling
to fund further expansion. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann'.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. St. John said he wished to state for the record that research was done to deter-
mine the legality of using federal, state or local money for the work on individual
people's homes. He said that through revisions in laws and attorney general opinions, it
is now perfectly legal to fund this type agency with County funds as well as State or
Federal money.
Agenda Item No. 9. Compensation Board Budget - Clerk of Circuit Court.
read his memorandum dated January 6, 1981, regarding this budget as follows:
Mr. Agnor
"The Compensation Board has approved a $79,291 budget for the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for calendar year 1981, an increase of $11,046 over the 1980
budget of $68,245. Comparisons of the two budgets are as follows:
Salaries 1980 1981 $ Change % Change
Chief Deputy
Court Deputy
Court Deputy
Three Office Clerks
Extra Help
Microfilm Technician
$13,360 $14,963 +$ 1,603 + 12.0%
12,258 13,729 + 1,471 + 12.0
11,407 12,776 + 1,369 + 12.0
25,020 28,023 + 3,003 + 12.0
4,200 -- - 4,200
-- 7,800 7,800
$66,24~' $77,291 +$11,046 + 16.7%
Postage 2,000 2,000 -0-
$6U,245 $79,291 +$11,046 + 16.2%
You will note existing employee salaries were increased 12%, and an "Extra
Help" position was converted to a full-time position.
The Compensation Board provides all of the funds for salaries plus the one
expense for postage. In 80-81, these State funds represented 42% of the
total budget ($68,245 of $161,951) for the Clerk,s office. The County
provides the balance <$93,706) funded from fees collected, which always
exceed the expenses of the office.
The Board can accept the Compensation Board budget, or appeal it for
revision. Mrs. Marshall has been trying to upgrade the salaries of the
employees in her office since last year, and the increase approved by the
State reflects this continued effort. It is recommended that the Compen-
sation Board budget be approved."
Mr. Fisher noted that the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court is not covered
under the County's pay and classification plan, therefore the employees in this department
are not eligible for merit increases, etc.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendation of the County Exe-
cutive and approve the salaries of the employees of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The
motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
At 12:30 P.M., recess was called for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 1:37 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Extension Service Report. Mrs. Elizabeth Payne, along with
Messrs. Tom Brown, Gary Revere, Don Bowman and Jeff Kirwan and Miss Ellie Bishop were
present from the VPI & SU Extension Service; and presented to the Board a slide show
regarding the many different community programs which the Extension Service conducts.
Following the slide presentation, Mr. Fisher thanked the representatives of the
Extension Service for their presentation and the services which they perform for the
community.
Agenda Item No. 11. S?-80-68. Frances Roberts (Deferred from December 17, 1980).
Mr. Tucker stated that this special permit was deferred in order for Mr. Spicer, owner of
the nonconforming duplex, to be present. Mr. Tucker noted that Mr. Spicer would object to
this special permit now because the duplex which he owns would lose its nonconforming
status. Mr. Thomas E. Spicer, brother of the owner, was present at this time. Mr. Tucker
said Mr. St. John had researched the unusual circumstances surrounding this special use
permit, and Mr. St. John stated that a time limit of two years could be placed on Ms.
Roberts' permit which would allow the nonconforming status of the duplex to be retained.
Mr. Spicer said he had no objections to this time limitation.
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
033
Mr. Fisher said as he recalled, no one else was present at the hearing to speak
either for or against this special use permit. Mr. Fisher then asked Ms. Roberts if she
would be agreeable to a condition being placed on this permit that it be temporary and
would expire on December 31, 1982. Ms. Roberts said she would be agreeable to that
condition. Mr. Fisher said since the applicant and the owner of the duplex are agreeable,
it would seem appropriate to add a ninth condition placing a time limitation on the speci-
al use permit and noting that it is the intent that the nonconforming use status of this
duplex not be destroyed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, ~to approve Special Permit
80-68 with the following nine conditions:
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of con-
trolled access to the site;
Staff approval of parking layout and landscaping;
No outdoor display of merchandise;
No other use may be made of the property, except one dwelling unit
occupied by the operator of the shop;
No auctions;
Building Official approval for commercial usage;
Fire Official approval including removal, filling, or other safety
measure for underground gasoline tank; ~
Sign sizes to comply with Article 18, Scenic Highway.
This temporary permit shall expire on December 31, 1982.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-80-79. Innisfree (Deferred from January 7, 1981). Mr.
Fisher said this special permit was deferred so the applicant could meet with Mr. Ray B.
Jones, Director of Finance, to determine the tax exempt status of certain parcels. Mr.
Tucker said a map has been prepared to show the different parcel uses along with the tax
status of each parcel. Mr. Tucker said the simplest way to describe the action to be
taken would be to state "Special use permit shall be limited to tax map 14, parcels 3A,
10A, 10B, 10C and 10E." Mr. Tucker said the Board may wish to add a final condition
stating that the "Applicant amend parcel 10B to include the appropriate area for the new
additions". Mr. Fisher said another condition was discussed, that being the limitation of
the total number of staff and clients that could be served under this special permit. Mr.
Henley said he would suggest that total be set at 75 persons, inclusive of staff and
clients. Dr. Heinz Kramp, representing Innisfree Village, noted that Mr. Jones felt
parcel 10C was oversized on the plat, and should be resurveyed and any excess land from
parcel 10C could be placed into adjoining parcels. Mr. Fisher asked if the area of the
parcel is changed, but the tax designation remains the same, would this condition still
work? Mr. Tucker said he felt the tax designation would remain the same.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-80-79
with the following three conditions:
Special Use Permit limited to Tax Map 14, Parcels 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C
and 10E;
Applicant to amend parcel 10B including area for new additions.
Special permit shall be limited to a total of 75 persons, inclusive of
staff and patients.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Youth Services Center Report. Miss Any Melville was present
representing this agency, and gave a brief description of progress made by the agency and
a financial quarterly report. Miss Melville said a survey has been conducted in the area
to determine the needs of the community,and that a computer analysis will be returned some
time in March. She described a school dropout program, which would offer counseling and
other services to dropout students. Miss Melville noted that both of the Youth Services
Advisory Board and Youth Service Council, have been very active in the emergency shelter
care program for this community. She said a standard referral form has been developed for
use not only by this agency, but any agency.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the Youth Services Center interacts with the City and County
police. Miss Melville said yes, and noted that Mr. Donny Garrison, of the Albemarle
County Sheriff's department, is on the Advisory Council and a very active member. There
were no further questions from the Board. Mr. Fisher thanked Miss Melville for her
informative report.
Agenda Item No. 14. Report on Route 29 North Bus Route and Ride-Sharing ?rojects.
Mr. Agnor noted in his memorandum of January 9, 1981, that the "Route 29 North bus project
will possibly run out of funds by April 1, or June 1, depending upon some federal funding.
Long range alternatives will be considered during budget work sessions next month. Adjust-
ments in the present routes are proposed. It is recommended that these be approved for
implementation February 1."
Mr. James R. Skove, Senior Planner for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Com-
034
January 14, 1981 (Regular,i~Day Meeting)
revenues, operating deficit and amount remaining in the grant; also ridership figures from
July through December. Mr. Skove said that "while there is little likelihood that additional
funds can be obtained from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, there
is a good possibility that federal funds can be obtained to cover part of the deficit.
Should these federal funds become available, the system could continue to operate for
another two months without requiring funds from Albemarle County." Mr. Skove stated that
there were four alternatives which could be considered:
Discontinue bus service when VDH&T funds run out.~
Continue service and attempt to reduce the deficit by adjusting the
schedule.
Contract with Charlottesville Transit System to extend regular CTS
service to the Albemarle Square-Fashion Mall area, and drop service
beyond Albemarle Square.
Enter into an agreement with other jurisdictions in the area to form a
Transit Service District.
Mr. Skove said ridership statistics, along with information compiled from telephone
calls received by the Charlottesville Transit Service requesting service in areas not
presently being served, resulted in the following suggestions for adjustments in order
to increase ridership:
Drop the portion of the mid-day service between Albemarle Square and
Airport Road. This would reduce mileage by 100 to 110 miles per day
with almost no loss in ridership. In place of this portion of the
service, substitute a long run from Fashion Square to the area around
Hydraulic Road and Four Seasons..
Drop the first run in the morning from Lake Saponi. This would reduce
mileage by the round-trip distance of about 25 miles, since the bus
must "deadhead" to Lake Saponi to begin the run.
Drop the last northbound run.
six miles per day.
This would reduce mileage by five or
Add a final commuter run in the evening between University Hall and
Fashion Square, which would add 10 to 12 miles per day.
Mr. Fisher asked if any thought had been given to the adjustment of fares as a way.to
offset mounting deficits. Mr. Skove said lowering the fares would not increase ridership,
and raising the fares by a small amount may not cause ridership to decrease.
Mrs. Helen Poore, Director of Charlottesville Transit, said if the changes recom-
mended are implemented, as much as $500 per month could be saved, as well as increasing
the ridership.
Mr. McCann asked if the County can get out of its contract with the City of Charlot-
tesville when funds are exhausted. Mr. Agnor said yes, the contract wil~l end when funds
run out. Dr. Iachetta said through his own observations, the bus does not have ridership
between the Airport and the Greene County Line. Mr. Agnor said it was a requirement of
the original federal grant that service connect with the Greene County bus service. Miss
Nash asked if this bus service has been advertised sufficiently to inform the general
public of its existence. Mrs. Poore said advertising funds are extremely limited and all
funds will be used before the project is over. Dr. Iachetta said he felt many employers
along the route have informed their employees of the transit service, so he felt there is
sufficient knowledge of this bus line. Mr. Henley said he felt whatever can be done to
improve the ridership and costs, should be done.
~Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the four recommendations in the
report as follows:
Drop the portion of the mid-day service between Albemarle Square and
Airport Road.
Drop the first run in the morning from Lake Saponi.
Drop the last northbound run.
Add a final commuter run in the evening between University Hall and
Fashion Square.
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann who added that if he continues to see figures
like ~1.60 to $2.00 per ride being paid by the taxpayers of the County, he will not be in
favor of continuing the program once federal funds run out. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom,
Mrs. Poore noted that these changes will be implemented on February 9, 1981
Mr. Fisher asked about the RideLSharing Project. Mr. Skove said the. active part of
the program has not yet begun. Mr. Bill Potapchak was present and Mr. Skove said Mr.
Potapchak had made great progress in setting up the computer Program. Mr. Skove noted
that a trial run has been set up with Wintergreen, but a small response has been shown
from major area employers. Mr. Potapchak said State Farm has purchased vans in order to
implement this car pool program. He added that in speaking with the Charlottesville/Albe-
marle Administrators Association strong interest in this program was expressed by such
companies as Stromberg-Carlson, Sperry Marine, Acme Visible Records, Centel and Ivy
Industries.
Mr. Fisher said he appreciated this progress report, and hoped for further reports as
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 15. Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum
of January 8, 1981.. Excerpts of this memorandum follow:
"At your August 14, 1980, meeting, you approved the annual revision to the
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, allocating funds for 44 projects
totalling $14.25 million, deferring final decision on 11 projects totalling
$11.7 million and ordering a mid-year review, principally to examine:
Status of the General Revenue Sharing Act.
Data from the 1980 Census.
Receipt of the City of Charlottesville proposal in the City/
County negotiations matter.
The program, as approved, was not balanced;,showing only with $10.64 million
in known resources to fund $14.25 million in estimated project costs.
Over the five year planning period, additional General Fund appropriations
were proposed totalling $4.5 million, providing a total possible resource
of $15.14 million for the $14.25 million program. Such appropriations
would require a one-quarter million dollar increase each year in the level
of annual General Fund appropriations from 81-82 through 84-85; changing
the current appropriation l~evel from one-half million dollars to one and
one-half million dollars per year.
The major projects deferred were:
Administration and Court Buildings
Airport Terminal Building Expansion
Education:
Meriwether Lewis School Replacement
Greenwood-Crozet Schools Merger
Future Site Acquisitions
Albemarle High School Renovation
Burley Middle School Renovation
Broadus Wood Addition
Library - Northside Branch
Parks/Recreation Reserve
Total
$1,100,000
62,500
2,500,000
2,770,000
350,000
3,000,000
500,000
685,000
564,000
161,000
$11,700,000
Some other County project needs for highway and utility improvements are
not funded from the General Fund, and are not included in the ~list.
Aswers to two of the three matters on which the staff and Board were
desirous of having information has been received:
1. General Revenue Sharing has been extended for three years providing an
estimated $1.5 million (August estimate $1.6).
2. Preliminary census data has been received, but specific census charac-
teristics such as age distribution will not be available until final data
is received. Court cases challenging preliminary data will affect the date
the final data will be received.
3. The City's proposal is nov know~,and the significance of its potential
impact is confirmed. The measurement of the planning and financial aspect
has begun and the final outcome is obviously unknown. We do know the final
outcome will cost the County funds that are not currently budgeted; that
there are no known additional resources of funds available to County
government to meet these costs, other than the current resources, and that
effective, long-range planning will be difficult, if not impossible, until
the matter is settled.
Revisions of project costs were not attempted by the staff at this mid-year
point. The calendar for the annual 1981 review begins in early February
with revisions submitted by departments, targeting a final adoption in
June. The School Division has completed an update report dated January 12,
adjusting costs and changing priorities.
Taking the deferred projects in the order listed, the following mid-year
changes are recommended:
1. Administration and Court Buildings--reserve the General ~Revenue
Sharing funds resource for this project as recommended in the Capital
Program Report for FY 80-81. The Circuit and General District Courts are
seriously overcrowded and have waited patiently over ten years for relief.
The renovation of the buildings on Court Square and the second phase of the
new County Office Building project, presently under preliminary design,
will require more than the projected revenue from this source.
2. Airport Terminal Building Expansion--delete this project until the
Airport Master Plan has been reviewed and adopted by the County and City.
The plan is complete, has been accepted by the Airport Commission and
Airport Board, and passed to the City and County planning staffs for
review.
3. Education--Group I are all active projects and require no further
action. Group II and III do require decisions. The following recommen-
dations are made for your consideration:
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting.)
Group II:
3.
4.
5.
Woodbrook masonry repairs - $10!,000 --Approve
Jouett, Henley, Brownsville repairs - $70,000 --Approve
Albemarle High School Renovation - Phase II, $1,594,000 --Approve
Murray-Meriwether Lewis Project - $2,823,000 --Defer
Broadus Wood Addition - $740,000 --Defer
The first two items are priority repairs for summer 1981. The third
item is a second phase of renovation scheduled for summer 1981 to a
building planned for capacity use for many years. The fourth and
fifth projects involve a question of elementary school building
capacity, utilization, and projected enrollments, all of which relate
to'attendance districts. Even though 1980 census data characteristics
are not yet available to compare with staff projections, past staff
projections have been very accurate, and recent projections indicate a
large number of available spaces in the existing elementary schools in
the system, even with enrollment increases projected to begin in 1983-
84, and with potential removal of the Greenwood School from the
system. It is recommended that the School Board and Board of Super-
visors discuss the information in this report before approving $3.56
million in Group II projects, and $3.0 milliOn in Group III for the
Crozet-Greenwood project.
Group III:
Albemarle High - Phase III - $1,700,000 --Defer until 1981 annual
review.
Greenwood-Crozet Project - $3,000,000 --Defer.
Burley Renovation - Phase II - $518,000 --Defer for 1982 annual
review.
Library - Northside Branch - $564,000 --Defer until completion of
County/City negotiations.
Parks/Recreation Project Reserve - $161,000 --Defer until 1981 annual
review.
Summary of Recommended Changes:
Present Program
Administration/Courts
Education
Total
$14,250,000
1,500,000
1,765,000
$17,515,000
Current Resources
Revenue Sharing
Literary Loan (Albemarle High School)
General Fund Appropriation (82-85)
Total
$10,640,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
4,500,000
$17,640,000"
Mr. Fisher asked what will happen if this budget is approved as presented and then
funds are not available to fund the projects. Mr. Agnor said some of the projects could
be cancelled, funds could be borrowed, or a bond issue could be floated, or the possi-
bility of a one time split tax collection.
Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, was present and
stated that the programs recommended for funding by Mr. Agnor are understandably necessary
(referring to the masonry repairs). She next mentioned the Murray-Meriwether Lewis School
situation, stating that it has been before the Board three times for a decision, but the
situation is still unresolved. Mrs. Haden said she hoped the Board would decide one way
or another, because if no school is to be built, then drastically needed additions and
repairs can be requested. Mrs. Haden stated that the Meriwether-Lewis P.T.O. also has
substantial funds which they have been holding back since they do not wish to invest them
in equipment for a school which may soon be torn down. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Haden what
the School Board has decided to do about the question of school redistricting. Mrs. Haden
said the Board has looked at that possibility, but has decided again that it prefers to
have a school in the Murray-Meriwether Lewis District. Mr. Fisher said the essential
problem is rationalizing having several schools in the area which are not full to capacity,
and still financing a new school; he said many citizens would complain that those funds
could be used for other County expenses or teacher salaries. Mrs. Haden said the School
Board is of the opinion that a smaller school creates a better learning environment. Dr.
Iachetta said there is a point at which a school can become too small to provide a viable
education.
Regarding the masonry problem, Mrs. Haden said if these projects are not funded as
soon as possible, the situation will only become worse and require even more money to
repair. Mr. Fisher then asked about the difference in items in Group II and Group III.
Mrs. Haden said Group I projects are already underway. Group II are the priority needs of
the School Board and Group III are needs for the not too distant future. Mrs. Haden noted
that the renovation of Albemarle High School is being done in three consecutive phaseS
during the summer months in order to least disturb classroom activities.
Dr. Ronald Bauerle said he agreed with the statement made by Mrs. Haden then added
that he has developed a proposal for solving the Murray-Meriwether Lewis School dilemma,
but it has yet to be considered by the School Board or the public.
Mrs. Diane Richardson representing the parents of children in Meriwether Lewis
School, made a statement requesting immediate action by the Board of Supervisors to decide
the issue of either building a new school or repairing the old school. She stated that
this indecision has gone on for at least three years, and it has created many problems for
those who attend dr work at this school.
January 14, 1~81 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
037
Mr. Fisher said the issue being discussed at this meeting is a question of money. He
asked if other projects should be deferred or if salaries should be frozen in order to
fund this one project. He said he did not feel this was the solution. Mr. Fisher then
read a brief statement from Mr. Lindstrom requesting that discussion and action on the
Murray-Meriwether Lewis problem be deferred Until he is present, since this affects many
citizens in his district. Dr. Iachetta said in fairness to the School Board and the
families of Murray-Meriwether Lewis children, that a decision should be made and made as
soon as Mr. Lindstrom returns. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed wholeheartedly with the School
Board and the representative of the P.T.0. that a decision must be reached as soon as
possible,, and then offered motion that this be placed on the agenda for January 21, 1981.
Mr. Fisher said before the motion is seconded, he would like to have something else heard
at the same time, that being the magisterial redistricting plans. FollOwing considerable
discussion as to a mutually agreeable date for holding such a meeting, motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to set a meeting for January 27, 1981, at 7:30
P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse in order to discuss the Murray-Meriwether Lewis
situation as well as magisterial redistricting plans. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 16. WVPT Public Television Request. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a
letter dated December 9, 1980, from Mr. Richard L. Parker, Vice President and General
Manager of WVPT Public Television in Harrisonburg, Virginia, with the following resolution
attached:
WHEREAS, The Shenandoah Valley Educational Television Corporation is a
non-profit Corporation representing Public Schools, Institutions of Higher
Education, Business, Industry and Interested Citizens in Albemarle County
and the surrounding vicinity and is established for the purpose of pro-
viding an Educational Telecasting Service; and
WHEREAS, Corporate goals and objectives encompass both formal and
informal education in the classroom and in the home as well as cultural and
informational programs, provided through its telecasting service, WVPT; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Directors recognizes and accepts its unique
responsibility to assure the delivery of high quality telecommunications to
meet the educational, cultural and informational needs of those citizens
desiring such a service;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shenandoah Valley Educational Television
Corporation urges the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to carefully
assess its responsibility in the area of telecommunications in general and
Community Antenna Television (CATV) in particular, to assure that citizens
are well served via a community antenna television system with sufficient
channel capacity and diversity to meet present and future'public needs;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board offers the services of its
interested lay members and its paid professionals to assist the Board at
this crucial time in obtaining a level of service that recognizes the
importance of program quality, diversity, and local service, in addition to
quantity of channel.
Mr. Fisher said he did not totally understand what Was being requested. Mr, Agnor
said he has conferred with several other communities in the area and it is the consensus
that in situations where local governments have held franchises for public television, due
to extreme federal regulations, they are now considering abandoning those franchises, and
WVPT is offering to pick up that franchise when available. Mr. Agnor noted that Albemarle
County is not in that situation, because the County is not involved in public television
' franchising. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend this letter and resolution be acknowledged,
and filed for future reference. Motion to that affect was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded
by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AyEs: Messrs. FiSher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. ·
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Miss Nash asked how to go about getting a cable television company to offer service
in her home area. Mr. Fisher said it is strictly up to the cable companies and~ their
financial situation as to the areas they wish to 'serve.
Agenda Item No. 17. Community Diversion Incentive Program: Appropriation. Mr.
Agnor said a grant has been approved for this planning district, and since Albemarle
County is the fiscal agent, an appropriation is required so Mr. Jones can disperse'funds
received from the State. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT REsoLVED by the Board of Supervisors of 'Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $140,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Project Fund for use in the Community Diversion Inc'entive Program.
Expenditure of funds will be as follows:
9302-5847.01
9302-5847.02
9302-5847.03
Administration
Client Evaluations
Client Diversions
$ 30,000
20,000
90,0001
$140,000
Revenues are to be adjusted by adding $140,000 to 102404.170, Grant--
038
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom,
Agenda Item No. 18. Agreement: Western Albemarle Rescue Squad. Mr. Fisher noted
receipt of an agreement which corresponds with the motion taken at the January 7, 1981,
meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to approve this agreement and authorize the
Chairman to sign same. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion but questioned the wording of
dollar figures in paragraph (2) which reads "Such payment shall be chargeable against the
aforesaid annual appropriation in the amount of $9,375 for each of the fiscal years 1981-
82 through 1984-85, with the County retaining approval of the sale, trade, or replacement
of the vehicle during this aforesaid period."~ Dr. Iachetta said the appropriation alloca-
ted to rescue squads each year is not $9,375, but $7,500. Mr. Agnor said this amOunt
would be chargeable against the appropriation, not the amount of the appropriation., Dr.
Iachetta said that is not clear the way it is written. Mr. Fisher agreed that the wording
in that paragraph was subject to interPretation, Following a brief discussion by the
Board, it was agreed to change the wording in that paragraph so the payment would be
chargeable against the annual appropriation of $7,500 over a five year period. Roll was
then called and the motion to approve this agreement carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of January, 1981, by and between
the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and Western Albemarle
Rescue Squad, Inc. ("Western Albemarle"),
WITNESSETH:
Factual Background: (a) Citizens of Albemarle County have organized a
volunteer rescue squad, designated as Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, which
is currently providing volunteer emergency services in Albemarle County,
primarily in the western area of the County.
(b) In order to continue providing adequate service, the Western
Albemarle Rescue Squad needs to purchase a new vehicle, the cost of which
will be $37,500. Western Albemarle does not have sufficient funds on hand
to purchase this equipment and current interest rates would cut deeply into
operating expenses.
(c) The Board of Supervisors has agreed to include in future budgets
an annual appropriation for each rescue squad in the County to ensure the
continuation of adequate emergency services to the citizens of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the mutual
covenants and obligations herein contained, and the annual appropriation as
aforesaid, the County and Western Albemarle agree as follows:
(1) Western Albemarle agrees to continue providing said emergency
services to the citizens of the western section of Albemarle County and
shall be available to provide said services to any area of Albemarle County
as the need may arise.
(2) In consideration of said services provided by Western Albemarle
pursuant to this agreement, the County shall pay to Western Albemarle the
sum of $37,500 for the purchase of a new rescue vehicle. Such payment
shall be chargeable against the aforesaid annual appropriation in the
amount of $7,500 for each of the fiscal years 1981-82 through 1985-86, with
the County retaining approval of the sale, trade, or replacement of the
vehicle during this aforesaid period.
Agenda Item No. 19. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for December, 1980, were presented. On motion
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, these statements were approved as read. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 20. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of December, 1980, was presented along with summary
statement of prisoner days, and salary of the jail physician and paramedics. On motion by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
039
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 21. Reports of the Social Services Department for October and November,
1980, were presented in accordance with virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this item was
requested by Mr. McCann. Mr. Tucker noted the area in question is Key West Subdivision.
Mr. Tucker said the problem came from the interpretation of certain directives which the
Board gave the staff in making changes on the new zoning map to properties, depending on
their existing use. Mr. Tucker said it was his understanding that he was to make changes
to residential, induStrial and commercial properties that conflicted with the Comprehensive
Plan, unless the Board took specific action to recognize those areas. He noted that Key
West was not specifically discussed. Mr. Tucker said Miss Neher reviewed those minutes
and discovered that that was not the action taken; it did not specifically include residential
areas throughout the County, and that the Planning Department had misinterpreted that directive
Mr. Fisher asked what area Mr. McCann was referring to. Mr. Tucker said the area of
Key West, which the Planning Department interpreted as being non-conforming to the Comprehensiw
Plan and changed to RA-RuraI Areas on the map. Mr. Tucker said originally Key West was zoned
partially as RS-I, part as A-I, but the majority was zoned R-1. The majority of the subdivisio]
has already been developed. Mr. Fisher noted that the development occurred on R-1 land
but not at an R-1 density. Mr. Tucker agreed with Mr. Fisher's statement.
Mr. McCann said the reason he brought this before the Board was because of the conflict
between what was shown on the map and what was discussed at the meeting. Mr. Fisher asked
what the issue was. Mr. Tucker said a question has arisen about an undeveloped area in
Key West which had a plan in the process of being submitted prior to the adoption~of the
ordinance, for a two-acre density. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission~had
recommended that this area be shown as R-1 on the new map. Mr. McCann said from reading the
partial transcript of the meeting of October 29th, the discussion revolved around specific
pieces of property having business zoning, never residential. Mr. McCann said he wished to
know if the zoning on Mr. Schwab's property is a mistake or should Mr. Schwab request a
rezoning or ask for a special use permit. Mr. Fisher said he thought the staff had done
exactly what he felt they had been instructed to do, that being, if a property did not have
an approved plan and was undeveloped and in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, ~to be
shown in conformity to zoning recommended in that plan. Mr. Tucker noted that the majority
of Key West is developed in a one-acre density, so'it was not recognized even though there
are approved plans, but because of the changes in the non-conforming regulations, it does
not matter. Plans for the affected area, which is undeveloped at the present time, have
been prepared by Mr. Tom Blue, but have never been submitted to or approved by the County.
Mr. McCann said this is a problem which resulted from not notifying people of the changes in
zoning on their properties.
Miss Nash asked if Mr. Schwab could get a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said he could
apply for a special Permit or a PRD. Dr. Iachetta said that when a plan or structure was
in existence, the zoning was recognized by the Board; where the land was vacant with no plan,
the zoning was not recognized. .Mr. Tucker said that theory was not totally followed, and he
cited an example stating Terrybrook, which is one acre density, was not recognized because it
fell outside the Hollymead area. Mr. Tucker said Terrybrook is presently shown RA, but has
one acre lots.
Mr. McCann said if it is the feeling of the Board that the original zoning will not
be restored on the Key 'West property, he will call Mr. Schwab and inform him. Mr. Fisher
said he has listened to the tapes, and is certain that the RA zoning shown is correct.
Mr. McCann said he wished to resolve the issue, and offered motion to adopt a resolution
of intent to give this parcel the zoning which it had prior to the adoption of the new
zoning ordinance. Mr. McCann said it was his Understanding that the motion voted on by
the Board was not to take care of all the land only those specific parcels mentioned at
that meeting, and he felt the zoning designations were inconsistent. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Henley who added that the owner had intentions to develop the entire piece
of property. Mr. Fisher noted that to handle this rezoning will require the same hearings
and reports as if it were a special permit, but the County will pay to have this adver-
tised and filed with the Clerk's office, but said his main concern is that~th±s is not the
only instance and that many other parcel owners will ask for equal treatment if this is
approved. Mr. St. John said if the Board adopts the motion, he felt it would be a good
idea to change the Comprehensive Plan to match the zoning. Mr. St. John said he felt it
would weaken the Comprehensive Plan not to recognize something so firmly entrenched; he
noted the public water system (central water system chartered under the State Corporation
Commission). Mr. Fisher asked about such areas as Glenaire, West Leight, etc. which are
also developed on a central water system, but are located in a rural area. Mr. Henley
said those areas should be recognized as what they are. Mr. St. John said if the attorneys
are ever called on to defend the County's viewpoint, and the Comprehensive Plan does not
substantiate that viewpoint, the Comprehensive Plan will be difficult to defend. Mr.
Fisher said that is not the Problem, the problem here is that the landis undeveloped.
Miss Nash said she felt this would be spot zoning if it were changed to a residential
category. She felt this would set a precedent, and felt the property owner had recourse
in that he could apply for a special use permit. Mr. Henley said he thought Mr. Mc'Cann's
motion covered all such parcels, but if not, he could see how it could be considered spot
zoning. Mr. McCann said he could amend his motion to include all that is developed as
well as that which is undeveloped. Mr. Henley again said he felt the motion was on the
entire Key West property. Mr. McCann said he would then amend his motion to reflect that.
Mr. Fisher said the question of undeveloped land was clearly dealt with all through
the county; undeveloped land without a site plan or subdivisio~ plat conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said if the Board takes action on this one developed area,
then the Board should review all such developed areas and that becomes a much larger
issue. Mr. McCann Said he was concerned because Miss Neher interpreted the Board's action
one way and Mr. Tucker interpreted it differently, and he did'not remember voting specifi-
cally on the rural areas. Mr. McCann said he felt a big mistake was made when the pro-
perty owners were not notified of changes prior to the adoption of the zon±ng~ordinance.
04O
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
He said he felt this would have given property owners a chance to voice their opinions
before the final adoption and saved ali these revisions. Mr. Henley said he would accept
the amendment to Mr. McCann's motion and added that he felt areas should be recognized for
what they are.
Miss Nash asked how many similar instances possibly exist through the County. Mr.
Tucker said several, Woods Edge, Marshall Manor, Terrybrook and Spring Hill. Mr. Fisher
said he would guess between two and four dozen similar areas in the County. Mr. Fisher
said he does not recall ever discussing continuing the use on undeveloped land that was
in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and said he had no question in his mind how the
zoning should be. Mr. Fisher said he did not believe this was the way to remedy the
problem and felt that undeveloped portion of Key West could be subject to rezoning appli-
cations or the whole question could be discussed in a systematic manner of how to recog-
nize all existing residential development with zoning densities other than RA county-wide.
Mr. Fisher said he was not ready to act on such a proposal. At this point, roll was
called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley and McCann.
Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta and Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher noted that the motion failed and asked if Mr. Tucker could work up some
better information for the Board to review at a later date. Dr. Iachetta offered motion
that Mr. Tucker and the Planning Staff prepare a list of subdivisions that are developed
to a density which i.s higher than that allowed in the RA district. The motion was seconded
by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher said there are other issues related to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked Mr.
Tucker if he was preparing a list of items which the staff is concerned about or where
something has been changed that was in an old ordinance, etc. Mr. Tucker said he has just
completed that list and it should be ready to mail to the Board for next week's meeting.
Mr. Fisher said it could be discussed next Wednesday night if received in time.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker about the status of the Magisterial Redis-
tricting plans. Mr. Tucker said the staff has prepared five or six different alternatives
for the Board's consideration. Mr. Fisher said the Board hoped to discuss redistricting
on January 27th, and asked Mr. Tucker to attempt to have those alternatives available to
the Board in time for that meeting date.
Agenda Item No. 23a. Appointments: Advisory Council on Aging.
placed in nomination for this organization.
There were no names
Agenda Item No. 23b. Appointment: Community Action Agency:
placed in nomination for this organization.
There were no names
Agenda Item No. 23c. Appointments: Equalization Board. Mr~ Agnor noted for the
Board's information that members of the Equalization Board must be qualified for this
position by taking a course required by State Code. Mr. Agnor stated that according to
information received from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, the course required to
quali.fy for appointment to this Board only occurs once a year, therefore appointment of
new, unqualified members would leave the Equalization Board unable to function.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint the five
members of the Equalization Board for 1981 as follows: Mrs. Sharon Hamner, Mr. T. Ryland
Moore, Jr., Mr. Barry R. Plotnick, Mr. Russell T. Swisher, and Mr. James A. Ward, Jr.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 23d. Appointments: Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Fisher
said the term of Mr. Homer M. Sandridge from the White Hall District is due to expire next
week. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to reappoint Mr. Sandridge to the Authority for a
term to expire on January 19, 1985. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated January 9, 1981, from Mr. D.
A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority:
"I have your letter of January 8, advising of the Board's express desire that no
financing by Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke of filling stations
for Petroleum Marketers Inc. be done that would include one or more filling stations
in Albemarle County.
It was further requested that the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County withhold consent for any issuance of Industrial Develop-
ment bonds by any other Authority for projects located within the boundaries
January 14, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
The injection of further requirements additional to the restrictions of
Sections 2-50 and 2-51 of our Ordinance makes it extremely difficult to try
to operate the Industrial Development Authority on the basis of good busi-
ness judgment which is the intent of the Commonwealth's Industrial Develop-
ment and Revenue Bond Act.
Looking back at our various discussions over the past two years, there
isn't much point in my continuing to try to further the County's interests
as a member of its Zndustrial Development Authority. Accordingly, I resign
from the Authority effective today."
Mr. Fisher said this vacancy will have to be filled. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to send a letter of thanks to Mr. Holden. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 23e. Appointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging.
names placed in nomination-for this organization.
There were no
Agenda Item No. 23f.
(Community Services Board)
tion.
Appointment: Mental Health & Retardation Services Board.
There were no names placed in nomination for this organiza-
Agenda Item No. 23g. Appointment: Road Viewers. Mr. Henley offered motion to
appoint Mr. William A. Gray of Route 10, Box 50, Charlottesville, as a Road Viewer.
motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
The
Agenda Item No. 23h. Appointment: Community Diversion Incentive Act. Motion was
offered by Miss Nash to appoint Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., to this organization. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the
following application notices for State Corporation Commission public hearings:
Commonwealth Gas Service, Inc., to be held on January 22, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. re-
garding proposed changes to include form service agreements for interruptible ser-
vice, transportation service and special purchases; and for an increase in annual
operating revenues amounting to $473,000 or 1%.
Shockoe Shippers, Inc., to be held on January 12, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. regarding
license to broker the transportation of property.
Appalachian Power Company, to be held on January 29, 1981, at 10:00 A.M. regarding
implementation of Federal Rule concerning cogeneration and'small power production
facilities pursuant to Section 210 of Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
de
Potomac Edison Company, to be held on January 28, 1981, at 10:00 A.M., regarding
implementation of Federal Rule concerning cogeneration and small power production
facilities pursuant to Section 210 of Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, to be held on January 26, 1981, at 10:00 A.M.,
regarding implementation of Federal Rule concerning cogeneration and small power
production facilities pursuant to Section 210 of Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978.
re
Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, to be held on January 20, 1981,, at 2:00 P.M.
regarding implementation of Federal Rule concerning cogeneration and small power
production facilities pursuant to Section 210 of Public Utility Regulatory Policies
Act of 1978.
Not Docketed. At 4:48 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Henley, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 25.
adjourned.
At 4:55 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and immediately
Chairman