1981-02-11February ~1, 1~81 Regular Day Meeting
February4'~ 19~1 Regular Night Meeting
Miller would bring Samuel Miller to the population limit and give it a larger part of the
growth area. However, that unbalances Scottsville District and Miss Nash has suggested the
Board ~look at taking territory from the Rivanna District up to the Rivanna River and placing
it in Scottsville District. A piece of Earlysville can be moved into the White Hall District
and then the main difference is between Rivanna District and Charlottesville District. That
imbalance can be corrected by changing some of the Hollymead area on both sides of Route 29.
This would leave most of the districts the same. If this proposal is not acceptable, there
is no simple way to make the change. Mr. McCann said he was concerned about the report
because he felt this matter was to have been studied in committee and he was very disturbed
that this has not taken place. He also stated that he would have preferred that this be
worked out in citizen committees rather than having the Board undertake the project. Mr.
Fisher then requested copies of his proposal be made available for the Board.
Agenda Item No. 4. At 10:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Henley, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Roll was
called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5.
adjourned.
The Board reconvened into open session'at 11:00 P.M. and immediately
Februm~y~ll, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 11, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, ~
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy
Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John,
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: March 5 and May 7, 1980.
Since Mr. Lindstrom had not read the minutes of March 5, 1980, Mr. Fisher requested
same be placed on the February 28, 1981 agenda.
Miss Nash noted the following correction on the May 7, 1980, minutes: Page 2, third
paragraph from the end of the sheet, third line, insert the word "be" between "to" and
"imposed".
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the minutes
of May 7, 1980, with the above correction. Roll was called on 'the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Route 637 Project Overrun.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated February 6, 1981:
"Subject: Rt. 637 (Ivy Landfill) Road Project - Cost Overrun
When the above project was completed, the County was advised by the Resident
Engineer, Mr. Roosevelt, that the total project cost exceeded earlier estimates
by approximately $482,900. Mr. Roosevelt provided a tabulation of the overrun
cost with explanations for each.
The County Engineer and City Director of Public Works studied the overruns,
conferred with the Resident Engineer, and confirmed their validity. The costs
mostly involved an asphalt price adjustment clause in the contract ($73,000),
excavation yardage exceeding estimates given bidders ($52,700), additional work
required ($66,300), adjustments in erosion due to weather problems ($17,000),
traffic control over a longer construction period due to weather delays ($55,000)
and numerous smaller items of dust control, utility adjustments, etc. The total
project is now estimated to be $1,903,083 with the City paying $932,707 and the
County paying $970,376, the difference of $37,669 being the cost to the project
borne solely by the County for the County using Federal Revenue Sharing funds,
requiring Davis-Bacon wages and records.
063
February. ll~ 1981 Regular Day Meeting
The Director of Finance and I met with the Resident Engineer to review the
sources and alternatives for the County's share of funding the costs. The original
agreement between the County and State to construct the project called for the City
and County to fund the project. The County sources to fund the overrun are (1) Secondary
Road Funds, (2) Revenue Sharing Funds, and (3) County General Fund. The Secondary
Road Fund is already inadequate, and will not receive an additional allocation if used
for this project. The County General Fund is also strained to meet capital project
needs. It is recommended that Revenue Sharing Funds be used because the project
began with that source, and because the State matches the County's allocation
of Revenue Sharing Funds up to $150,000 per year.
The County staff anticipated some increase in project costs each year in up-
dating the Capital Improvements Program. Therefore, the overrun reported from
Mr. Roosevelt's records is not as large in the County's capital budget. It is
estimated that an additional $46,150 of the County's Revenue Sharing Funds will
be needed to fund the final project cost as follows:
County share of total project
Less payment to date
Less State match Revenue Sharing
Balance Due
Match available from State
Net due from County
Appropriation Balance in Capital Budget
Additional Funds Needed
$970,376
-527,364
-149,685
$293,327
-146,663
'$146,$~4
-100,514
$ 46,150
This is a report for your information. When the final bill on the project is
received, a request for an additional appropriation will be made."
Mr. Fisher felt the application for matching State Revenue Sharing funds should be sent
to Richmond as soon as possible since funds are limited. Mr. Agnor said this will be done
when the final figures are known.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, for comments. Mr.
Roosevelt suggested some action concerning the Revenue Sharing Funds be taken at least on
the $75,000 that the County is eligible for this year. He also noted that the County has
enough Revenue Sharing funds in the project to warrant Secondary Road funds. The $150,000
that the County would be eligible for on July 1, 1981 is not essential to request today.
Mr. Fisher asked if it were premature to request the funds since the total amount is unknown.
Mr. Roosevelt felt the final figure will be close. Based on the advice of Mr. Roosevelt,
Mr. Agnor requested a resolution requesting matching funds from the Highway Department with
the amount that the County has already paid in order that the County can get the amount
approved in Fiscal Year 1981 as a separate item. Motion was then offered by Dr. Zachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Resident
Engineer has advised the County of Albemarle that Project 0637-002'169, C501
has been completed with an estimated overrun of $482,900 over previous project
budget estimates furnished to the County by the Residency office; and
WHEREAS, this project is funded jointly by Albemarle County and the City
of Charlottesville requiring Albemarle County to fund one-half or $241,450 of
this estimated overrun; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has considered the
sources of funds available for paying this overrun; and
WHEREAS, the project began with the County using Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds, and is recommended by the County staff to be completed with the use of these
same funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be, and the same is hereby advised by the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County of their intent to fund this project overrun from Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds from Fiscal Year 1980-81 receipts, thereby resulting in a
future request for matching funds, the amount to be determined when the final
progress bill is received by the County for payment of the completed cost of
this project.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the next question is the request for additional funds in Fiscal Year
1982 in the amount of $75,000. Mr. Roosevelt said the amount would be $150,000 and a resolutJ
is needed to indicate that the County intends to cover the overrun up to that amount in
revenue sharing funds and ask that the State,match same. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is participating with the City of
Charlottesville in the construction of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the
State Highway and Transportation Commission Shall make an equivalent matching
allocation to any county for designation by the governing body for such projects
of up to fifteen per eentum or $150,000, whichever is greater, of funds
received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and
n
February !1, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
0-64
WHEREAS, the County Of Albemarle has received a total 0f $494,737 in
Revenue Sharing Funds for Fiscal Year 1979-80, fifteen per centum of which is
$74,210.55; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has allocated from Revenue Sharing Funds
for the current fiscal year the sum of $658,320 for the subject property and
disbursed of this amount on June 17, 1980, a sum of $407,1'14.63; and
WHEREAS, by resolution of this Board on May 14, 1980, the Virginia
Department of Highways and Tranmportation was requested to match $74,210.55,
representing fifteen per centum of the annual receipt by Albemarle County of
Revenue Sharing Funds in Fiscal Year 1979-80, instead of requesting $150,000
as provided in the Code of Virginia, as amended in 1979;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ~y the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be and
is hereby respectfully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of
$75,789.45 in addition to that requested by resolution of May 14, 1980, in the
amount of $74,210.55, providing a total request for matching funds for the 1979-80
Fiscal Year of $150,000 for Project 0637-002-169, C501.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters--Discussion: Hydraulic Road Project.
This matter was discussed at the January 14, 1981, meeting and the.Board requested that
Dr. Iachetta meet with Mr. Dan Roosevelt and members of the Hydraulic Road Neighborhood
Association to further discuss this project and hopefully resolve the difficulties. Dr.
Iachetta then noted that he had met with Mr. Roosevelt and Messrs. Logan and Mr. Scott,
representatives of the Neighborhood Association. As a result of that discussion, several
approaches were developed. He then asked Mr. Roosevelt to summarize those approaches.
Mr. Roosevelt then distributed the following construction cost estimate for Hydraulic
Road which compares various options:
Spring 1980
Spring 1981
Four Lanes--Route 29 to Swanson Drive
Three Lanes--Swanson Drive to Whitewood Road
Reconstruct Rio/Hydraulic Intersection
$1,683,000~*J:..:.: ~.~!, 436,795
Four Lanes--Route 29 to Georgetown Road
Three Lanes--Georgetown Road to Whitewood Road
Reconstruct Rio/Hydraulic Intersection
$1,854,000
$1,570,839
Four Lanes--Route 29 to Whitewood Road
RecOnstruct Rio/Hydraulic.
Add four Lanes with CUrb & Gutter
From Station 37+00 to Station 52+00
$1,650,321
$ 56,200
*Option~ Agreed To In Spring 1980
Mr. Roosevelt said after the meeting with the above named persons, Dr. Iachetta had
requested the above cost estimates with the different options. He has attempted to show a
comparison of the new options under the Spring 1981 column with the same options a year ago.
Mr. Roosevelt said construction costs have decreased and he felt such was due to the fact
that contractors have had to lower costs in order to get work due to the decline in constructi
Excavation costs have decreased from $7.00 a yard to $2.00 a yard which is the major reason
for the above estimates. Mr. Roosevelt said the cost for the construction and the right-of-wa
and utility costs for option #1 is $900,000 which brings the total to $2,500,000. He then
reviewed the other three options with right-of-way and utility costs.
Dr. Iachetta said option #4 was discussed at the meeting since such was a possibility
to finish the project to its original design in front of the properties in question. Dr.
Iachetta felt it best to go with option #2 in order to have the fully developed rbad as far
as Whitewood Road. In conclusion, Dr. Iachetta stated that even if funds had to be taken
from another.project, this project should be done.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Roosevelt about available funding for this proje.ct. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Secondary Road department is unsure how allocations are going to be in
the future. He has examined the six-year plan based on revenues being constant over the
next six years and the $1,683,000 estimate (option #1) can still bei'paid as well as financing
the Meadow Creek Parkway Project by 1985. He then noted the Urban division has indicated
that financing for the City on.the Meadow Creek Parkway project is not expected to be
until 1986,~.!U~he~fore, he did not know of any benefit for the County to finance such a year
earlier. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this meant that Hydraulic Road was ready for bid. Mr.
Roosevelt said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if the bidding process would be delayed if
was changed in the plans now. Mr. Roosevelt did not feel the advertisement would be delayed.
He noted that the right-of-way is being purchased based upon the ultimate roadWay and this
is now taking place. Mr. Roosevelt said between now and the time of bidding the plans could
be revised to the four lane section. Mr. McCann felt the third option was a better way of
doing the project and then to proceed to, another project rather than doing this one half
way.
065
Mr. Roosevelt then suggested that since the right-of-way is being purchased for the
ultimate improvements that the Board proceed with option 1. Then, if the Board wants to
make a change later, option 4 could be added. Option #1 could go to contract and if the
project comes in at $1,436,000, a work order could be done for the contractor to extend the
curb and gutter and storm sewer as far as the dollars allow. The advantage of his ~suggestion
.is by not locking the County into an option because if prices increase then it will not be
so easy to take curb and gutter off of the project. In summary, Mr. Roosevelt preferred a
smaller project with a base figure and then add to the project by change orders.
Dr. Iachetta noted his feelings about the options and his willingness to take needed
funds for this project from a project in the far future. Dr. Iachetta then offered'motion
to authorize the project in accordance with option 2 set out above and to include a statement
that if the figures projected for spring 1981 are valid, then the four lanes'be extended to
Whitewood Road. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Miss Nash asked if the motion includ~ed
curb and gutter. Dr. Iachetta said yes, to Georgetown Road and if funds are available also
to Whitewood Road. Mr. Henley felt with the increased petroleum costs, the costs of this
project will be back to where they were originally. Dr. Iachetta felt this would at least
finish the project a reasonable distance. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Logan if the proposal
was acceptable. Mr. Logan said yes.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said in the fall of 1980 a proposed abandonment of Route 653 in the Free
Union area had been presented to the Board. The Highway Department has headquarters
located on Route 653 and recently traded and purchased some land with adjacent property
owners. Therefore, the Highway Department now owns all of the land on both sides of Route
653. In order to get the best use of the land, the Highway Department feels it necessary to
close a section of the road. Mr. Roosevelt then reviewed the two methods of closing a
secondary road. This matter has been discussed with Mr. St. John and he agrees that if it
can be interpreted that the reconstruction of Route 601 by-passed this section, which it did
in 1953, then this section can be abandoned. Mr. Roosevelt said he had notified all the
property owners adjacent to the road by registered letter informing them of the Highway
Deartment's plans. However he felt the property owners should have an opportunity to express
their views in a public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt then suggested a public hearing be held on
the abandonment of this section and subsequent action be taken under Section 33.1-155 of the
State Code.
Mr. Henley said as long as a public hearing is held, he would support the request and
then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on March 11, 1981, the abandonment of
Route 653 as requested by Mr. Roosevelt. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Roosevelt said he would notify the adjacent property owners about the public hearing.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following letter dated January 27, 1981 from Mr. Leo E.
Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer for the Highway Department:
"As requested in your resolution dated November 12, 1980, the following additions to
the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective January 27,
1981:
ADDITIONS
Thurston Subdivision
LENGTH
Thurston Drive - From a point 0.32 Mi. S.E. Rte. 810
to end of temporary cul-de-sac.
0.22 Mi.
Thurston Drive - From Rte. 810; southeasterly for 0.32 Mi.
0.32 Mi. "
Dr. Iachetta said an area off of Route 29 North onto Route 643 is being used as a dump.
Miss Nash asked if the Highway Department intends to complete road work from Route 618
down to the Fluvanna County line. Mr. Roosevelt said the right-of-way has been donated and
arrangements made to go to contract with the construction beginning in the spring of 1982.
Agenda Item No. 4. Street Sign Request.
Mr. Fisher noted request for a street sign for Meadows Drive in the Meadows in Crozet.
This sign is to be paid for by the County. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
February]~ll, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
066
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has requested a street sign to identify
the following road and has agreed to pay for same:
Meadows Drive (State Route 1230) along the western side of
its intersection with U.S. Route 240 on the concrete sign
island;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
Agenda Item No. 5. Skipped Temporarily.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Appropriation: Social Services.
Mr. Agnor said the mid-year review of the Social Services Budget has been completed by
the Finance Director and indicates a deficiency. Some of the deficiency can be handled by
transfers which the Finance Director can authorize. This, however, will not match the total
needs of the Social Services Department. Those needs are for Regular Foster Care, Title XX
Foster Care and Companion Services. The total amount for these three items is $26,000 of
which the State will reimburse the County $10,502 leaving a local share of $15,498. Motion
was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $26,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to the following codes in the Social Services budget:
Code 5302-5708
Code 5302-5708.01
Code 5302-5711.01
Regular Foster Care
Title ~XX Foster Care
C:~mt~ an~on~,.S:er ~ c e s
$15,500
5~ooo
Agenda~Item No. 6b'. Appropriation: Driver Training Grant.
Mr. Agnor said a grant in the amount of $3,460.00 has been approved for the County by
the State Department of Transportation and Safety. This grant will be used to train school
bus drivers. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, has indicated that this will be a one
time grant. Due to the grant conditions limiting the manner of in-kind contributions, Mr.
Jones has suggested that the grant be handled through the Grant Fund of the County rather
than the School Fund with the revenues off-setting it entirely. Motion was then offered by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $3,460.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Project
Fund to Code 9302-3011 Driver Training Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that revenues be adjusted by setting up
Code 102404.210--Proceeds of Grant SB79-003-022-2 Safety Training Grant
under the Grant Project Fund in the amount of $3,460.00.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recOrded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Appropriation: Data Processing Department.
Mr. Agnor said the implementation of the data processing system will begin in March
with the employment of the department manager and one programmer/analyst. These two employees
will begin the development of software (prOgrams), testing them on computers offered by IBM
in order that several programs will be ready when the hardware (equipment) is delivered this
fall. Mr. Agnor then presented the proposed budget for the balance of this fiscal year. He
requested an appropriation in the amount of $14,907 for the Data Processing Department as
outlined in his presentation. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr Lindstr0m,
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $14,907 be, and the same hereby.is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to Code 1210 for the Data Processing Budget as indicated on
sheets presented at this meeting.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
067
February--981 Regular Da~ Meetin~
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Cedar Creek Final Plat. (Subdivision Plat drawn by W. S.
Roudabush, Inc., dated November 17, 1980, showing Cedar Creek, a division of Parcel 44E, Tax
Map 18, shown as Lot "H" in Deed BOok 647, page 67, near Earlysville, Rivanna Magisterial
District.)
The following letter dated January 29, 1981, was received from Mrs. Marina G. Kelley
owner and developer of Cedar Creek:
"I would like to appeal the recent decision made by the Planning Commission
concerning the Cedar Creek Subdivision. Although the subdivision was approved, it
was done so with the condition that a public (stated maintained) road be built
instead of a private road, as recommended by the Planning staff.
Due to my unfamiliarity of the rules of parliamentary procedure and the inaudible
responses of several of the members of the Planning Commission, my strong desire
for a private road was understated.
A private road is appropriate for the Cedar Creek Subdivision for many reasons.
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission was not made aware of many of these factors
prior to their decision to. require a public road. I am appealing to this Board
to reverse the decision and asking to be put on the FebrUary 11 agenda for the
following reasons:
--The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommended a
private road.
--The Planning staff agreed with the above recommendation.
--The cost differential for a private vs. a public road was inaccurately
interpreted.
--Thirty percent more land would be disturbed due to state road grading
requirements.
--A public road is nov in concert with the planned concept of Cedar Creek,
a rural solar community. Wooded lots, smaller right-of-ways and a
sense of privacy are all part of this concept designed to disturb as little
land as possible and to Preserve the natural environment.
--The additional cost of the public road (estimated to be $15-20,000 extra)
must be divided by only eleven owners and thus would decrease each lot size
and increase the amount per lot.
--The planned road is a 1/4 mile cul-de-sac serving at most only eleven
households. It is unreasonable for the public to pay for the maintenance
of this exclusive road which will be used primarily (if not entirely)
by the eleven landowners.
--Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the maintenance costs should be
shared by those who use the road, not by the general public. After all,
it seems inappropriate to burden the taxpayer unduly."
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Location: Parcel 44E on Tax Map 18, Rivanna District; located on the southeast
side of Route 655, northwest of Earlysvilte.
Acreage: 40.04 acres
Zoning: Rural Area
History: This plat was deferred from the December 16, 1980, Planning Commission
meeting to the January 27, 1981, meeting so that a soil scientist's report
could be obtained. The Cedar Creek Preliminary Plat, however, was approved
at that meeting.
Proposal: To divide 40.04 acres into 11 lots with an average size of 3.64 acres.
Topography of Area: Gently rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 665 currently carries
337 vehicle trips per day and is considered to be tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna Watershed.
Soils: No soils information is available.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/conservation area with a recommended
density of one dwelling unit per five acres.
School Impact: There is a total projected enrollment of approximately five students
with a slight impact.
Type Utilities: No public utilities are available.
Staff Comments: Health Department approval and a soil scientist's report have been
received. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented
that the sight distance at this location is adequate for a private street commercial
entrance. The County Engineer has approved the private road plan for this plat
and has commented that this subdivision appears to be no hazard to the reservoir.
A runoff control permit is not required.
This plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Staff
recommends approval subject to the following:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
Compliance with the private road provisions including County Attorney's
approval of a maintenance agreement;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance;
February 11, 1981
Regular Day Meeting
d. County Engineer approval of shared entrance for lo~s 5 and 6 and ,County
~ Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for this driveway."
Mr. rucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting On January 27, 1981, approved
the above noted plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The~plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance;
The virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer
approval of road plans for acceptance of Cedar Creek Road into the state
system;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and SedimentatiOn Control Ordinance;
County Engineer approval of a shared entrance for lots 5 and 6 (Mr. Tucker
noted that the County Engineer has given his approval of this;) and County
Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for this driveway;
Staff approval of buffering on the eastern boundary of lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Tucker said the reason this plat was appealed to the Board was due to the state
road requirements. He noted that the applicant during the preliminary and final plat stages
had requested a private road. For the preliminary plat request, the Planning Commission
requested the applicant to come up with some reasoning why a state road could not be built.
When the final plat was ~resented, the Planning Commission did not feel convinced that a
private road should be in the subdivision and therefore required a state road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff recommended a private road. Mr. Tucker said basically
the staff has not taken any opinion on private or state roads except in the urban or growth
areas. Therefore, the staff has gone along with the request of a private road.
The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Marian Kelley, owner and developer, was
present. She felt the problem at the Planning Commission meeting was a misunderstanding of
her intent and the inaudible commission members.
Speaking next was Mr. Glen Robinson, builder for the property. He felt the Planning
Commission was led to erroneously believe two points. The one point being the difference in
price between a public and state road. The difference stated between a private and public
road was $2,000 to $4,000 and he felt the figure was probably closer to $15,000. The second
point was the spokesman for Roudabush Associates, surveyors for the property, who said the
applicant did not mind if a public road was required. He felt that was an understatement.
Mr. Robinson said the applicant definitely feels that a private road is proper for the
community as listed in the above letter. Mr. Robinson said he did not Understand why the
public should be involved. The access for the road is strictly for access to eleven lots
and is not a through road. He also noted that the applicant does not want the public using
the road. In conclusion, Mr. Robinson did nov feel the taxpayers should have to pay for the
road to this development.
With no one else to speak for or against the appeal, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. McCann felt the problem is on the part of the Planning Commission since preliminary
plats are sometimes approved for a private road and then in a final plat hearing, a public
road is required. Mr. McCann supported a private road since this road will only serve
eleven lots and is not a through road.
Miss Nash asked if the plat met the requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Tucker said this property was divided before December 10, 1980, into two tracts. Now the
subdivision is being designed in order to take advantage of the two tracts which have six
development rights each. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the original division was recorded. Mr.
Tucker said yes.
Mr. Fisher said there are several streams and with the required setbacks and access,
lots 4, 5 and 6 will be difficult to build on. Mr. Tucker said the staff was concerned
about that and asked the applicant to look at that particular area to assure that there are
adequate buildable sites. Even though the applicant will have to cross the streams, the
County Engineer does not feel there is any problem and that is one reason why the lots are
at least four acres or greater. Mr. Fisher then asked if lot 4 had adequate room for a
house site and two drainfield locations. Mr. Tucker said yes.
Mr. McCann then offered motion to delete the public road condition of the Planning
Commission and have a private road. Mr. Henley felt this was a good development for a
private road. He then seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the appeal letter from the applicant stated a thirty percent
reduction in the amount of disturbed land and felt less land would be disturbed by a private
road than a state road. Even though the problem does exist with maintenance over a number of
years for a private road, he supported a private road in this case since less ground would
be disturbed and would be more consistent with a small community.
Mr. Fisher then suggested the following wording for condition lb: "County Engineer
approval of private road plans for Cedar Creek Road." and the addition of condition if to
read: "County Attorney approval of homeowners agreement for road maintenance. Mr. McCann
accepted the above wording as part of his motion. Roll was then called on the foregoing
motion and same carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
February 11, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
Agenda Item No. 5.
private operators.
Discussion:
Extension of Radioactive Waste Ordinance to apply to
Mr. Fisher said he asked that this be placed on the agenda due to the approaching
expiration date of the Radioactive Waste Ordinance. The ordinance was written to relate to
state agencies and individual corporations, etc., who might obtain a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. At the time the ordinance was adopted, it was felt by some that it
was a good ordinance to have on the books for the future even if no sufficient application
was available at this time. The ordinance alerts private operators that the County does not
want someone opening a low level radioactive waste facility or anything else of that nature.
Therefore, he felt before the ordinance expires, a discussion should be held on considering
what should be done.
Mr. St. John felt the ordinance is enforceable as it currently exists. He noted that
the state gives the County power to enact this ordinance. Even though the ordinance cannot
be enforced on state agencies he felt it should be left on the books and if anything is
deleted from the ordinance, that should only be state agencies.
Mr. Fisher asked if another public hearing had to be held to extend the ordinance.
St. John said yes.
Mr o
Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. St. John to leave the ordinance on the books. He then
offered motion to advertise the Radioactive Waste Ordinance for public hearing on March 4,
1981. Miss Nash seconded the motion.
Dr. Iachetta did not have any problem with holding a public hearing but desired to
restate the motion he made at the time this ordinance was considered and that was, hopefully
with the City, to urge the Legislature to do whatever is necessary to establish at the state
level control of all radioactive material in the State. He felt such has been neglected at
the State level and such should be handled by the State. Therefore, Dr. Iachetta felt the
Board should ask the City to join with the County in trying to get some positive action at
the State level to deal with the problem of nuclear and hazardous wastes in the state.
Mr. Fisher suggested waiting until the consultant has had a chance to make a recommendatio
on the ordinance. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher then asked Dr. Iachetta to prepare a resolution to summarize the concerns of
the Board and have such ready for the consultant to review. Dr. Iachetta said he would and
again emphasized that the State should be more involved in the matter.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request for Funds, Barrett Day Care Center.
Mr. Agnor said letter dated January 21, 1981, from Mrs. W. T. Brown, President of the
Barrett Day Care Center, was received outlining the Center's funding request and explanation
of same. (Copy on file in Clerk's Office.) He then presented his summary of the request
dated February 6, 1981:
"The Barrett Day Care Center is requesting $10,000 in local funds, $4,000 from
the County, and $6,000 from the City. The Center has a budget of $87,420 serving
32 children with income projected to be $75,776. Of the 32 children, 20 are
paid by parents at $40 per week (recently increased from $35/week) four have United
Way contributions of $20 per week with parents paying $15 per week (total $35/week)
and eight are supported by Social Service funds (Title XX) at $44 week.
Of the $87,420 budget, $13,226 is recovered from a Federal food program (USDA),
$1,250 is realized from gifts and donations, $61,300 from fees, leaving a deficit
of $11,644. The $87,420 budget, less food reimbursements and gifts of $14,476,
leaves a net operation of $72,944. If this were divided by 32 residents for 50
weeks of the year, the weekly cost would be $45.60 in lieu of the $35, $40 and $44
now used.
It is recommended that County funds not be allocated for this request."
Mrs. Brown was present noted that the Center is having financial difficulties and needs
assistance until July 1981. She also noted that there are l~6~i~l~time children from Albemarle
County that use the Center. Mr. Fisher asked what prospects for different types of funding
are expected in July. Mrs. Brown said hopefully the funds from the Molly Michie Infant
Center, which was forced to close, can be used for Barrett Day Care. She noted that some
funding from the Barrett Day Care Center had been used for Molly Michie Center in order for
them to meet licensing requirements.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any consideration had been given to raising the fees. Mrs.
Brown said yes. Mr. McCann asked if the same fee was charged to all and how the fees at the
Center compared to those of a private operator. Mrs. Johnson from the Center was present
and noted that the fees are the same for the children except for some scholarships. She was
unsure of the comparison of private operators but the Center is in line with other day care
centers. Miss Nash asked if any funds had ever been requested from jurisdictions before.
Mrs. Brown said no. Miss Nash asked what happened with the Molly Michie Infant Center.
Mrs. Brown said the Molly Michie Center could not support themselves and did not get as much
help from Social Services as needed. She also noted that the Center which was located in
Garrett Square was not adequate.
__ __Fe~981__~gul_ar Da~ Meetin~
070
A brief discussion followed on the Molly Michie Infant Center. A lady from the Center
was present and noted that with the two centers so close, full enrollment was hard to
achieve. She also noted a lot of things were required by the State in order to obtain a
license and the building was costly. She felt there were two ways the County could handle
the request, One, was for the center to be self-supporting and pass the burden along to the
users of the facility. However, when the fees are increased children are lost. She said a
lot of the children kept at the center are from families where incomes are marginal. If the
Center does not operate, there will be no way to provide care for the children who are being
supplied Title XX funds. She felt the County would end up paying more in the long run by
having to fund the Social Services Department more as a result of the mothers not being able
to work. She also felt another way the County could help the Center would be to subsidize
part of the foster care so that the parents would not have to bear the full cost and still
be able to work. If the County does not want to subsidize in the manner requested, another
method would be to provide funds in the form of scholarships.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is felt that this funding would be to help the Center get
back on its feet or be a year after year request. A lady from the Center said at the present
time a great deal of income is derived from Title XX payments for the children. Two problems
are that the funds only cover foster care when the children attend and some welfare families
are not very conscientious about getting their children to the Center. The other problem is
possible cutbacks on Title XX funds. She noted that if there was some way to get a good
standing until July, a recommendation to the Center's Board will be to pass along modest
increases to the parents.
Miss Nash felt this matter could be considered a grave emergency since the Center had
spent its funds on the other operation unsuccessfully. She then stated her support for the
$4,000 request with the understanding that such is due to an emergency situation.
Mr. Henley said the total budget is calculated to be $2,700 per child and he would not
support the request. He felt some of the six staff members could be deleted. A lady from
the Center noted that the staffing is the minimum to meet State requirements and the Center
does not depend on CETA people.
Mr. Fisher said he realizes there is a need for day care centers in the community.
However, he felt the request for $4,000 is very large and is about $250 per year for each
chil~ from the County. He said that he is not prepared for the County to begin providing
day care services county-wide. Mr. Fisher felt the current problems were caused by the City
requiring someone to set up a center that could not be fully funded and then that center
having expenses beyond those originally expected. In conclusion, he felt the City should be
approached for reimbursement of improvements made to the facilities and that would be a
better way to improve cash flow problems. Therefore, Mr. Fisher said he accepts the County
Executive's recommendation to not grant the temporary funding requested. Mr. McCann agreed
and felt the point about the City being partly responsible was true. He then offered motion
to deny the request for funding the Barrett Day Care Center. Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the request if there was an understanding that this
was a one-time funding request. He would support the request because he feels the Center
serves a population which can not afford to pay an increase. He agreed with Miss Nash
because he distinguished this as serving a unique need
Miss Nash felt the request was an emergency but also agreed that the Center should look
to the City for making up some of its expenditures.
Dr. Iachetta said, if he thought an emergency existed, then he would support the request,
but he agree'd with Mr. Fisher that if this request is approved, the entire problem of communit
day care centers would have to be examined. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann.
Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
At 11:02 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:07 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion, Hunting Problems.
Mr. Fisher noted a meeting he attended with the Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Game
Warden and several property owners who were having significant problems with hunters. As a
result of the meeting, the Commonwealth's Attorney, Mr. Lindsay Dorrier did some research on
the problem. Mr. Dorrier has recommended that the Board consider an addition to the County
Code as outlined in the following letter dated February 2, 1981:
"Pursuant to Section 18.2-287 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the
governing body of any county is 'empowered to adopt ordinances making it unlawful
for any person to carry or have in his possession while on any part of a public
highway within such county a loaded firearm when such person is not authorized to hunt
private property on both sides of the highway along which he is standing or walking. .
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed county ordinance Section 13-9.2
which makes illegal the carrying of a loaded firearm on a public highway in Albemarle
County. (Copy on file in Clerk's Office) This ordinance will give the law
enforcement officials of Albemarle County power to arrest persons illegally possessing
loaded weapons on public highways.
Section 13-9.1 of the Albemarle County Code makes it unlawful for any person
to 'transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on
any public street, road or highway within such locality.' Of course, it is very
difficult for law enforcement officials to catch persons carrying loaded weapons
in vehicles on public highways within Albemarle County.
0'71
February 11, 1981 Re~Hlar Day Meeting
Under Section 13-11 of the County Code, it is unlawful to hunt within fifty
feet of a primary or secondary highway in Albemarle County. Of course, it
is difficult to prove whether or not the person is 'hunting'. Therefore, an
ordinance is needed prohibiting 'possession' of a loaded firearm outside of a
vehicle while on a public highway in Albemarle County. I have discussed this
matter with Sheriff George W. Bailey and he concurs with me that an ordinance
regulating the carrying of loaded firearms on public highways is necessary for
his law enforcement efforts. Therefore, I request that the enclosed ordinance be
advertised for public hearing and adopted as soon as possible in order to prevent
illegal hunting during the next hunting season."
Mr. Fisher then noted that there were persons present who had been having hunting
problems and he felt they should have an opportunity to explain their problems.
Mr. Mort Sutherland, resident of North Garden, was present. He felt approximately 100,000
hunting violations had already occurred in the County this year. He then presented some
examples of the problems which have occurred by shooting from the road. Mr. Sutherland felt a
problem is the period when the two week hunting season has closed west of the Blue Ridge
Mountains. He also did not feel that the Sheriff~'s office should be the group concerned with
the hunting problem. Mr. Sutherland felt the Game Commission has the authority to increase
hunting fees and such could be used for the addition of more game wardens and felt five were
needed dmring the peak hunting season.
Speaking next was Mr. Randolph in support of the ordinance offered by Mr. Dorrier.
felt prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms on the highway would be a benefit.
He
Mr. Corwith Davis said as a dairy farmer he has problems with hunting dogs disturbing his
herd of cattle. He felt one thing that could be done was to limit hunting with packs of dogs.
Speaking next was Sheriff George Bailey who explained what happened at the meeting referre
to earlier by Mr. Fisher. In January, he met with Mr. Dorrier and about twenty residents of
southside Albemarle County. He agreed with the fact that the problem is the long hunting
season and residents out of state can buy a license and hunt on such properties as Continental
Can and Westvaco which disturbs other properties. In meeting with the landowners, he agreed
to have a deputy in that area to help as much as possible. Sheriff Bailey then noted his
support of the ordinance and reemphasized that hunting from the road has always been a problem.
Mr. Fisher then asked if the Sheriff felt the proposed. Ordinance would benefit the problem
of not being allowed to carry loaded firearms on public highways. Sheriff George Bailey said
yes. As for allowing dogs to run loose, that was something that would have to be discussed in
Richmond.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, was present. He felt the proposed
ordinance would help along with the other ordinances on the books: namely; prohibit shooting
within fifty feet of a highway and preventing hunting within three hundred feet of a highway.
In conclusion, Mr. Dorrier felt the best thing for Albemarle County is to have another game
warden.
Mr. Fisher questioned how the ordinance could help since there is an ordinance to prohibit
hunting within one hundred yards from a highway. The wording of the proposed ordinance indicat
that a person has to be seen pulling the trigger and firing before an arrest can be made. Mr.
Dottier felt the ordinanoe would be a device to aid court cases involving illegal hunting. As
the ordinances exist, unless a person is seen shooting at an animal, it is difficult to prove
the person was hunting. Mr. Dorrier also noted that citizens have a duty to make complaints.
The Sheriff's Office and the Game Warden cannot be expected to catch everyone, but the citizens
have to take some of the responsibility that could be used as evidence in court.
Next to speak was Mr. Ray Walker, Game Warden. Mr. Walker said it is very important to
determine what a person is doing. He noted that whatever the Board decides he will work with
them. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Walker if he was able to enforce the game laws in the entire
county. Mr. Walker said he was not able to solve all the problems problems quickly but got to
them as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher said as he understands the problem is due to the long hunting season in Albemarl
County. With the shorter season west of the Blue Ridge and in surrounding states, problems do
occur in Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher then noted for the public that there have been a number
of times that the Board and County has gone to the Game Commission for help and there has been
zero response. He then noted that the Board could enact the ordinance but the second question
is whether the Board is willing to fund additional enforcement officers during the hunting
season.
Mr. Davis again asked if the Board was able to pass an ordinance to control dogs in the
County. Mr. Fisher was unsure and felt the enforcement of such an ordinance would be difficult
Mr. St. John said to the best of his knowledge, the County has no power to control hunting
dogs other than the general law which is that hunters of foxes and deer have the right to go
on property in order to claim and capture their dogs even if the property is posted. There is
no State law and no power in the County to make it a criminal offense for a person to have his
hunting dog on someone else's land unless it is intentional to put the dog there. There are
laws which allow the owners of dogs to go on land to capture their dogs and there are laws
which allow landowner rights with respect to stock killing or stock chasing dogs. If a person
sees such, he can shoot them. Mr. St. John said that is not really a very good remedy.
Dr. Iachetta then asked about the control of certain types of firearms. Mr. St. John
said the Game Commission has that authority and is done by the Commission in response to
requests from local governments. He then noted the usage of some firearms in some other
counties.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested asking the Game Commission to review the length of the hunting
seasons in Albemarle County. Mr. St. John said such a request can be made, but he felt the
Commission goes more by the number of animals they feel should be harvested in a given area.
The Game Commission feels hunting problems are local law enforcement problems.
S
.e
February 11, 1981
Regular Day Meeting
072
Miss Nash said the problems with dogs is not only for landowners, but when the hunting
i. season closes, dogs are abandoned. She asked if there were any way an ordinance could be
i~ adopted to require identification of the dogs at all times. Mr. Walker said the County
~ ordinance requires only tags and collars.
Mr. Fisher felt everything comes back to the question of law enforcement. Sheriff Bailey
!.~ said other counties have a local license called a damage stamp and the funds go to the County
i and then the locality gives funds back to landowners who have suffered damage. He then asked
-~ if this possibility could be considered since such a license would help defray the costs of
i! enforcing game laws. Mr. Fisher said some research would have to be done on that question.
Mr. Ray Walker said Rockbridge and Bath Counties have such a license and noted that the funds
~!have been used to pay dog wardens as well as for damages.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to schedule a public hearing for March 11, 1981, on the
adoption of the ordinance proposed by the Commonwealth's Attorney and to discuss as soon as
possible the addition of personnel to help with the enforcement and to examine the damage
stamp and to request the Game Commission to put Albemarle County on the list of counties that
would like some consideration for the restriction of firearms. Dr. Iachetta seconded the
motion and noted the problems are from the lack of adequate game wardens in the County.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley (He did not feel that taking a person's rights away, when that
person was trying to do right, was correct and felt more efforts should be made in the prosecuti~
of people.) Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. il. Receipt of Report on Ground Water Resources.
Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. R. McChesney Sterrett, Geologist of the State Water Control
Board. Mr. Sterrett had asked for this opportunity to present a report entitled "Ground Water
Resources of Albemarle County, Virginia (Planning Bulletin 326)" which was prepared by the
State Water Control Board.
Mr. Sterrett said ground water comprises ninety-five percent of the world's fresh water
resources. Ground water use in the United States is over 100 billions gallons per day and has
been referred to as the most precious resource. For these reasons and many others, the State
Water Control Board has taken a strong interest in ground water and has studied ground water
resources on a county by county basis in the Commonwealth. The reports hopefully will identify
the regional ground water trends and are not site specific. The State Water Control Board
feels that such a report will be beneficial to counties. Mr. Sterrett said ground water
supplies in Albemarle County were found to be adequate and are consistent across the County.
Mr. Sterrett then mentioned that across the County a typical well produces about 10 gallons
per minute. The eastern quarter of the County offers a lower potential of ground water than
other areas of the County. The water in the County is very low in dissolved mineral matter
and about one-half of the County has soft water. Ground water use in Albemarle County approache
three billion gallons per day of which two-thirds is for domestic use. Therefore, Mr. Sterrett
felt it quite evident why ground water is so important to Albemarle County. Morton Frozen
Foods is the largest user in Albemarle County. The Company uses approximately 120,000 gallons
per day in ground water from two wells. Even, though no widespread contamination was identified
in ground water resources in the County, there are some problems with contamination of ground
water by petroleum products. The most common is by leakage of underground storage tanks. Mr.
Sterrett said withdrawing too much ground water is not a problem in Albemarle County and there
are no documented cases of well interferences.
Mr. Fisher noted same concerns about draw-down tests and said the County has gone to
forty-eight and seventy-two hour pump down tests for large developments. Some of these wells
when tested six months later, have not produced one-half of the quantity of that tested
earlier. Mr. Sterrett was aware of such and noted that quite often a well increases in yield.
Dr. Iachetta then asked if he anticipated any regulation to prevent water from being
reinjected into wells after being pumped out. Mr. Sterrett said the State Water Control Board
is in the process of developing some injection regulations. As to a completion date of such,
he was unsure. Mr. Sterrett said there is now a blanket statement to not allow injection.
Mr. Sterrett then summarized the highlights of the report. There is an adequat~ supply of
domestic, public and light industrial uses of ground water in Albemarle County. Typic'ally,
ten and fifteen gallons per minute is the rule across the County for a well.
Mr. Fisher extended his appreciation for the presentation of the report.
Agenda Item No. 12. Requests from JAUNT.
Mr. Agnor sai~ a memorandum dated February 5, 1981, from Ms. Linda Wilson, Executive
Director of JAUNT, has been distributed to the Board. Two requests contained in the memoran-
dum are for Albemarle County to act as the agent to apply for JAUNT's matching state grant
funds and to allow JAUNT to withhold the pay-back of funds until the 1980-81 grant contract
has been executed. Mr. Agnor said the County was going to be the agent for JAUNT but ran into
difficulties with federal regulations which the City resolved. Therefore, JAUNT shifted its
sponsorship to the City. JAUNT has now been advised that they can be a recipient of federal
grants themselves independent of having a sponsor of local government. However, the State
still requires that JAUNT have a local sponsor. JAUNT prefers the County to be their sponsor
since JAUNT is more oriented to rural needs. The request is for the Board to authorize a
resolution approving Albemarle County as the sponsor for state funds and to authorize~ the
County Executive to apply for those funds and sign an agreeme'nt with the Highway Department to
correspond to that action.
February 11, 19~1 Regular Day Meeting
Mr. Henley asked what strings are attached if the County helps JAUNT obtain funds. Mr.
Agnor said his understanding is that the County would only act as a pass-through agency for
the funds. Mr. Henley expressed his concern about JAUNT being in the "red" again.
Miss Linda Wilson was present and noted that there are no strings attached but only for
the County to help JAUNT obtain state funds. Mr. Henley said his concern was that he did not
want the County to become involved to the point of taking JAUNT over. Mr. Fisher then asked
if the County has to provide the State an audit of how the grant funds have been spent. Miss
Wilson was unsure but noted that the State is already obtaining the audit for the Section 18
funds and felt such would suffice for both State and Federal. Mr. Agnor said generally the
County Audit includes the accountability of such funds.
Mr. Fisher felt this was a reasonable approach and the County does not intend to own any
equipment purchased with State funds. Until the Federal funds are received, he recommended
that the County become the agent for JAUNT to obtain state funds.
Mr. McCann did not have any problem with the request if the County did not have to spend
any more local funds. Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann noted the low ridership on the JAUNT buses.
Miss Wilson said she would provide ridership information later. Mr. McCann also questioned
how much the taxpayer is having to pay for this. Miss Wilson did not have the information
available.
Mr. Fisher said the issue of increasing rates was examined in order to build some cash
reserve. However, it turns out a Federal Dollar is lost for every increase charged to riders.
Therefore, from that standpoint there is no incentive to increase the rates. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the County acting as JAUNT's
sponsor in its quest to obtain matching state grant funds. Roll was called on the foregoing
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, HeNley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Agnor said the County has advanced funds for two fiscal years to JAUNT while awaiting
a solution to the labor warranty requirement of Federal regulations. The months of delay in
trying to get the labor warranty resolved has put JAUNT in a cash flow problem. The agreement
was that when funds were received from the Federal government, that State would repay the
jurisdictions involved. Albemarle County had loaned to JAUNT $51,050.02 which was scheduled
to be paid as follows: $37,759.44 in F. Y. 1979-80; is expected to be received in the month
of March and $13,290.58 in F. Y. 1980-81. JAUNT is asking that they not be required to repay
that immediately upon receipt but rather pay same back when they receive the 1980-81 funds
which hopefully will be April 1, 1981. Mr. Agnor understood when that funding is received,
JAUNT will be in a position to repay all the monies to the localities.
Miss Wilson said there has been a delay in receiving current fiscal year funds because of
switching from Charlottesville to independent sponsorship and JAUNT has to again go through
all the red tape involved in the grant. She noted that the State is positive that JAUNT will
receive federal funds and the funds have already been used to purchase vans. She said there
will be no cash flow as the money is already owed to others. She then distributed an estimate
of JAUNT's finances for the next two months. By the end of March, JAUNT will have a deficit
of about $30,000 for the two months. She said in talking to the Highway Department this
morning, it appears that the application will be finished in March. The Labor Department is
reviewing the labor warranty and Charlottesville has withdrawn its application and the required
audit has been completed.
Mr. Agnor recommended authorizing JAUNT to withhold the payback of appropriations schedule¢
for payback in F. Y. 1980-81, to allow JAUNT to pay back $12,759.44 from money received from
the City and then pay back the remaining $38,290.58 by April 1, 1981, upon the receipt of
State grant funds. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said ever since the Joint Security Complex was built, there have
been problems with the roof. The original contractor has been called in a number of times to
make repairs but the repairs were not successful. Over a period of time it became evident
that there was a problem at the Complex that would involve legal matters in terms of recovering
costs. Mr. Agnor said he has met several times with the City Manager on what should be done
about the problem. Out of those discussions, a decision was made to employ a roofing consultan~
who had done similar work for the City school system. The consultant was to examine the
problem and make a report in preparation for repair and replacement of the roof but also
in preparation for an attempt to recover the costs. The report was finished in December and
it confirmed that the roof was inadequately installed with inadequate materials and had to be
replaced. Mr. Agnor said about a month ago, Mr. Henley had said that the Jail Board was
concerned and he and the City Manager met again and decided to proceed to specification
writing and replacement of the roof. The process has begun with the same firm that did the
consultant work. In the meantime, the building and grounds crews have attempted to do some
temporary patching. In the last few days, Mr. Calvin Jones reported to him that a material
had been put on the roof and spread but with the rain last evening the problem still exists.
Mr. Henley-said the Jail Administrator does not feel that the problem can wait for what
seems to be six months to repair the problem.
Mr. Mike McMahan, Jail Administrator, was present and said tha'consulta.nt.'s report took
three to four months' to get somet'hing saying, that the roof needed to be' 'rep'aired~_ If there is
to be another three to. four months to get the sp.ec'i£ications, the'jail will not be able to
operate. Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire~'Official, has been to the' Complex and states that there
is a fire hazard.. Mr. McMahan said~ if. he' lis "o~de~e~ .to. ~acata ~he' P'artli~c~lar wing-that, has
the problem, he' does not.. have iany .piace. ifo~ the[ ~i. fty inmataS.' . Smch 'a ~acatl~n ~OUld mean
having to farm the' 'inmates' out. t~ ~ails 'in the' ~st~a~te~. land pa~ the~ .t~ tak~ ic'a~e iof'~ ~the' iinmatelS.
Mr. McMahan said twenty-t'hree':prisoners in the 'Complex 'are ~rom the' Stata Dep:artment of
Corrections and procedures' are being taken to~'fi.nd a pIace flor' the~.~ In. canclusion', Mr.
McMahan said a very serious problem exists.
February 1!, 1981
Regular Day Meeting
'074
Mr. Fisher felt the Jail Board had to deal with the problem about where the prisoners go.
Mr. Henley said the Jail Board is afraid of being sued over the matter. Mr. Lindstrom asked
what could be done. Mr. Henley said he advised Mr. McMahan to bring the matter'to this Board
and als° to take same to the City about the seriousness of the matter. Mr. Lindstrom said it
seems the emergency repair jobs are not working. Dr. Iachetta said a recommendation seems to
be needed on how to correct the problem. Mr. Agnor said when the bid costs are known such
will be presented to the Board. Mr. St. John said since an emergency exists, a bid is not
required. 'Mr. Agnor said if the jail is forced to be vacated, someone will have to be hired
to repair the problem.
Mr. Fisher felt the Jail Board had to make the decision on closing down the wing involved
and suggested that the State take their prisoners and the problem should be resolved as soon a
possible. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the costs could be recovered. Mr. Agnor felt they could. He
~aidd~he~ontr~ctor~ has been notified but has never attempted to examine the problem.
Mr. Fisher said the Board cannot do anything about the problem now and asked Mr. Agnor to
continue to observe the problem. Mr. Henley asked if the City was going to help. Mr. Agnor
said the City has funded the study and the specification writing. He will ask for the County'
share when the amount is known.
At 12:41 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. AHIP Quarterly Report.
Miss Ann Paul, Director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present. She noted
that AHIP completed one major rehabilitation, two minor rehabilitations, two repairs and one
HUD job during the second quarter of the Fiscal Year. She also noted that an additional
carpenter had been acquired with HUD funds.
Mr. Fisher asked that a cumulative report on the AHIP projects since the inception of the
AHIP program be given with the quarterly report in August.
Mr. Gary Oliveria then presented a slide presentation of the jobs AHIP has done during
the second quarter of Fiscal Year 1980-81.
Miss Paul then invited the Board to tour the Self-Help Housing Project (Bishop Hill).
Mr. Fisher was interested and asked the Board to consider such.
Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing: ZMA-80-25. James Reilly. (Deferred from January
21, 1981. )
This matter was deferred from January 21, 1981 because the applicant was not present but
the public hearing was held at that time.
Mr. Tucker again presented the staff report for ZMA-80~25 and noted the Planning Commissm
recommendation for approval. (Copy of the staff report set out in the minutes of January 21,
1981. )
Mr. James Reilly, applicant, was present and noted his intention to improve the community
Mr. Fisher asked if there is a single parcel of land intended for the rezoning. Mr. Reilly
said there are seven acres of land but the request is for only 2.8 acres. There is an ~
store on the property and Mr. Reilly indicated he would like to have another use on the
property.
The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Janet Broan restated her presentation from the
January 21, 1981. Basically, Mrs. Broan was concerned that the rezoning would open the area
up to many detrimental uses in the community.
With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was
closed.
Miss Nash asked Mrs. Broan about the two antique stores. Mrs. Broan said one is at the
Gulf station and the other, which is not open, is across from the Gulf station.
Mr. Fisher questioned if there was adequate room for the setback to comply with the
scenic highway designation~ Mr. Tucker felt there was. The existing store would probably no~
meet the setback requirements but there is enough depth and with the rezoning of 2.8 acres,
the one hundred fifty foot setback could be met. Mr. Fisher said if there was a much greater
setback than the existing uses the visibility of whatever is built would be much lower. He
felt that would be good for the people in the community. Mr. McCann asked what is being
planned, a new building or another use in the existing building since the existing building
does not meet the setback requirements. Mr. Reilly said the existing building was a residenc~
with some empty rooms and about one-third of the building was a grocery store. However, bein~
a 4,200 square foot building and not seeing a need for another grocery store in the area and
in order for the building to at least pay for itself, he felt a supermarket would be benefici~
Mr. McCann felt the improvements made to the property were commendable and did not feel
objection was to the existing operation but rather the fact of the uses which are available
with C-1 zoning. He personally did not feel many of the C-1 uses would be suitable in this
area but the possibility of a restaurant is the concern of the residents. Mr. McCann said
this was the reason he had suggested in the past that restaurants in rural areas should be
considered by special use permit only.
Mr. Reilly said a restaurant is a possibility but there are no intentions for such to
become a beer joint or a dance hall. He also noted that there is already a beer joint in
Cismont.
075
February_ 11 1981 R~gular Day Meeting
Mr. McCann said he was anxious for people to take a piece of property and improve it and
normally he supports such. However, he had hoped that this would have been submitted as a
proffer in order to limit certain type of uses. Mr. McCann said without the assurance of the
use to be on the property and with the C-1 uses available, he was concerned about problems
that could occur if Mr. Reilly sold the property.
Miss Nash agreed with Mr. McCann that something of this nature should be under a special
use permit in rural areas. She felt zoning this property C-1 would be spot zoning with the
crossroads there and felt it would be impossible to meet setback requirements under the Scenic
Highway designation. Miss Nash agreed that there was a need for restaurants in the rural
areas and suggested that restaurants should be in the Zoning Ordinance by special permit in
rural areas.
Mr. McCann again stated support of ZMA-80-25 if there was a proffer to limit the hours of
operation as far as a restaurant is concerned. Mr. McCann preferred to give the applicant an
opportunity to work on a proffer rather than to deny the request. He again noted that the
concern of the neighbors in the area was the possibility of a restaurant in future years.
Since the County Attorney was not present, Mr. Fisher was uneasy about how to handle the
process.
Miss Nash asked where in the Zoning Ordinance are the rules about Type II villages. Mr.
Tucker said nothing in the Zoning Ordinance speaks to Type II villages. The only comment that
has been made is that the Comprehensive Plan shows Cismont as a Type II village which means no
scheduled growth in the immediate future. Miss Nash then asked if there was any provision for
changing the zoning just because it is a Type II village. Mr. Tucker said no. Miss Nash felt
this would be spot zoning.
Mr. St. John arrived and Mr. Fisher asked if the request could be deferred in order to
allow the applicant to present a proffer. Mr. St. John said since the public hearing has been
held such cannot be deferred for presenting a proffer. However, the applicant is not restrict-
ed to the one year requirement for reapplying.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if rezoning this property could be construed as spot zoning. Mr. St.
John said with the section about conditional zoning he did not feel such can be done. Mr.
McCann said based on the County Attorney's opinion, he would offer motion to deny ZMA-80~25.
Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appeal: Fieldbrook Preliminary Plat. (?reiiminary Subdivision ?lat
for "Fieldbrook" located along State Route 652, near Charlottesville, Charlottesville Magister~
District, drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated December 15, 1980.)
Fieldbrook Preliminary Plat was called for review by Dr. Iachetta in the following letter
dated January 27, 1981:
"The reasons for calling this plat are as follows: 1) review the provision of
water services; and 2) review the application for bonus provisions."
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Location: Tax Map 46, Parcel 20 and Tax Map 61, portion of Parcel 126,
Charlottesville District; located on both sides of Route 652, north of Rio
Road East, bordered by Woodbrook, Westmoreland and Northfields.
Acreage: 43 acres
Zoning: R-2
History: A rezoning application (ZMA-76-04), for 65 townhouse units and a
gross density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre was denied by the Board
of Supervisors on August 4, 1976.
Proposal: To divide the 43 acres into 83 lots wihh a gross density of 1.9
dwelling units per acre, leaving 46.9 acres in residue.
Topography of Area: Gently to moderat~ely rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 652 carries 38 vehicle trips per
day and is listed as nontolerable.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that most of the soils found on the
site are deep and well drained with bedrock deeper than 60 inches. Soils found
on the steep slopes are shallow.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Urban area/Neighborhood Two: recommended for
low density residential with one to four units per acre.
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 38 students with the following impact:
1.Additional teachers may be needed at elementary and secondary schools
and one additional bus to serve entire enrollment projected;
2. Additional space may be needed at both the elementary and secondary
levels.
Type Utilities: Public water and sewer are available.
Staff Comment: Staff has some concern about the building site shown on Block A,
Lots 43 and 44. However, these sites were checked in the field by the
surveyor and found to be adequate for building. An adjacent landowner sent
a letter stating concerns about potential drainage problems on his lot as
a result of this development (letter follows). Staff feels that concerns of
this nature would be addressed through the Soil Erosion Ordinance and the Storm-
water Detention requirements and these are included in the conditions of
approval.
al
February 11, 1981
Regular Day Meeting
078
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends
approval with the following conditions:
The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for acceptance into thc State system (this includes
internal roads and Route 652 as shown on the plat dated January 15, 1981);
b. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the
maintenance of common open space, stormwater drainage and appurtenant
structures;
c. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements to include the
provision of fencing if deemed necessary by the County Engineer and
Zoning Administrator;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
and private entrances;
f. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
h. Street signs shall be provided;
i. A sidewalk shall be provided on the west side of Route 652;
j. No buildings shall ~e located on slopes of 25% or greater;
k. Only those areas where structures, roads, utilities, drainage structures,
etc., are located Shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its
_ n~t~ra~ state;
1. Structure on lot 42 must be removed;
m. Not more than 30% of the open space may be in 25% or greater slopes,
flood plain, drainage structures, etc."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval at its January 20, 1981,
meeting with the above conditions and adding "prior to Planning Commission review of the final
plat" to condition 1.c. and adding the following two conditions: 1.n. Dedication for a sixty
foot right-of-way shall be shown on Lot 1, Block A and Lot 37, Block B; 1.o. Investigate the
availability of a fifty foot right-of-way to Route 631 prior to Planning Commission review of
the final plat.
Dr. Iaahetta noted that Route 652 is a gravelled road.
Mr. Tucker then noted letter of appeal dated January 25, 1981, from Mr. and Mrs. Charles
Dunkl:
"In accordance with Section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, we are
appealing the approval by the Planning Commission of the Preliminary Plat of the
Fieldbrook Subdivision. Specifically we are questioning the interpretation
of bonus factors for a pedestrian system and proximity to a public school of one-
half mile. We also question the application of bonus factors, which allowed a
minimum lot size of 9700 square feet.
We are also concerned that the question of adequate fire protection (18-26a)
for the new development as well as Westmoreland was not sufficiently addressed.
At hearings held in 1976, resulting in denial of rezoning part of the land in
question, the fact that Westmoreland's six-inch water mains are inadequate in
providing fire protection for the existing subdivision was stated many times
in the public record. The developer does not appear to have complied with
Section 18-52h of the ordinance. He stated he may connect to either Westmoreland
or Woodbrook and provided no specific plan for doing either.
Our interest in this matter stems from our being adjacent property owners."
Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Tucker would address the above concerns. Mr. Tucker said
the applicant had applied for three bonus factors. One, being that his property was within
one-half mile of Woodbrook School. Mr. Tucker said the property is physically within one-
half mile of the school but there is no direct access to the school and either walking or
driving would be two and one-half miles. The second was for maintenance of existing wooded
areas. The open space shown maintains a substantial portion of the site in wooded areas.
Therefore, that bonus factor applies. The third was the pedestrian walkway system. The
walkway system is. not shown on the preliminary plat and the intention was to show same on
the final plat. Mr. Tucker said the staff's basic discussion with the applicant was to
investigate an easement through Woodbrook where children could walk to school. Mr. Tucker
said the basic problem is that some bonus factors which were applied for are shown, but the
applicant has not taken advantage of the actual bonus factors in terms of increasing the
density. What the applicant did was to take advantage of the cluster bonus factors. The
cluster provision lets lots be clustered at 9700 square feet and that is basically what is
shown in this plan. The other issue mentioned is the fire flow and pressure. Mr. Tucker
said his understanding from the County Engineer's department is that calculations have been
made and this area does have adequate water pressure. He felt the reason the adjacent
property owners are concerned is because the~development proposed in 1976 was for townhouse
units and these units required 2,000 gallons per minute of'flow whereas the single-family,
detached units require only about 750 gallons per minute. The applicant can achieve that by
running an eight-inch water line from Westmoreland and that line is shown on the plan. The
2,000 gallons per minute could not be met in 1976 because the water line would have had to
be extended from Rio Road.
February 11, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. J Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, to comment on the'fire
flow and water pressure for the development. Mr. Bailey introduced Mr. Tom Trevillian, new
employee in the Engineering Department. By using the characteristic PVC pipe and the extensio~
of the waterline from the existing waterline in Westmoreland, Mr. Bailey said 750 gallons
per minute:i: could be achieved which is required by the Fire Official.
Mr. Charles Dunkl, adjacent property owner, was present and said his concern with
respect to the water was that for years in Westmoreland Subdivision there were no fire
hydrants. The explanation for such was that the water main system was inadequate to provide
hydrants. Now there are a few hydrants but the water main system has not been changed from
the original system. Mr. Dunkl said he did not understand why more water is not required to
serve almost twice as many houses as presently on the Westmoreland line. He felt cutting
into the pipe Wii!t .dimi~ish~ the available water by a factor of fifty percent.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Bailey to comment on the above concerns. Mr. Bailey was
unsure where the idea came from that there was not sufficient water. The fire hydrants were
part of the program authorized by the Board several years ago. Ail the hydrants were installe¢
to care for the Westmoreland area. Therefore, Mr. Fisher felt the answer was that the
existing system which this is tied into is not marginal and does have fire flow protection
and this addition in Westmoreland will not make the condition in Westmoreland any worse.
Mr. Bailey said yes, the system will still be adequate for fire suppression. Mr. Lindstrom
then asked if the program for hydrant installation in Westmoreland was completed. Dr.
Iachetta said complete in the sense that there are two hydrants on two six-inch mains but
part of Westmoreland is served by four-inch lines and there is no point in putting hydrants
on those. Mr. Bailey disagreed. He felt a report from the Albemarle County Service Authority
a year ago did not make such a statement.
Speaking next was Mrs. Olivia Grayson, resident of Woodbrook Subdivision. She said
there are two hydrants on Berwick Court. The other hydrants are on Carrsbrook Drive. She
said her concern is the traffic because there is more than enough in the subject area now.
Mrs. Grayson felt the situation is becoming very urban without the amenities that an urban
area ought to have. She also noted problems with water standing on some of the properties
when there is any rain.
Mr. William Blucher spoke next as a representative of the Westmoreland Community
organization. He noted for the record that the residents in Westmoreland that could not be
present today do not have any objection to building in the area. However, there are some
questions about it. There has never been the chance to plan and look at the drainage problems
and water. The concerns of the residents about the original proposal were the road and the
water. The feeling has always been to look at the area as a total and not piece by piece.
Mr. Blucher felt that is where trouble comes from. In looking at this once before, the
feeling was that it was wise to build from the Rio Road area into the Westmoreland area.
What is being said is that the residents would like to see water drawn from the Rio Road
area. He also felt the road should be upgraded in order that it can be used by Westmoreland
and Carrsbrook. Mr. Blucher felt if the road is going to be used it should be in a thoroughfa~
condition. The other concern is the schools. He found it difficult to believe that the
School System would say that in eighty-three houses there would only be one child for every
two houses. He was concerned also about the right-of-way for a foot path to the school
because it crosses a drainage ditch. Mr. Blucher said he would like to work with the develope:
on this matter further in order to resolve the concerns of the residents.
Mr. Fisher said the land is zoned for this use and the only action involved is the
administrative function of whether the water and sewer requirements have been met. Therefore,
the land stands with the zoning and the Board is only reviewing the technical aspects.
Dr. Iachetta said the question of stormwater runoff is covered in the County's Stormwater
Detention Ordinance and in principal this developer cannot allow anymore runoff from that
site than it has in its undeveloped state. Therefore, the developer will have to do whatever
is necessary to protect the flooding of the yards, etc. on the site as well as off the site.
Next to speak was Mr. William S. Roudabush, surveyor for the property, representing the
applicant, Mr. Claude Cotten. Mr. John Greene of his office has worked closely with the
water aspects of the plan. He felt Mr. Bailey has given the findings well on that aspect.
As for the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, the Planning Commission did make a condition that
they wanted to review the stormwater detention plan before any final approval was given.
Mr. Greene has been working on that. Mr. Roudabush said he would speak on the other questions
that have been raised, one being the question on the bonus provisions. This property was
being examined for its suitability as a development prior to the adoption of the present
zoning ordinance. When the ordinance was adopted, there was another plan for developing
this property and there was no open space provided on that plan. However, the street layout
and the number of lots were basically the same. The lots were larger though than the minimum
of 9700 square feet because they were long and skinny lots. Therefore, he met with the
developer and Mr. Tucker to discuss the feasibility of working with the new ordinance in
providing some open space and setting aside creating a homeowners association and having
some amenities that would preserve the open space and not particularly get anymore lots into
the development. The requirements of the new ordinance were examined and the feeling was
that the developer could very easily meet some of the bonus provisions because there is no
definition in the ordinance of how to measure the location with respect to distance from a
school. The possibility of having a pathway over to the School has been examined but such
would involve crossing some property that is not controlled by the developer. The other
things listed for bonus factors were, the preservation of existing wooded areas which was
the reason for going to the cluster type plan, and the creation of a walkway system. The
developer did not want to go in with wide streets and concrete sidewalks on both sides but
rather have a free form type pathway system similar to Hollymead which contours the land.
However, the Planning Commission did require that a concrete sidewalk be put on the west
side of Rout.e 652. The Highway Department has required that Route 652 be brought up to
either category 5 or 6. The road is to be constructed to the same cross-section of width,
etc. as Westmoreland Road but will a base and pavement that will ultimately carry any traffic
that will be routed through Westmoreland. Mr. Roudabush felt this was a much better plan
than ~ividing all the land up into lots. He noted there is no request for an increase in
density. However, the ordinance does state that if the bonus items are provided, the increase
in ~ensity will be allowed. The applicant did not feel such was needed.
February 1i, 1981
Regular Day Meeting
07E
Mr. Claude Cotten, applicant, was present and said the endeavor was to create a subdivisio
which would not take the entire tract of land. He then emphasized the point that the Chairman
made that the property was already zoned for this type of use and the intention is to comply
with the ordinance. He noted that at the Planning Commission meeting a twenty foot buffer
zone between Westmoreland and Fieldbrook was agreed to. Mr. Cotten noted that Mr. R. D.
Wade will be the builder and houses are expected to be built in a price range similar to
Westmoreland.
Mr. Wendell Winn was present and said he would like to speak to the bonus provisions
that seem to be of some concern. One item is that the land is zoned R-2. The Comprehensive
Plan designates this as part of Urban Area Neighborhood No. 2 and recommends one to four
units per acre and this request is only for 1.9 units per acre. So the plan is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and with the new Zoning Ordinance with respect to the bonus
factors. He then read the section in the Zoning Ordinance about the bonus factors. The
point Mr. Winn desired to make was that the surveyor and the applicant did this plan with
the staff. The development is designed for smaller lots and with 12.09 acres in open space
and such results in twenty-eight percent of the land being left in open space and the ordinance
only requires 25%. If the developer is forced to go to conventional development using the
bonus factors, he would be entitled to two and one-half units per acre, or 107 units instead
of the proposed 83, and he did not feel such was in the best interest of the County.
Mr. Roudabush then added that only ten lots in the entire subdivision will be as small
as 9,700 square feet. The other lots are as large as 12,000 or 13,000 square feet.
Mr. Fisher said a question has been raised about the addition of this development to
the end of the existing waterlines from Westmoreland and if such wilZ provide adequate fire
flow for that portion of Westmoreland served by that line and this development. Mr. Bailey
said that was correct. Mr. Fisher asked if another indication was given that this was
probably the limit and no more development could be added on that line without some major
work being done. Mr. Bailey said 750 gallons per minute flow within this development is as
much as the system can supply.
Dr. Iachetta then asked the intent of condition "o" in the Planning Commission's action.
Mro Tucker said the ultimate plan is that this road will be continued and noted that it is
already in the state system. Hopefully, the road will be upgraded to a satisfactory category.
However, there was some question about where Route 652 connects to Rio Road and the applicant
is to look into the possibility of acquiring a right-of-way of at least fifty feet out to
Route 631. Mr. Roudabush said the applicant has complied with the condition. Dr. Iachetta
then asked if the Planning Commission had considered not allowing access to Route 652 until
such time as something can be done about the road. Mr. Tucker said such was not considered.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the requirement is to have two access points. Mr. Tucker said no.
Mr. Tucker said there is to be some improvement to Route 652 but it is obviously not being
brought up to category 5 or 6 just for these lots.
Mr. Roudabush then pointed out the existing thirty feet right-of-way of Route 652
adjacent to Northfield Subdivision. He then noted that he felt the land is available to
make such a fifty foot right-of-way. However, Mr. Roudabush said he has not discussed the
possibility of-acquiring the land from the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the plan looked good and is in an area where development is encouraged.
The biggest problem he has is the road. There are very few dirt roads left in the urban
area and he felt the Board had to concentrate on getting such roads in the urban area upgraded.
However, he did not see that ~h~ plat could be denied on that basis. Therefore, he really
did not see any basis on which to make any changes and felt the plan should be approved.
The general concern he has is inadequate fire protection due to growth. He then asked if
some clarification could be g.iven on such.
Mr. Fisher said this plan has been reviewed for water and bonus provisions and the
County Engineer has stated that the provision of water standards has been reviewed and the
plan meets the standards. He felt all the bonus provisions have been compiled with and saw
no reason to change the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said unless there
is a decision to change the action of the Planning Commission, the decision of the Planning
Commission stands. Hearing none, the Planning Commission approval stands.
Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permit.
Dr. Iachetta left the meeting at 3:30 P.M.
Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit request for the Woodbrook School PTO for
bingo games and raffles to be held on March 21, 1981. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve the lottery permit application for calendar year 1981 in
accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll
was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 13. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Common~
wealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of January, 1981 were presented. On
motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, these statements were approved as read.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
February 11, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
Agenda Item No. 14. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of January,
1981, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician
and salaries of paramedics and classification officer. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Mr. McCann, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 15. Report of the County Executive for January, 1981, was presented
for the Board's information.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of January, 1981,
were also presented as information:
Common~aalth of Virginia-Cmrrent Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scott~il~e 1% Local Sales Tax
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Debt Service Fund
Grant PrOject Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 15,294.60
702,O7O.72
1,791,017.50
42,702.65
317,989.51
902.26
73,870.70
354.76
407,805.29
1,001,267.30
6,382.12
148,307.52
$4,507,964.93
Agenda Item No. 16. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
December, 1980, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Reapportionment.
Mr. Fisher said this is on the agenda in order to proceed with finalizing drafting new
magisterial district boundaries. He then asked if any final census figures had been received.
Mr. Tucker said that information is expected this month. Mr. Fisher asked if any new maps
were ready. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Jan Purcell, technician in his office, has been working on
some maps. There was some discussion at the last Board meeting about leaving the Rivanna
and Scottsville Districts as they presently exist and to change the other districts. Mr.
Tucker then presented the maps Ms. Purcell had prepared and noted that community interest
has been maintained in each one of the communities such as in the Samuel Miller District
where Ivy has been retained. Mr. Tucker said all of the Board members are kept in their
respective districts in this proposal. The population figures of the proposals are set out
below:
Proposal #6':
Proposal #7:
Proposal #8:
Proposal #9:
Charlottesville District--9411; Jack Jouett District--9308;
Rivanna District--8653; Samuel Miller District--8856;
Scottsville District--8823; and White Hall District--9304.
Charlottesville District--8776; Jack Jouett District--9!70;
Rivanna District--9180; Samuel Miller District--8988;
Scottsville- District--9210; and White Hall District--9031.
Charlottesville District--8776; Jack Jouett District--9040;
Rivanna District--9180; Samuel Miller District--8986;
So~tt~ille District--9210; and White Hall District--9163.
Charlottesville District--8776; Jack Jouett District--9139;
Rivanna District--9180; Samuel Miller District--8990;
Scottsville District--9210; and White Hall District--9109.
(Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 3:38 P.M.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt awkward to make this statement because obviously his district
stays the same, but the proposal submitted last week by Mr. Fisher best meets the land area
requirements and makes the least changes.
Mr. McCann' said nothing can be done with the Jack Jouett district because of the
University. If the Board is going on the basis of not moving any Board member out of his
district and if the Board feels there has to be a boundary between rural and urban representa~
tion, perhaps an urban district would be a good idea. Mr. Lindstrom said the districts made
exclusively urban would be Charlottesville and Jack Jouett. If Jack Jouett is made urban,
he would no longer be in Jack Jouett. Mr. McCann said' if plans ~, #9 or ~. Fisher's
proposal #6 (Note: Mr. Fisher's proposaI made at the February 4, 19815 meeting with populatior
figures as follows: Charlottesville District--9411; Jack Jouett District--9308; Rivanna
District--8653; Scottsviile District--8823; Samuel Miller District--8856; and White Hall
District--9304) had come to the Board from an advisory group he could have supported them.
Mr. Henley agreed with Mr. McCann ~ut felt that even if a committee had looked at this
question there would still be a problem. He felt what has been presented should be voted on
and set for public hearing.
Mr. McCann said the staff was originally directed to draft a proposal and thus far
have drawn up eight proposals and the plans are balanced as far as districts are concerned.
Mr. M¢Cann said he was willing to go to public hearing with proposals 1 through 5 and proposal~
7 through 9. Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason for eliminating proposal 6. Mr. McCann again
stated that the staff was directed to draw the proposals and after the Board was presented
with those~(1-5), a decision could not be reached on any of them. The Board then decided to
appoint a committee to work on the proposals but that never occurred. Mr. Lindstrom ~a~d ~e
wanted to look at all of the proposals if he was going to vote on a proposal taking him out
of his district. Miss Nash felt the first two proposals were ridiculous in having such
. 080
February 11, 1981 ReHular Day Meeting
tremendous areas.
Mr. McCann agreed with Miss Mash about the first two proposals.
The Board then discussed all nine proposals. Mr. Fisher said proposal #1 takes Miss
Nash and Mr. Lindstrom out of their districts and reduces the area of the SamUel Miller
District. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone favored taking #1 to public hearing. Hearing no comments
that proposal was eliminated. The Board then eliminated #2, #3, #4 and #5. Mr. McCann liked
proposal #4 but since it removes Mr. Lindstrom from his district, he would have to support
#9.
Proposal #6 was then presented. Mr. Lindstrom felt of all the proposals presented this
one least affects the present boundaries. Mr. McCann did not feel proposal #6 made any fewer
boundary changes than proposal #4. Proposal #6 had a poPulation figure of 9308 for Jack
Jouett which is next to the highest (Charlottesville District) in the County~ This takes in
an area that will grow in a hurry. Mr. McCann said proposal #4 shows a lower population for
the Charlottesville District and that should be so since growth will occur faster in that
district. Miss Nash supported proposal #6 as the foremost in her mind. Mr. Henley also
supported proposal #6. Mr~ McCann again stated that proposal #6 was supposed to have been
drafted by a committee and instead was done by the Chairman. He just wanted to state that he
did not like the way it was done nor the balance in the districts. Mr. Fisher said he tried
to get a committee together. He then invited Mr. McCann to come up with his own proposal.
Mr. McCann said in looking at the proposals he was disturbed about not being notified when
his district was being chopped on. The districts causing problems are left alone and the
districts that could be left alone are involved to make sure that Mr. Lindstrom is kept in
his district and to keep Monticello in Miss Nash's district as she requested. Ms. Nash and
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom favored proposal #6. Proposal #7 and #8 were
then eliminated.
Discussion then followed on proposal #9. Mr. Fisher noted that about 4,000 students are
transferred from Jack Jouett into Samuel Miller with proposal #9. Dr. Iachetta said there
are some areas in these new proposals that have rapidly growing urbanized areas and he would
like to know which areas have a greater tendency to grow as proposed to others where things
are just beginning. Mr. Tucker had not examined the matter. Dr. Iachetta then suggested
taking land area off of Jack Jouett and putting some of that area into the Samuel Miller
district since Jack Jouett is basically an urban area. Miss Nash agreed. Mr. McCann supporte¢
proposal #9 with the suggestion made by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to
look at both of the proposals before finalization. He then suggested resolving the matter
next week.
Mr. Fisher asked what kind of schedule is needed for a final decision. Mr. St. John
said the Code states that the new magisterial districts can be adopted either by ~resolution
or ordinance. Dr. Iachetta favored a public hearing being held on an ordinance. Mr. Fisher
asked if this information must be mailed t~ the Justice Department by March. Mr. St. John
said it should be acted on as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher said if a public hearing is to
be held in March, a decision needs to be made next week. He also felt some time should be
allowed after the hearing to make any changes-needed. Dr. Iachetta said proposals #6 and #9
seem to be workable and maybe the two could be juggled somewhat to see if the distribution
can be changed where the more rapid growth will occur. However, he was not satisfied with
either one. Mr. St. John said the boundary lines should be advertised. Mr. Henley did not
see any problem with the advertisement of the two as they currently exist. Mr. McCann was
willing to eliminate #4 and retain proposals #6 and #9. Mr. St. John said, if possible,
only one proposal should be advertised and made the subject of the public hearing. Mr.
Lindstrom agreed to wait one more week to resolv~ the matter.
Mr. Fisher said a decision would be made next week and asked that proposal #9 be redone
by taking some land area off of Jack Jouett toward Mechum River and adding such to the Samuel
Miller District. Mr. Tucker said that idea would be examined.
Agenda Item No. 21.
Utilities and Zoning).
Discussion:
Service Incentives (formerly called the Study on
Mr. Agnor said the meeting held on the staff recommendation last year was attended by a
number of people who would be affected by such a program. The matter of reimbursement for
on-site as well as off-site utility improvements was proposed by some builders and this had
not been included in the staff r~commendation. The staff report only dealt with bringing
utilities to the site and recommended reimbursement for off-site costs. Mr. Agnor said
the Board had decided that the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance would have a significant
affect on this program and until the Zoning Ordinance and Map were adopted, the Board did not
feel much could be done in determining which areas to deal with. The matter more or less
became dormant at that point.
Discussion then ensued which was almost entirely as set out in the minutes of August 20
and August 27, 1980. Mr. Fisher said he had asked that this item be put on the agenda to see
if there had been any progress but he did not feel any has been made. A way to proceed would
be to reconstitute the committee. Mr. Lindstrom felt a decision needs to be made. Mr.
Fisher asked if the Board wanted to establish a new committee. Mr. Lindstrom felt the origina
proposals should be reviewed. Mr. Henley felt a vote should be taken now to determine the
feelings of the Board. Mr. Fisher agreed with Mr. Lindstrom since there is nothing before
the Board and suggested rescheduling the matter, sending out the Utilities and Zoning report
and the minutes of August 20, 1980 and August 27, 1980 for further discussion next month.
This matter was deferred to the March meeting.
Mr. Fisher noted items not completed on the agenda and suggested adjourning to either
Thursday or Friday to continue the agenda. A decision was made to meet February 12, 1981, at
3:00 P.M. for this purpose.
081
February 12, 1981 (Adjourned from February 11, 1981)
February 11, 1981 Regular Day Meeting
Agenda Item No. 26. At 4:56 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn until February 12, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County
Office Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
CHAI~N
February 12, 1981 (Afternoon Meeting-Adjourned from
February 1!~ 1981)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 12, 1981, at 3:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 11, 1981.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F..Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy
Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St.
John, and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:10 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Agnor had to leave the meeting soon and agenda item 4
would be discussed first. (Dr. Iachetta left the meeting at 3:12 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Extension of Lease, Wilhoit Building.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, presented the following memorandum dated
February 6, 1981:
"The lease on the Wilhoit building which houses Engineering, Planning and
Inspections expires April 1981. The current lease provides for renewals
in five year increments only. Last year when the McIntire Road Office
Building (Lane) project began, the owners of the building, B.C.M. Partnership,
were approached with a timetable of our needs, and a request to extend
the lease until the offices could be moved to McIntire Road. They expressed
a willingness to do so.
The current lease is a complicated one which had rents ranging from $3,266
per month plus a percentage of lease hold improvements for twelve months,
diminishing to $1,770 per month for thirty-one months, and to $850 per
mo~th for seventeen months, plus all taxes, insurance, utilities. These
funds were put in an escrow account which will be exhausted at the end of
May, 1981.
The owners are willing to extend the lease to the end of 1981 for the interest
expense on a mortgage held by Virginia National Bank on the property. The
mortgage interest moves monthly with the prime interest. For the period
of June - December, 1981 when the escrow account will expire, it is estimated
the rent will cost $2,250-$2,500 per month.
It is requested that approval be granted for the lease on this property to
be extended on the basis of this proposal. Ail other provisions of the current
lease will be re~ained."
Mr. Agnor said his recommendation and request is to be authorized to sign a ~etter of
agreement with the owner of the Wi!hoit building in order to extend the-lease until December,
1981. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henlay, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
(Dr. IacMetta returned to the meeting at 3:15 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 2. .Discussion:
Ordinance.
Areas Made Nonconforming by Adoption of the new Zoning
This matter was deferred from the January 21, 1981, meeting in order that the legal
staff could be better prepared to discuss the areas which have been made nonconforming by
being rezoned to RA on the recently adopted Zoning Map.
Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, was present and did not feel there are any
legal problems except where there is a development or subdivision in the RA district which
could no~ now be approved in the RA district even through the special use permit process.
noted as an example, Squirrel Ridge.
He