1981-04-15April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on April 15,
1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 7:43 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
At 7:31 P.M., the meeting was called to order by
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-1. Charles Hurt. (deferred from March 4, 1981.)
Agenda Item No. 3.
Agenda Item No. 4.
1981.)
ZMA-81-2.
ZMA-81-3.
Charles Hurt. (deferred from March 4, 1981.)
North 29 Business Land & Trust. (deferred from March
Mr. Stuart Carwile, representing the applicant of the above three zoning requests,
requested withdrawal without prejudice of these three applications. Mr. Fisher asked if
anyone from the public was present who wished to speak regarding any of these three
rezonings. No one from the public wished to speak and Mr. Fisher declared the matter
before the Board.
Mr. St. John said he thought ZMA-81-3 was part of an application involving another
applicant, and asked if this item should not be heard at this time. Mr. Carwile said Mr.
St. John must be referring to the application from "84" Lumber Company. Mr. Carwile said
this has been handled as a separate application, which was presented to and approved by
the Board of Supervisors on March 18, 1981.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the request for withdrawal without
prejudice of ZMA-81-2, ZMA-81-3 and ZMA-81-3. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-05. Byrum Land Trust. Petition to locate a mobile home on
89.7 acres zoned RA. Located north of Earlysville on Route 604 approximately 7/10 mile
from the intersection with Routes 604 and 664. County Tax Map 19, Parcel 2. White Hall
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the Planning Commission recommendation
as follows:
Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 89.7 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 19, Parcel 2, located off the
west side of Route 604 approximately 1.5 miles from the Greene County
line.
Character of Area: The immediate area surrounding the property is rural in
character and is composed of a mixture of forest and pasture land.
Residential development in the immediate area is limited to four homes
in Lexington Subdivision located just east of Parcel 2 and a small
grouping of homes (fi. ye, of which two are mobile homes) along Route
604. There are two mobile homes located on the 89 acre parcel.
Two gravel roads provide access to the property.
Staff Comment: Applicant proposes to locate mobile home in a clearing in
the southern portion of Parcel 2. The proposed site (as shown on a
sketch contained in the permanent files of the Planning Department)is
located approximately. 300 feet from the property line and approximately
500 feet from the nearest home in Lexington Subdivision.
It would appear that none of the surrounding homes would be visible
from the proposed site as most of the land surrounding the site is
thickly vegetated with both deciduous and non-deciduous trees and
brush.
Since two roads provide access to the property, a paved commercial
entrance to the property will not be necessary.
Objection to this application for a special use permit comes from the
owners of Parcel 51D located at the southeast tip of Parcel 2.
Staff recommends that the Commission accept the attached sketch in
lieu of the required detailed site plan.
Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose t0
accept this application for a special use permit, staff recommends the
following:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
181
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 24, 1981, unanimously
recommended approval of this special permit with the condition as stated in the staff
report. The Planning Commission also unanimously voted to accept the sketch in lieu of
the required detailed site plan. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 7:43 P.M.)
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Brian
Butler. Mr. Butler said he plans to occupy the home himself. Mr. Butler said his wife
and her four sons are the principles of Byrum Land Trust. No one else from the public
wished to speak either for or against this special permit request and Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley for approval of this special
use permit with the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-81-7. Richard T. and Martha M. Selden. (Turner Mountain
Wood) Pursuant to Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, RA District, to subdivide 84~
acres into 17 residential lots. Located on Turner Mountain, north of Route 250 West.
County Tax Map 58, Parcel 64E. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on April t and April 8, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Request' Division of 84.13 acre parcel into 17 residential lots with an
average lot size of 4.95 acres (Section 10.5).
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 64E (part), is located
on an easement approximately one-half mile north of Route 250 East on
Turner Mountain.
Character of the Area: This is a wooded tract as are most other properties
in the area. A variety of parcel sizes exist in the area.
Comprehensive Plan: This property is within the South Rivanna Reservoir
watershed and is therefore recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for a
density of one dwelling per ten acres. Map II in the Comprehensive
Plan designates Turner Mountain as an area of critical slope; mountainous
areas are recommended for a density of one dwelling per ten acres.
The property is also shown in an agricultural conservation area in the
general land use plan (Map XII).
In regard to development of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan re-
commends as follows: (While this application is for 17 additional
lots, 3 lots have been approved for the applicants out of this tract.)
Conventional Developments: Conventional developments, generally
involving construction of new roads, are recommended at a scale
between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be
Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be
discouraged in areas of the County where desired average densities
are lower than one dwelling per acre. In addition to traditional
design improvement standards, developments of this size should
incorporate the following two features:
-- Mini-neighborhood identity, including recognizable boundaries
and focal point for resident gatherings/activities.
-- Logical connecting features with adjoining parcels of land.
The Comprehensive Plan also recommends that the village scale of
development begin with a population of 100 persons. This development
would have an estimated population of 55 persons (20 dwellings).
Summary of Land Uses in the Area: Criteria 4 and 5 of special permit
review in the RA address the character of land uses within a one mile
radius (an area of 2,000 acres) of the subject property. In this
particular case, as is provided in the criteria, staff has considered
a smaller area (about 1,224 acres) bounded by Routes 250 West, 676,
and 678. Staff opinion is that this area is a reasonable representation
of cohesiveness and influence for purposes of review:
Land Uses
Acreage % of Study Area
Parcels less than five acres
(developed land)
Parcels more than five acres
(undeveloped land)
Preferential tax - forestry
Preferential tax - agriculture
172 14%
507 41%
314 26%
231 19%
TOTAL t,224 acres 100%
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Special Use .Permit Criteria: The following is a review of the proposed
Turner Mountain Wood subdivision for appropriateness of development as
set forth in the nine criteria of the RA District:
1. The size, shape, topography, and existing vegetation of the
property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal
production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal
production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published
maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil
Conservation Service.
Because of the topography of Albemarle County, only a small percentage
of soils would be classified as prime agricultural lands, though the
soil quality may be identical to prime soils. SCS classifications are
based on suitability for cropland; therefore, steeper lands would not
be classified as prime. Prime soils range in slope from 0 to 7%.
Beyond 7% these same soils are classified as important agricultural
lands indicating a high suitability for grazing, pasture and forestry
uses.
Soils at Turner Mountain Wood consist of Hayesville Loam and Brandy-
wine. Hayesville is a deep well-drained clay soil, while Brandywine,
occuring on steeper slopes is shallow and excessively well-drained.
Hayesville is considered a prime soil in the slope range of 2-6%.
Turner Mountain is not considered a cropping area by SCS, due to
slope. SCS has recommended that the Hayesville soils in this area be
considered important soils for forestry use, while Brandywine should
be considered a good soil for forestry.
3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the
property since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. This
property has enjoyed preferential land use taxation as forestal land
since 1976. Therefore, the previous and/or current property owners
have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Real Estate
Department that commercial forestry is a legitimate use for this
property. (This property is appraised at a fair market value of
$1,020/acre; taxation is based on a forestal value of $125/acre.)
4. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable
effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For
purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an
agricultural or forestal area if fifty percent or more of the land
within one mile of the border of such property has been in commercial
agricultural or forestal use within five years of the date of the
application for special us~ permit. In making this determination,
mountain ridges, major streams, and other physical barriers which
detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered.
Staff has used preferential land use taxation as a measure of agri-
cultural and forestal activity for an area. In the study area, 45% of
the land is under preferential taxation. Therefore, staff does not
consider this property to be located in an agricultural or forestal
area.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural
areas. For the purpose of this section, a property shall be deemed to
be located in a developed rural area if fifty percent or more of the
land within one mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels
of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance.
In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and
'other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area
shall be considered.
Only 14% of the~land in the study area is in parcels of five acres or
less. If approved, Turner Mountain Wood would be the largest develop-
ment in the study area. (The portion of Lewis Hills in the study area
consists of 15 lots.) Most development is on the fringe of the study
area with larger tracts of land abutting Turner Mountain Wood.
Therefore, subdivision development in the study area has been limited
and has generally occured one-half to three-quarters of a mile from
this property. This property is not considered to be within a develop~
ed rural area.
6. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and
proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A
property within areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to
the area or use described:
a. within one mile of the urban area boundary as described in
the Comprehensive Plan;
b. within one-half mile of a community boundary as described in
the Comprehensive Plan;
c. within one-half mile of the major crossroads of Type I or
one-half mile of a Type II village as described in the Compre-
hensive Plan.
April t5~ 1981 (Regular N~ght Me~_
Travel distance from the center of the development to the fringe of
the Ivy village is about 0.8 mile and travel distance to commercial
uses is about 1.7 miles. Murray and MeriwetherLewis Schools and
industrial uses along Route 738 are the major employers in the area.
Whether measured by travel distance or by straight line, Turner
Mountain Wood is not considered to be in proximity to a growth area.
7. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital im-
provements programming in regard to increased provision of services.
The Education Department has indicated that the impact of increased
enrollment would be slight with an increase of about eight students.
Schools serving the development would be Murray, Henley, and Western
Albemarle. Students would be bused to all schools. Since access is
by private road, school buses would not serve the development. The
applicant may wish to consider a bus shelter at Route 250.
Response time from the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department would be about
15 minutes. No water for firefighting is available in the immediate
area. The Fire Official has commented favorably on the proposed lot
sizes and building separations in the homeowner's covenants.
While staff has not used the new State Water Control Board groundwater
study, since it is currently under Board review, it should be noted
that Flordon, West Leigh and Westwoods have experienced groundwater
problems. Extension of public water to Turner Mountain Wood in the
event of well failures would be expensive. Historically, such costs
have been borne by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in
the opinion of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
occasion the need for road improvement;
cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road;
increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road.
Other than commercial entrance improvements, the Highway Department
has not indicated that this development would occasion the need for
road improvements.
9. With respect to applications for special use permits for land
lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of
any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors
shall be considered:
ae
the amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as
related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy
metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to
water quality for human consumption;
the extent to which existing vegetative cover would be
removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any
development;
the amount of impervious cover which will exist after
development;
the proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area,
structure, or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent
stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the
proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impound-
ment;
e·
the type and characteristics of soils including suitability
for septic fields and erodability;
the percentage and length of all slopes subject to dis-
turbance during construction or upon which any structure,
paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational
area shall exist after development;
ge
the estimated duration and timing of the construction phase
of any proposed development and extent to which such dura-
tion and timing are unpredictable;
the degree to which original topography or vegetative cover
have been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit
hereunder;
the extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. of
the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation
of artificial devices, whic~ devices will: _
require periodic inspection and/or maintenance;
are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off
associated with any one hundred year or more intense
storm.
This is the first application to receive extensive review under criteria
#9, which addresses development in the watershed of a public drinking
water supply. As was discussed during work on the Ordinance, much of
the analysis under criteria #9 will be general and qualified. Items
9b, 9c, 9d, 9f, 9g, and 9h should be addressed by the applicant.
(Staff would note that these items are most applicable in a case where
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
the applicant is also the developer. In rural subdivisions, this is
the exception rather than the rule. Most often, the applicant constructs
the roads and offers vacant lots for sale.)
9,a. This property is wooded, which is the most desirable ground cover
for purposes of filtration.
9.e. The Hayesville soils on the property have moderate limitations
for Septic drainfield location, while the Brandywine' soils have
severe limitations, due to steepness of slope and shallowness.
Brandywine soils are highly erodable.
9.i. Because of the low density of the development, it is unlikely
that a run-off control permit would be required.
Staff offers the following additional comment as general background
information for criteria #9:
1. The average slope of the property is about 20%. Streams exist on
six lots. These physical features combined with special yard requirements
in the homeowner's covenants and septic system setback requirements
bring lot 16 into question in terms of appropriateness for development;
2. The homeowner's covenants require a minimum floor area of 2,000
square feet. For houses of this size, it is common that driveways are
paved. Therefore, these covenants encourage increase in impervious
coverage. Combined with off-site road improvements, staff would not
expect impervious coverage to exceed 1.5 acres. (Staff has used 2,000
square feet/lot of impervious coverage as a crude estimate.)
3. The homeowner's covenants restrict tree removal.
4. Road plans, grading plans and soil erosion plans have already
been approved.
Staff Comment: As can be seen in the preceding analysis, this property is
neither located in an active agricultural area nor a developed rural
area, thereby complicating review. A summary checklist of factors
favorable and unfavorable to approval of the development is as follows:
Favorable to Development
- Wooded area as recommended in Comprehensive Plan;
- Not in active agricultural area;
- Low density development, generally reflects development recommendations
of Comprehensive Plan and requirements of new Ordinance;
- Slope too steep to encourage intensive agriculture or forestry; and
- Public road adequate for additional traffic.
Unfavorable to Development
- Comprehensive Plan recommends 1 dwelling/10 acres due to critical slopes;
- Comprehensive Plan recommends 1 dwelling/10 acres due to reservoir watershed;
- Not in rural developed area;
- Taxed for forestry use since 1976; therefore, forestry must be valid use;
- History of groundwater problems in the area;
- Would be largest development in area (approaching village scale).
May encourage futura development in the area; and
- Transformation from wooded or undeveloped areas to impervious coverage.
Should the Commission and Board rely on the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan, this petition should be denied. By-right development
would yield eight lots or about 1 dwelling/10 acres as recommended by
the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff would note that the run-off control ordinance and critical
slopes provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are intended to effectuate
the Oomprehensive Plan's recommendations in regard to development in
reservoir watersheds and mountainous areas. Should the Commission and
Board rely on these ordinances, the development could be approved with
minor modification.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this application,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1) Development limited to 17 lots with one dwelling per lot;
2) Redesign lo.t 16 to provide a building site accessible without a
stream crossing.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 7, 1981, unanimousl
recommended this petition be'-approved with the two conditions suggested by the Planning
Department.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Paul
Peatross, representing Dr. and Mrs. Selden. Mr. Peatross reviewed the past history of the
property, and disputed statements in the staff report which indicated this area as not a
developed area and having groundwater problems. Mr. Peatross said Highway Department
comments have been favorable regarding this project. Mr. Peatross referred to a letter
dated April 5, 1981, from Dr. Richard Selden to Mr. Ron Keeler of the Planning Department
regarding "paragraph nine of the Zoning Ordinance" as follows:
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
"At the suggestion of my attorney, Mr. Paul M. Peatross, Jr., I am writing
in relation to our Special Use Permit request, which will be heard by the
Planning Commission on April 7. Mr. Peatross has furnished a copy of
paragraph nine of the zoning ordinance, which requests information on a
number of matters relating to drinking water. Unfortunately, this copy
reached me only about a week ago and it has not been possible to obtain
professional help in working up the information requested prior to the
meeting on April 7. The best I can do is to make a rather general response
in the paragraphs below.
a. The entire 84-acre tract is wooded, mostly with tall hardwood trees.
The lower elevations contain a variety of vines and bushes. I am not aware
of any problems with respect to filtration of "sediment, phosphorus, heavy
metals, nitrogen and other substances harmful to water quality. In fact,
the vegetation patterns, slopes, and drainage characteristics are very
similar to those in the 12-acre parcel which was approved for a three-lot
residential subdivision last November.
b. It is our firm intention that the present heavily forested nature of
Turner Mountain be maintained in the entire 96-acre Turner Mountain Wood
subdivision. This will be achieved by: providing for large average lot
sizes, prohibiting the removal of trees that exceed eight inches in
diameter without express approval of the Architectural Control Board, and
limiting the subdivision road design to the minimum required by county
ordinance.
c. Development will not result in any significant creation of impervious
cover. The subdivision road will not be asphalted.
d. The subdivision road will cross three small intermittent streambeds
which carry water only during and following periods of precipitation. The
slopes of these streambeds are very gradual at the point of crossing and
downstream from those points. The first of these streambeds, which serves
as the boundary between lots three and four on the site plan, drains into a
pond on the property of Robert Carter, about 300-400 yards from the road
crossing. An existing culvert will have to be replaced.
e. Soil tests have not been performed as yet. I strongly suspect that
they will indicate soils very similar to those in the previously approved
part of Turner Mountain Wood.
f. Although the 84-acre tract contains some rather steep slopes, it has
been possible to delineate 17 building sites which avoid steep slopes.
With one exception, the subdivision road will pass through relatively flat
terrain. The exception occurs where the existing subdivision road will be
extended downhill toward the first streambed crossing, mentioned in item
"d" above. That particular slope has been determined by Mr. William
Roudabush to be within acceptable tolerances for subdivision roads.
Special measures may be desirable to control erosion during construction of
the road.
g. Road construction could be carried out within a period of three or
four weeks. Most likely, however, construction will proceed in a couple of
steps, in segments of roughly 1500 feet in length. We do not intend to
proceed with road construction before 1982. Home construction presumably
would extend over the next several years as land purchasers execute their
plans.
h. No earth-moving activities have been carried out in anticipation of
this application. A very small amount of vegetation has been removed to
clear a footpath across the property.
i. i am unaware of the need for any "artificial devices" that would be
needed to comply with the Code of Albemarle, and certainly none that would
require periodic inspection or that might not be able to cope with intense
storms.
I hope that the above responses wil~ assist the Planning Department and the
Planning Commission in judging our request. We intend to proceed with soil
tests as soon as we can arrange to have this done."
Mr. Fisher asked about the statement that the land is presently being taxed for
forestry uses. Mr. ?eatross said the land has been taxed this way since 1976. Dr. Selden
said the land was logged by Mr. McFarland sometime during the last ten years, and that he
had the preferential tax status transferred to himself upon purchase of the property.
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, representing Mr. and Mrs. Frank Riggs, said his clients are
concerned about damage to the existing portion of Turner Mountain Road. He said they are
worried that heavy construction equipment will damage the road and those damages will not
be repaired. Mr. Fisher asked if the Riggs are a party to a maintenance agreement for
upkeep of the road. Mr. Rasmussen said there is a maintenance agreement, but it covers
"normal wear and tear of the road" and his clients feel that heavy construction equipment
brought in by the Selden's is not "normal" use of the road. Mr. Peatross said Dr. Selden
has attempted to maintain the road, and will continue to fix any holes caused by con-
struction vehicles.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Miss Nash asked about Mr. Rasmussen's
statement and whether or not the maintenance agreement covers this problem. Mr. St. John
said there are provisions in the maintenance agreement which would make payment of road
repairs equitable between property owners. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel that was the
problem Mr. Rasmussen stated. Mr. St. John said the Board could place a condition of
approval on this special permit requiring the Selden's to repair any damages to the road
caused by construction equipment.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom stated his concern abou~ the impact a development of this size would
have on surrounding properties, and felt i$ might be a stimUlus for development of those
surrounding properties. / '
Mr. Fisher asked for a copy of the coyenants and deed restrictions. Mr. Peatross
presented same to'Mr. Fisher (Note: copy ~f same is on permanent file in the office of
the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). M~. Fisher then asked if each lot had adequate
space for a home'site allowing for the steepness of slopes. Mr. Tucker said based on the
latest USGS topographic maps, there is adequate space on each proposed l°t for a home site
and added that the largest lots have the steepest slopes.
Miss Nash asked which set of rules should be followed in this instance, the Com-
prehensive Plan or the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said both must be applied, the
Comprehensive Plan for density and the Zoning Ordinance for development. Mr. Fisher said
the problem before the Board is whether to~al!ow development by right (which would give
eight lots) or the subdivision as presente~ (Which would give 17 lots). Dr. Iachetta said
he would like to see lets 14 and 15 combined. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept
the recommendation of the Planning Commiss$on with one change, that being to limit the
site to sixteen lots.~ The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Lindstrom said he would
not support the motion because this reques$ does not adequately meet requirements under
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he also would not support the motion for similar
reasons and cited water problems, slopes, ~Tatershed, etc. Mr, Henley said he also would
not support the motion because this requesl does not meet the requirements as he inter-
pretes the Comprehensive Plan and the Zonil~g Ordinance.
Miss Nash said she supports this requ~
with no agriculture. She said the covenanl
that sixteen wells would not use that much
failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Iachetta, McCann and Miss NI
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstro~.
No motion was offered to reconsider thi
special permit denied.
st because she felt it 'is in a suburban area
s would prevent the cutting of trees and felt
water. Roll was then called and the motion
At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a b~
P.M.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-81-11. S. Da
of approval and physical design of previou
H. Lupron). Property consisting of 486+_ a
743 east and adjacent to Earlysville Heigh
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Dail
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff re
follows:
~sh.
s tie vote, and Mr. Fisher declared the
?ief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:07
~ey Craig. Petition to amend certain conditions
~ly approved Earlysville Run PUD (SP-80-57 Mary
~res, is located on the northeast side of Route
~s. County Tax Map 31, Parcels 31 and 46.
Progress on April 1 and April 8, 1981.)
ort and Planning Commission recommendations as
Staff recommends approval subjec
SP-80-57 Mary H. Lupron (Minute
with changes in the following co
the same):
General
2. Approval is for a maximum ¢
conditions contained herein. Lc
uses shall comply with the appr¢
subdivision process, open space
the number of lots approved. Tk
.ars.
t the proposed changes in the physical
t substantial changes. Since no
nent is proposed, this application was
ordinance.
al design, conditions related to
necessary. Likewise, conditions which
hysical design have been deleted. The
of contitions related to use of a
serve the development by individual
ion in this regard, since this appears
t to the conditions as approved under
Book 19, Minutes of October 15, 1980)
nditions (all other conditions remain
f 155 single-family lots subject to
cations and acreages of various land
red plan. In the final site plan and
shall be dedicated in proportion to
e Commission may permit dedication of
a lesser acreage of open space ~n a particular case due to the re-
moteness or open space areas frQm that section platted; provided that,
in no event, shall open space cQnsist of less than 25% of the cumulative
area platted; and provided further that the cumulative total of RQ~
171 acres shall be dedicated co~comit-tant with the approval of the
f-~al phase of residential development.
Ae
Because of changes in the physic
phasing of development appear un
have been satisfied by the new p
applicant is requesting deletion
central well system in order to
wells. Staff has no recommendat
to be a policy matter.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is tha
layout of Earlysville Run are no
increase in intensity of develop
reviewed under the prior zoning
and adjacent to Earlysville Heig
Request: Amendment of certain condit.ons of approval and physical design of pre-
viously approved Earlysville Run PUD (SP-80-57 Mary H. Lupton).
Location: Property consisting of 486~ acres and described as Tax Map 31,
Parcels 31 and 46, is located on-the northeast side of Route 743 east
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
6. County Engineer approval of dam specifications; County Engineer
and Zoning Department inspection of $~e dam construction;
7. The public recreation area shall be dedicated prior to any site
plan
or subdivision approval.
ee~e~e~e~-~&e~-~e-a~-~aee-~-a~e~a~e.
9. ~ae&~-e¢-~eYe&egme~-e~a~&-~e-&~-~e-e~e~e&e~&ea&-e~e~-e~-~e
a~e~e~-~a~;
10. ~e~&~-~e~a~&e~e-~e~e~&~-~e~e&e~e~-&~-~e-~&e&~&~-e¢-$~e
8~e~$ee~&&~e-A~e~a~e-A&~ge~$-a~e-e~e~$~y-~6e~-ee~e&~e~&e~-~
9. Developer will provide sedimentation control provisions to protect
Chris Greene Lake until the ~&~e~ lakes are constructed, subject to
approval of the County Engineer.
B. Commercial Area
1. No commercial use shall be approved until &~ 100 residential
~e~,-e¢-$~&ee-8 have been approved and recorded;
D. Utilities; Fire Protection
2. A&&-~see-e~a&&-be-ee~e~-by-e~e-e~-me~e-ee~a&-~aSe~-e~e~eme
a~e~e~-&~-aeee~ee-w&~-~e-~e~a~&e~e-e~-~e-~&~&~&~-~e~a~e~
eg-~ea~Aw-~e-~e~e-e¢-A~ema~e-~e~?-a~-a~-e~Ae~-a~&ea~e-~.
Wa~e~_~&~ee-a~-a~e~a~eee-e~a~-~e-e&ee~-a~G-~ee&~e~-&~-aeee~ee
:~~e~a~ee~-$e~-$~e-~e,~s&~e-g&~e-~~-&~e~&~&~&e~e~ Fire
Official approval of dry hydrant system prior to issuance of any
certificate of occupancy &~-~aee-8;
e¢-eee~a~e~;
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 7, 1981,
recommended that this request be approved with conditions in Section A, B, C and Section D
number 1 and 5, the same as recommended by the staff; and Section D 2, 3 and 4 would
remain the same as originally approved on October 15, 1980 under SP-80-57 for Mary H.
Lupron. Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter dated April 13, 1981, addressed to Mr. J.
Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, from Mark F. Osborne, Gloeckner, Lincoln &
Osborne, as follows:
"In the preliminary design of the water system to serve the above captioned
project, I have had to answer some important questions. These have occurred
in regard to deciding whether 1) a central well system, or 2) individual
wells, would provide more satisfactory service.
The aspects which I have considered are as follows:
1) Risk of aquifer failure and resulting consequences.
In the study of Albemarle County groundwater supplies by the State Water
Control Board, the Earlysville area has been shown to support well water
withdrawal rates from 0 - 9 gpm. Since individual wells require that one
gpm be provided, it seems likely that a satisfactory level of service will
be found in the Earlysville area. If any single individual well should
fail another could be drilled nearby, or in the common area.
In contrast to individual wells, a community well usually requires a con-
siderably larger flow volume. For the development under consideration, the
average continuous demand would be about 80 gpm. There is no evidence that
such a well could be realized in the Earlysville area.
Therefore, a multiple well system must be considered. For an average
maximum yield of 10 gpm, there would be at least eight wells required.
Each of these wells would provide service to about twenty households.
The risk of failure for such a community well is expected to be greater
than an individual well. This is because the demand upon the aquifer is
more concentrated and the required continuous flows exceed the recorded
average for the supply. The consequences of a community welt failure would
be severe since an average of twenty households would be affected.
2) Operational aspect.
With individual wells, each homeowner is responsible for his own equipment
and maintenance. If such a well fails, the owner may take action as he
deems necessary to locate and drill another well. This may occur on his
property or, with the permission of the Homeowners Association, on the
adjacent common property.
The operation of a community well system is considerably more complex than
using individual wells. For systems of more than 50 customers, the pur-
veyor must be licensed with the State Corporation Commission. The Homeowners
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
188
Association may become the purveyor and, under S.C.C. control, collect
water user charges.
From discussions with officials for the State Health Department and the
State Corporation Commission, I found that the purveyors for community well
systems generally break even financially under normal operating conditions.
However, when capital expenditures are necessary, special assessments may
be required to raise the funds. I would foresee some difficulty for the
Homeowners Association to collect these charges.
3) Conservation responsibility.
I am aware of at least one central well failure which was aggravated by
customers wasting water. Residents of this system who were asked not to
water lawns and wash cars indicated they would do so anyway because they
were paying for water service.
It seems to me that in an area where there is not an overabundance of
groundwater, individual well owners would make a more earnest attempt to
conserve their own supplies. If this philosophy were adopted throughout a
region, it might be quite beneficial to the aquifer.
4) Financial consideration.
After contacting several local well drillers, it appeared that the cost of
an individual well is about $2500 each. Based on 155 lots in the development,
the total water system cost is about $3872500.
In contrast with this sum, a central well system is expected to cost at
least $600,000. This system includes approximately eight large wells, a
25,000 gallon storage tank (48 hour supply), well telemetry wi~h the tank,
a fire protection sized water system, and about thirty fire hydrants. The
additional cost per connection over that for individual wells is $1400
each.
On the basis of the above discussion, our firm feels that individual wells
are best suited to this project. Our study indicates that these will have
a less severe impact on the aquifer, reduce the likelihood of failure,
provide simple operation, conserve groundwater, and cost 35% less than a
central well system."
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. George
Gilliam, representing the applicant, who stated that they were agreeable to all the
conditions suggested by the Planning Commission except the requirement for a central well.
He said an individual system was preferred, and asked Mr. Mark Osborne to explain. Mr.
Osborne summarized his letter as written above and added that he felt there would be no
reduction in fire insurance rates if a central well were used in preference to an in-
dividual well.
Next to speak was Mr. Gary Bernard who said he is a groundwater expert, and that his
firm supplied some of the information in the State Water Control Board's report noted
earlier by Mr. Osborne. Mr. Bernard said individual residential wells are easier to
locate and are more reliable than commercial or central wells. Mr. Fisher said he has
read the State Water Control Board report referred to by Mr. Bernard, and felt it has many
inaccuracies. Mr. Bernard said he was not present to promote the report, only his opinion
that individual residential wells have a greater potential for success in the Earlysville
area.
Next to speak was Mr. Stuart Wood, a resident of Wakefield Farm, who said he is
concerned about the water supply in the area, and indicated that several wells and springs
have dried up in the past few years. He felt drilling an additional 150 wells would put
too great a burden on the groundwater supplies and felt eight or ten large wells would be
less damaging.
Mr. George Gilliam summed up his request by stating again the desire for individual
residential wells and 60,000 square foot lots.
Mr. Wood spoke again and asked the amount of acreage to be developed in this request.
Mr. Wood said he was under the impression that Mr. Craig did not own the entire 486 acre
parcel. Mr. Gilliam said Mr. Craig is the contract purchaser of the land from Mrs. Lupton
and that it is the intention of Mr. Craig to purchase and develop this PUD in stages. Mr.
Tucker noted that if any additional changes are made in this application, it must again
come before the Board of Supervisors for approval.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tucker noted a memorandum dated April
15, 1981, from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, in which he states there is no
objection to this developer using individual wells for this subdivision. Mr. Tucker added
that it would cost more than $400,000 to have an Albemarle County Service Authority water
line installed around the airport and along Route 601 to serve this development, and that
an already existing subdivision, Happy Valley Farm, would not be able to connect because
is has been constructed with individual wells. Mr. Fisher said if this development is
constructed with individual wells, if the opportunity ever arises that public water can be
brought into the area, it will also not be able to connect. Mr. Fisher said he felt there
was far more to consider in this situation than initial cost. He said homeowners would
give up fire suppression capabilities if on individual wells,· as well as face greater
future water problems. Mr. Fisher said he would not vote to accept the recommendation of
the Planning Staff and desires of the applicant, but felt a central well was essential in
a development of this magnitude.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. McCann said he felt that the County Engineer agreed with the letter from Mr.
Osborne, and that this development was far enough away from the jurisdictional area of the
Service Authority that there is no chance for service in the very near future. Mr. McCann
said he did not like to see the County get involved in water problems. Mr. McCann then
added that he did not feel that strongly about the type of wells used. Mr. Fisher said he
felt it would be a benefit to the future homeowners if a central well were installed so
tha~ if the wells did go dry, the possibility of hooking onto a public water system could
be achieved. Dr. Iachetta said he did not like the idea of drilling 155 holes in the
ground when you could get the same amount of water from twenty.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Com-
mission. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
The final conditions of approval for ZMA-81-11, S. Daley Craig (Earlysville Forest
PUD) are as follows:
A. General
No final site plan or subdivision approvals shall be given until
three (3) copies of a revised preliminary plan for the entire
development, reflecting conditions of approval contained herein,
have been submitted to the Department of Planning. Such plans
shall be submitted within sixty (60) days of Board approval of
this petition.
Approval is for a maximum of 155 single-family lots subject to
conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various
land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final site
plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in
proportion to the number of lots approved. The Commission may
permit dedication of a lesser acreage of open space in a parti-
cular case due to the remoteness of open space areas from that
section platted; provided that, in no event, shall open space
consist of less than 25% of the cumulative area platted; and
provided further that the cumulative total of 171 acres shall be
ddicated concomittant with the approval of the final phase of
residential development.
No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as
necessary for road construction and lake construction as approved
by the County Engineer;
No grading shall occur in any area until final subdivision or
site plan approval has been obtained;
County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements
prior to final approvals to include maintenance of private roads,
lakes and dams, and common open space;
County Engineer approval of dam specifications; County Engineer
and Zoning Department inspection of dam construction;
The public recreation area shall be dedicated prior to any site
plan or subdivision approval.
0nly those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, pedes-
trian ways, lakes, or other improvements are to be located shall
be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state;
Developer will provide sedimentation control provisions to
protect Chris Greene Lake until the lakes are constructed,
subject to approval of the County Engineer.
Commercial Area
1. No commercial use shall be approved until 100 residential lots
have been approved and recorded;
2. Uses permitted within the commercial area may be established as
follows:
a. The following retail sales and service establishments:
1)
3)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
14)
Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops;
Clothing, apparel and shoe shops;
Department store;
Drug store, pharmacy;
Florist;
Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops
as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese
shops;
Furniture and home appliances (sales and service);
Hardware store;
Musical instruments;
Newstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops;
Optical goods;
Photographic goods;
Visual and audio appliances;
Sporting goods;
Retail nurseries and greenhouses.
April 154 1981 (Reg~uta_~r Night Meeting)
Ce
De
b. The following services and public establiShmentS:
l)
2)
3)
4)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
13)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
21)
Administrative, professional offices;
Barber, beauty shops;
Churches, cemeteries;
Clubs, lodges - civic, fraternal, patriotic;
Financial institutions;
Fire and rescue squad stations;
Funeral homes;1
Health spas;
Indoor theaters;
Laundries, dry cleaners;
Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty
at all hours during operation);
Libraries, museums;
Nurseries, day care centers;
Eating establishments;
Tailor, seamstress;
Automobile service stations;
Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding
multi-legged tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facil-
ities for distribution of local service and owned and
operated by a public utility. Water distribution and
sewage collection lines, pumping stations and appur-
tenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County
Service Authority;
Public uses and buildings Such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated
by local, state or federal agencies; public water and
sewer transmission, main or trunk lines owned or
operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority;
Temporary construction uses;
Temporary events of local non-profit organizations;
Medical center.
c. By special use permit:
1) Commercial recreation establishments;
2) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and
related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping
stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange
centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and
relay towers, substations and appurtenances;
3) Hospitals;
4) Fast food restaurant;
5) Veterinary office and hospital.
3. A building setback of 80 feet from the centerline'of Rt. 743
shall be maintained.
Roads
t. County Engineer approval of private road plans.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
public road plans prior to any final site plan or subdivision'
approvals, in such review, Virginia Department. of Highways
should be mindful of the County's intent to limit encroachment of
the public road on Earlysville Heights to the maximum extent
practical.
e
Prior to any final approval, the applicant shall propose a method
of buffering adjacent lots in Eartysviile Heights from the public
road. If practical, such buffer shall be installed prior to any
grading and/or construction.
Utilities; Fire Protection
Virginia Department of Health approval of two (2) septic field
locations within each lot prior to Planning Commission approval
of any such lot. Any lot not having adequate septic field
location shall be combined with a buitdable lot and/or added to
the common open space. In addition, Homeowners' Association
agreement shall include provision for use of open space for
residential septic drainfields, if necessary;
All uses shall be served by one or more central water systems
approved in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia
Department of Health, the Code of Albemarle County, and all other
applicable law. Water lines and appurtenances shall be sized and
designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority
specifications for possible future acceptance;
If a central well system is employed, Fire Official approval of
appurtenances for future possible fire hydrant installations.
Fire Official approval of appurtenances for future possible fire
hydrant installations. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant
system prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy;
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
If a public water system is employed, Fire Official approval of
hydrant locations and fire flow prior to issuance of any cer-
tificate of occupancy;
A building separation of 100 feet shall be maintained for dwellings.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-8t-t4. William A. Marshall, Jr. Petition to rezone 2.25
acres from R-1 to HC. Located approximately 600 feet west of Route 29 North on Route
649. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 40. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on Aprii 1 and April 8, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows:
Requested Zoning: HC Highway Commercial
Acreage: 2.25 acres
Existing Zoning: R-1 Residential
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 40, is located on the
north side of Route 649 (Airport Road), approximately 600 feet west of
its intersection with Route 29 North.
Character of the Area: A dilapidated dwelling is currently being razed on
this property. Several commercial uses are in the vicinity to the
east. Two dwellings exist on the property directly to the east, which
is zoned C-1 Commercial. Single family dwellings are to the west and
south. Property to the north is undeveloped.
Public water is available; therefore, two commercial uses could be
located on the property. Grading of the site may be necessary to
obtain commercial sight distance.
Comprehensive Plan: This property, located in the Hollymead community, is
in an area recommended for low density residential and commercial
usage in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that "additional
commercial areas are planned for the intersection of Route 649 with
Route 29. These areas may be developed as highway-oriented commercial
to serve the residents of the Hollymead community as well as travelers
on Route 29."
Staff Comment: The applicant's stated purpose for requesting Highway
Commercial zoning is to relocate the existing public garage from the
northwest quadrant of Route 29 North/649 to this property.*
While C-1 Commercial would be more consistent with zoning in the area,
a public garage is not currently a permitted use in the C-1 district.
Staff recommends approval for the following reasons:
1)
The property had been zoned B-1 under previous zoning and was
recommended for a commercial designation on early drafts of the
new zoning map. While the land use recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan are debatable (i.e., low density or commer-
cial), staff opinion is that it was the intent of the Comprehe-n-
sire Plan to recognize commercial zoning in that quadrant as it
existed at that time.
2)
The Comprehensive Plan recommends 80 acres of new commercial
development by 1995. Currently, about 28 acres of vacant co-
mmercial exists in Hollymead most of which is under one own
ership.
3)
While the HC district is intended to be applied along major
highways, this request appears to comply with the textual re-
commendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that
the intent of frontage-to-depth requirements of the HC district
could be satisfied by a voluntary limitation of access to Route
649.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on April 7, 1981, unanimously recommended
approval of ZMA-81-14.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. William A.
Marshall, who said he was under the impression that this property was commercial when he
offered to purchase the land. He indicated that the closing has been delayed until this
rezoning hearing is completed. Mr. Marshall said it is his intention to relocate his
repair garage on this site.
Mr. William S. Roudabush described the area surrounding the property, and noted that
all ~aations it is commercial. Mr. Roudabush said improvements will be made to the
The applicant entered into a contract of purchase on January 30, 1981.
Though the property had been designated R-1 Residential on December 10,
1980, the realtor's sign advertising the property as commercial remains
posted at this time.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
i92
property to improve the general appearance, sight distance and access to the property.
Mr. Fisher asked if consideration was being made for possible future widening of this
road. Mr. Roudabush said it would be noted in the site plan, but felt certain that
adequate setback would be allowed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve ZMA-81-14 to be rezoned from R-1 to
HC Highway Commercial. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:20 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-81-9. E. C. and Lettie A. Alexander. Petition to amend the
previous conditions of approval of SP-547 with regard to a mobile home. Located on south
side-of Route 637, west of intersection of Routes 708 and 637. County Tax Map 73, Parcel
36C. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8,
1981.)
Mr. Tucker noted that this special permit was withdrawn before the Planning Commission'
and that no action was required by the Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 10. Amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include a new
section: Section 6.5.01 - In the case of any subdivision which was approved pursuant to
Chapter 18 of the County Code prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which was of
record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and front yard and setback
regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the time of such approval shall apply to
all lots within such subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April
8, 1981. )
Mr. TUcker noted that this amendment was initiated as a resolution of intent from the
Board of Supervisors to alleviate PrOblems mainly in Squirrel Ridge Subdivision. Mr.
Tucker noted that Squirrel Ridge was zoned R-3 but developed at one-acre densities. On
December 10, 1980, the new zoning ordinance changed that zoning to RA which carried
different setback requirements. Many lots in the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision can not meet
the new requirements.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one was present who wished to
speak either for or against this proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. There was no discussion by the Board and
motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to amend and re-enact
Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of the following section:
Section 6.5.01 - In the case of any subdivision which was approved pursuant
to Chapter 18 of the County Code prior to the adoption of this ordinance and
which was of record at the time of the adoption hereof, the rear, side and
front yard and setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at the
time of such approval shall apply to all lots within such subdivision.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 11. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to show realignment and improvement
of Route 631 from 1-64 to Route 706. (Advertised in the Daily progress on APril 1 and
April 8, 198t.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows:
Resolution of Intent: Amend Comprehensive Plan to show realignment and
improvement of Route 631 from 1-64 to Route 706.
A portion of the proposed relocation/improvement of Route 631 is
currently shown in the Comprehensive Plan. As a result of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation's update of the functional
classification plan and the CATS planning efforts, the current pro-
posal is to extend improvements to the intersection of Route 706.
Route 631 would be a major collector with a 110 foot cross-section.
Staff recommends the following amendments:
1)
Amend Neighborhood 5 map on page 15 of Detailed Land Use Amend-
ments (April, 1980) to show as a "Proposed Roadway (CATS)"
2) Amend text for Neighborhood 5 on page 51 as follows:
April 15,1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
An improvement to Route 631 (Fifth Street Extended) from 1-64 to the
intersection of Route 706 has been proposed by the CAT Study Group.
This improvement would straighten or bypass a series of curves near
the Country Green Apartments providing safer access for areas located
to the south and west. Improved Route 631 is recommended as a four
lane divided major collector road located within a 110 foot right-of-
way.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 3, 1981,
unanimously voted to recommend approval of the above amendment.
Miss Nash said she felt this proposal did not make sense because Route 631 is di~
rectly parallel to Route 20, and she felt there was no need for two major roads in this
area. Mr. Tucker noted that the Neighborhood 5 map from the Comprehensive Plan does not
include the area Miss Nash has described.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposal, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer discussion of this
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan until May 20, !98t, and request that the Highway
Department elaborate on the reason for such a widening of Route 631. Roll was then called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 12. Resolution: Mandatory Sewer Connections for Crozet/Windham
Project. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated April 10, 1981,
as follows:
"In the approval of the special permit for the package treatment plan to
serve the Windham project in Crozet (SP-78-64), a condition (No. 8) was
included which stated "Connection shall be mandatory for all Crozet Sewer
Company connections unless some other approved means of sewage disposal
could be provided." The Albemarle County Service Authority has worked with
the special permit holder to meet this requirement, and has received
applications for connections from 21 of the 23 properties involved.
Since neither the Service Authority nor the permit holder have the auth-
ority to require the remaining two properties to connect to the newly
installed sewage system, the Service AUthority has requested the adoption
of the attached resolution which will provide such authority. Adoption of
the resolution is recommended."
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority is constructing a
sanitary sewer system in Crozet, Virginia, to serve a project of Windham,
Inc. and'certain residences and businesses now connected to the sewer line
of the old Crozet Sewer Company; and
WHEREAS, these residences and businesses now discharge raw sewage
directly into Lickinghole Creek, a source of water for the Rivanna re-
servoir, the public water supply for the urban area of Albemarle County and
the City of Charlottesville;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The owners of all houses, buildings, or properties used for
residential, commercial, or industrial use, situated in Crozet, Virginia,
located along State Route 240, Tabor Street, and the Unnamed Alley, and
consisting of the Windham Project and twenty-three (23) existing homes and
businesses identified in Exhibit A attached hereto, situated within the
jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority and abutting
on any street, alley, or right-of-way containing a sanitary sewer of the
Albemarle County Service Authority, shall cease to use any other method for
the disposal of sewage,~ sewage waste, or other polluting matter, Ail
connections shall be made in accordance with the rules and regulations of
the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. McCann said he was under the impression that one of those two properties not yet
hooked up is an abandoned building. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. Mr. McCann felt it
unnecessary to require such a hookup until the building is again occupied. Mr. St. John
said that it is a requirement of the State Water Control Board that all residents hook up
to this facility or the treatment plant will not be granted a permit to operate.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
resolution as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Board's consideration:
Set Tax Levy.
Mr. Agnor read the following resolution for the
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby lay the County levy for the taxable year 1981 for
General County Purposes at Sixty-Seven Cents ($0.67) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of real estate; at Five Dollars ($5.00) on
every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at
Five Dollars ($5.00) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value
of machinery and tools; at Sixty-Seven Cents ($0.67) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of mobile homes; at Four Dollars and Eighty
Cents (~4.80) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of
public service on unequatized assessments; and at Sixty-Seven Cents ($0.67)
on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service on
equalized assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle
assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal
property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used
or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on
Capital; including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling
stock of railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation
Commission and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to
location and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five
tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia; and all vehicles such as mobile
homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia.Code; excluding merchant's
capital, farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as
set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58-829 and 58-829.1.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the resol-
ution laying the County levy, as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 14. Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor noted that this
ordinance has been prepared with the following changes: the General Fund was increased in
the amount of $20,000 and the School Fund was adjusted to reduce the local share of this
fund in the amount of $227,370, which actually reduces the total of the School Fund by
$282,233 due to reductions in State revenues (removes four teaching positions and two
teacher aid positions due to decreased enrollment, removes three proposed new positions
for teachers in the areas of gifted/talented students and in-school suspension.) Mr.
Agnor said there are several other areas in the school budget which have received small
reductions.
Mr. Fisher asked if there will still be a program in the high schools for gifted/
talented students. Mr. Agnor said this program is just in the middle schools at the
present time, and had been proposed to be expanded into the elementary schools. Mr. Agnor
said it has never been, nor has it been proposed for the high schools.
Mr. Lindstrom said he regrets some of the cuts which had to be made in the School
budget, such as the gifted/talented program and stipends for group leaders at the schools,
but felt there were several items in the budget which were presented as essential and have
turned out not to be essential such as several additional school buses, new mobile class
rooms and additional teaching positions. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the School Board was
not aware of these nonessential items and felt both the School Board and the Board of
Supervisors should give this budget greater scrutiny next year.
ApriI 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting~~
Dr. Iachetta said he would like to see a better way of displaying budgeted items. He
said the accounting method used does not allow you to see the exact area of the expense,
that is, exactly how much each school is spending within the system. Dr. Iachetta next
asked how much analysis was being, given to the idea of switching to diesel powered school
buses. Mr. Agnor said a team from the State Department of Education-Transportation was
conducting a study, and that they would be visiting in Albemarle County within the next
two weeks. Both Dr. Iachetta and Mr. McCann cautioned the Board on the use of such buses,
indicating that they are efficient only under long run conditions and if not properly used
and maintained can be far more costly to the County than the present gasoline powered
buses. Dr. Iachetta also suggested that the method of picking up older students could be
made more efficient. He said he would prefer to budget money for teacher salaries rather
than gasoline costs.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
1981-82 Appropriation Ordinance as set out on the following pages. Mr. Fisher said he
wished to respond to comments voiced at the public hearing that the educational system in
Albemarle County was not appreciated. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Albemarle County School
system is very good and that everyone, from the School Board to the Administration to the
teachers, does an outstanding job. He said he does not translate this into an unlimited
p~se~.~a~~ ~h~s w~s ~he~ma~o~,~p~in~to~m~£~ict.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Board should institute a policy whereby all "cost of
living" adjustments for school personnel would be the same for all employees at all
levels, as opposed to "scale" adjustments which could vary at different salary levels.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt cost of living increases affected everyone equally and therefore
should be given as salary adjustments equally. Mr. McCann agreed with Dr. Iachetta's
statement.
Roll was then called and the motion to adopt the Appropriation Ordinance carried by
the following recorded vote: ,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Nig~ht Meetin~
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1982
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1982; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and
provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and
all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such
inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1982:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES
· AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of one million six hundred eight thousand
one hundred seventy-five dollars and no cents ($1,608,175) is appropriated
from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds $ 1,608,175
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT .the sum of two million six hundred ninety-two thousand four
hundred three dollars and no cents ($2,692,403) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 220,221
2. County Executive 104,172
3. Personnel 93,609
4. Legal Services 106,450
5. Data Processing 100,715
6. Finance 472,287
7. Finance-Real Estate Division 302,850
8. Finance-Purchasing Division 59,086
9. Engineering 181,807
10. Planning 239,209
11. Ivy Landfill 286,000
12. Keene Landfill 67,986
13. Elections 59,059
14. Staff Services 329,352
15. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 16,903
16. Bicentennial Center 10,890
17. Soil and Water Conservation 8,311
18. Watershed Management 19,996
19. Tourism Bureau 13,500
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the
sum of three million fifty-five thousand seven hundred three dollars
and no cents ($3,055,703) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Parks & Recreation $ 382,304
2. Redevelopment and Housing 68,780
3. Virginia Public Assistance 924,539
4. Public Assistance: Payments 674,636
5. Health Department 289,090
6. Mental Health 73,753
7. Regional Library 388,785
8. Piedmont Virginia Community College 5,115
9. Extension Service 61,332
10. District Home 4,000
11. Offender Aid & Restoration 14,520
12. Madison House 4,000
13. Community Action Agency 17,778
14. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 4,336
15. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program 109,861
16. Jefferson Area United Transportation 6,813
17. Office on Youth-Family Services 6,061
18. Shelter for Help in Emergency 20,000
.97
_ April 15~ _1981 ~ht Meeting~
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of two million five hundred thousand fifty-one dollars and no cents
($2,500,051) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Clerk, Circuit Court $ 172,113
2. Circuit Court 13,381
3. General District Court !0,000
4. Commonwealth's Attorney 130,877
5. Juvenile Court 20,949
6. Sheriff 1,080,167
7. Fire Department 271,580
8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 3,019
9. Volunteer Fire Departments 138,950
10. Code Enforcement 378,868
11. Animal Control 42,078
12. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 6,250
13. Zoning 138,163
14. Emergency Services 5,080
15. Regional Jail 46,400
16. Juvenile Detention Home 19,855
17. Magistrate's Office 2,095
18. Scottsville Rescue Squad 10,500
19. Emergency Medical Communications 226
20. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad 5,000
21. Community Attention Home 4,500
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of th~mn~tion of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum
of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Outlay Fund
$ 1,000,000
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
_~$.10_~ 856,332
To be provided as follows:
Prior Year's Carry-Over Balance
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 132,077
8,019,620
2,669,028
10,607
25,000
$10,856,332
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of twenty-one million
three hundred eighty thousand two hundred twenty-one dollars and no cents
($21,380,221) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Administration $ 350,337
2. Instruction-Regular Day School 10,133,499
3. Other Instructional Costs 1,397,518
4. Attendance & Health Services 81,249
5. Attendance & Health Services (Activities-
Albemarle High School)
Attendance & Health Services (Activities-
Western Albemarle High School) 132,287
7. Pupil Transportation 1,674,881
8. Replacement-Transportation Vehicles 225,000
9. School Food Services 18,125
t0. Operation-School Plant 1,795,541
11. Maintenance-School Plant 471,696
12. Fixed Charges 4,190,249
13. Adult Education 55,050
14. Other Educational Programs 549,993
15. Capital Outlay 160,492
144,304
A~ril2t5~ 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of one
million one hundred eighty-six thousand eight hundred thirty-five dollars
and no cents ($1,186,835) is appropriated from the School Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. ESEA Title I (LoW Income) $ 529,662
2. ESEA Title I (Migrant) 69,070
3. ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries) 27,000
4. ESEA Title iV-C (ELII) 45,555
5. ESAA Title VII (SEECC) 119,575
6. Crime Resistance (TIPS) 27,086
7. COPE 106,936
8. PREP 57,178
9. Title IV-C (Adapter/Adopter) 11,500
10. Flow Through Special Education 111,827
11. Learning Disabled and Handicapped-
University of Virginia
81,446
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$22,567,056'
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
*Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund)
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$11,901,325
8,837,296
1,186,835
500,000
141~600
$22,567~056.
*Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy
usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 10,
Paragraph One of this Section (Operation-School Plants).
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982:
Paragraph One
For ~he function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of five hundred sixty
thousand dollars and no cents ($560,000) is appropriated from the
Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows:
. 1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 560~000
To b.e provided as follows: ~
Receipts from Cafeterias:
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 560~000
$ 560,000
Paragraph Two
For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred eighty-five
thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($185,500) is appropriated
from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks $ 185,500
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 185,500,
To be provided as follows:
Receipts from Rental Fees
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 185,500
$ 185,500
Paragraph Three
For the function of the McINTIRE TRusT FUND the sum of five-thousand
dollars and no cents ($5,000) is appropriated from the McIntire Trust
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 5,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending JUne 30, 1982
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per. trust $ 5~000
' ~Tota~ McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
,: ~'or ~'iscal Year Ending June 30, 1982 $ 5~000
April 15~ 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paragraph Four
For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of nine hundred
sixty-nine thousand four hundred ninety-nine dollars and no cents ($969,499)
is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund ~to be apportioned as follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 969,499
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 969,499
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 159,987
708,045
101~467
$ 969,499
SECTION IV
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of
one hundred sixty-five thousand nine hundred fifty-nine dollars and no cents
($165,759) is appropriated from the Grant Project Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Watershed Management Program $ 13,000
2. Housing/Self Help Program 71,092
3. Community Diversion InCentive Grant 81,667
SUMMARY
Total GRANT PROJECT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 165,759
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from EPA Grant
Revenue from HUD
Revenue from State Department of Corrections
Total GRANT PROJECT FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 13,000
71,092
81,667
$ 165,759
SECTION V
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of one
million nine hundred sixty-three thousand three hundred ninety-two dollars and
no cents ($1,963,392) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Debt-Security Complex $ 55,250
2. Debt-Schools 1,908,142
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 1,963,392
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.)
Total DEBT SERVICE FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982
$ 1,963,392
$ 1,963,392
Total appropriations mentioned in
Sections I through V in this Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1982:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V
General Fund
School Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds
Grant Project Fund
Debt Service Fund
GRAND TOTAL
$10,856,332
22,567,056
1,719,999
165,759
1,963,392
$37,272,53'8'
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
200
BE IT FURTHER ORDAZNED that the director of finance is hereby authorized
to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds from the General Fund for the period Covered by this appropri-
ation ordinance.
SECTION VI
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said terms and
those set forth in this section.
Paragraph'One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Operating Fund, the
Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook
Rental Fund, and the Grant Project Fund are declared to be maximum, condi-
tional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appro- .
priations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then
only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the
fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all
of the appropriations in full, Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be
deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized
revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated
to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget
as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said
agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board
or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or
make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent
of the director of finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General Fund of the
county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of
June, 1982 except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be
lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the
appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1982. However, nothing in this para-
graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, School
Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund,
Contributions to VOlunteer Fire Departments, or Grant Project Fund, but any
balance available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed
expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1982.
Paragraph Four
No ~bligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency,
or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further
that no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a
contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract
shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible for
securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by
the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
A~y obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be
considered obligations of the county, and the director of finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles
in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall
be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and eighty-one.
Agenda Item No. 15A. Special Appropriation, Solid Waste Management. In a memorandum
received from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, it was noted that a small grant is
received from ~he State of Virginia each year designated for this purpose. For the past
several years the proceeds have been used by the County Engineer in the Keene Landfill
operation to open new cells that are not included in the maintenance contract. Such work
is needed before the end of the current fiscal year. Mr. Jones indicated that the un-
expended balance of $3,283.14 from last year and $1,143.75 from this current year must be
appropriated from the Grant Fund in order for the funds to be used by the County Engineer
at the Keene Landfill.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,426.89 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund and transferred to Code 9302-5942 entitled Solid Waste Manage-
ment.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 15B. Special Appropriation, Albemarle High School Renovation Project.
Mr. Agnor said bids have been accepted by the School Board for the Phase II renovation
project at Albemarle High School and an appropriation request received from the School
Superintendent in the amount of $1,520,000.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,520,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund to Code 19.19C-TL of the Capital Fund for Phase II of the
Albemarle High School Renovation Project as follows:
Construction Contract
Construction Contingency
$1,345,000
175,000
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorde~ vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 15C. Special Appropriation, Closing Fees for the Ivy Creek Natural
Area. Mr. Agnor read from Mr. Ray B. Jones' memorandum dated April 15, 1981, to the
County Executive and the Board of Supervisors as follows:
"The City and County plan to close on the purchase of the "Fleming Property"
from The Nature Conservancy on April 30th. The County'.s share of this
property is $263,4.59 including purchase price, appraisals, interest and
closing costs. Of this amount, $78,954 will be reimbursed to the County by
The Nature Conservancy and $123,375 from a State grant leaving a net cost
to the County of $61,130.
However, the total amount will have to be made available in advance order
to acquire the property, qualify for the grant, and get the reimbursements.
Reimbursements by the Nature Conservancy will be immediate and by the State
in about 60-90 days.
There is an existing appropriation in the amount of $41,827.50 (Code 9700-
7060.84 Ivy Creek Natural Area) which leaves a net amount to be appro-
priated of $221,631.50. Therefore, I respectfully request an appropriation
from the General Fund to Code 9700-7060.84 - Ivy Creek Natural Area in the
amount of $221,631.20."
Mr. Agnor said he told Mr. Jones that the existing appropriation in the amount of
$41,827.50 is for site development costs for the first property purchased, and that the
money has been awaiting this acquisition so that the parking lot can be relocated. Mr.
Agnor suggested that in preference to requesting the net appropriation and having to come
back in the near future to restore this existing appropriation, he suggested appropriating
a total of $263,459.50.
April 15~ 1981 (Regular Night Meetin~
202
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $263,459.50 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to Code 9700-7060.84 for the Ivy Creek
Natural Area.
The motion.was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Agnor said in the resolutions agreeing to
join with the City in this grant application, it was done in two actions because there are
two parcels, the sum total of which was $45,000 in local costs, plus interest on the
investment, closing costs and a one to three percent administrative cost to the Nature
Conservancy. Mr. Agnor noted that he reviewed with Mr. Jones how the amount came to a
total of $61,130 rather than $45,000 (which did not include the interest, closing and
handling costs), but felt the rise in costs was excessive. Mr. Agnor suggested that the
Board approve this request for appropriation as stated, with the addition that a meeting
take place with Mr. William M. Cole, State Director of the Nature Conservancy, to review
these dollar figures and resolve the reason for the change, and to state in fact that the
County will not pay anything more than originally agreed to in terms of the percentages
described. Dr. Iachetta agreed to make this part of his motion to approve the appro-
priation. Miss Nash also agreed to accept this amendment.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16~ Resolution: Internal Revenue Service Regulation, Local Govern-
ment Tax Exemption. Mr. Agnor read Mr. Ray B. Jones' memorandum dated April 10, 1981, to
the Board of Supervisors as follows:
"The Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling in late 1980 that will become
a procedure effective May 31, 1981, if no changes are made. The ruling
which results, IRS Procedure 80-55 on May 31, 1981, would prohibit banks
from deducting from their taxes the interest the banks pay on time deposits
to states and local governments if those deposits are secured by tax exempt
securities. The effect of this change will result in several local impacts -
all of which will add to the cost of local government.
First, if the banks are not allowed to handle their interest paid on the
County's Certificates of Deposit as they have been doing for many years,
the County's interest on investments may decrease as much as 30 to 40%.
This fiscal year, as of April 1, 1981, we have earned over $1 million.
Earnings on investments lowers the property tax rate.
Second, if the earnings locally are cut back drastically, we may have to go
to purchase of Treasury Bills to offset the loss. This takes large amounts
of money out of the community. Currently, the County has $12.7 million in
investments locally.
Third, it would eventually impact the tax exempt bond market and drive
interest rates up since the commercial banks would have a greater need for
tax exempt securities (normally general obligation bonds) to pledge as
security on their certificates of deposits. This would tend to increase
bond interest rates.
National, State and local government financial organizations have been
lobbying on this issue since last Fall. They now urge local governing
bodies to get into the act. Attached is a proposed resolution that has
been acted upon by the Municipal Treasurer's Association of the United
States and Canada. A similar resolution was passed by the Municipal
Finance Officers' Association earlier. Each of these organizations request
local support in their attempt to prevent this from happening. Repre-
sentatives of local banks have expressed their concern as well."
RESOLUTZON REQUESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF REVENUE
PROCEDURE 80-55 ISSUED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE WHICH DISALLOWS DEDUCTIONS FOR INTEREST
PAID BY COMMERCIAL BANKS ON CERTAIN TIME DEPOSITS
MADE BY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHERE SUCH
DEPOSITS ARE SECURED BY PLEDGES OF TAX EXEMPT SECURITIES.
WHEREAS, the United States Department of the Treasury through its
Internal Revenue Service has issued Revenue Procedure 80-55 which disallows
deductions for interest paid by commercial banks on certain time deposits
made by state or local governments where such deposits are secured by
pledges of tax exempt securities; and
WHEREAS, the effective date of this Revenue Procedure 80-55 is May 31,
1981; and
WHEREAS, if Revenue Procedure 80-55 is implemented
203
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
(.1) The cost of borrowing by state and local governments will in-
crease because the market for state and local governmenv obligations will
decrease,
(2) there will be a decrease in the rate of interest paid to state
and local governments on deposits where banks must by law, or economic
necessity, continue to use tax exempt obligations as collateral for these
deposits, and
(3) funds will be diverted from local community financing needs
including home mortgages and business and consumer loans; and
WHEREAS, as a direct result of Revenue Procedure 80-55 banks have
already reduced the rates paid on public deposits and a great uncertainty
has been created in the municipal securities market, and related financial
markets, as banks attempt to adjust portfolios, reduce their acquisitions
of tax exempt issues and either substitute other collateral for public
deposits or reduce their holdings of public deposits; and
WHEREAS, the legislative history of the Internal Revenue Code, legal
precedents and long-standing administrative interpretation clearly de-
monstrate that Revenue Procedure 80-55 is unwarranted and should be with-
drawn;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, requests the withdrawal of Revenue Procedure
80-55; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if this Revenue Procedure is not with-
drawn, the United States Congress is requested to enact legislation to
effect its withdrawal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a suitable copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the United States Department of the Treasury and to both
legislative bodies of the Congress of the United States of America; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that members of this Board request that copies
of this resolution be forwarded to their respective Congressmen and Senators
with a personal request to respond to this significant problem.
Mr. Fisher asked to whom this suggested resolution would be sent. Mr. Agnor said
copies would be forwarded to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Honorable Donald Regan;
Senators Harry F. Byrd, Jr. and John W. Warner; and Congressman J. Kenneth Robinson.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the resolution as
presented with copies to be forwarded the public officials as stated by Mr. Agnor. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17. Approval of Minutes. The minutes of May 14, 1980 and May 21,
1980 were not read by Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Miss Nash said she found only one
error in the minutes of June 18, 1980, that being on page 113, seventh paragraph, it is
stated that "Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened", these words should be struck,
since the public hearing is declared opened in the first paragraph on that same page.
Motion to approve the minutes of June 18, 1980, as amended was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said he received a letter stating that the General Assembly in 1980
enacted two bills which will decrease the amount.of revenue which will be distributed to
the localities in fiscal year 1982. The first is Senate Bill 831, which Will accelerate
the effective date of the sales and use tax exemption for fuels used for domestic con-
sumption. The change in the effective date witt reduce total funds distributed on the
basis of school age population by $2.7 million in fiscal year 1982. The local option one
cent revenue will not be effective unless the locality specifically enacts an ordinance
granting the exemption.
Senate Bill 601 repeals the tax on liquor for resale by the drink. Proceeds from
this tax were directly included in the ABC Board's profits, and a repeal of this tax will
also reduce the revenues available for counties, Cities and towns. It is estimated that
Senate Bill 601 will reduce for distribution by approximately $1.3 million during fiscal
year 1982.
April 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of a memorandum from the Virginia Association of
Counties stating that the last session of Congress reenacted revenue sharing, but there is
debate of cutting the general revenue sharing by $340 million per year. The Virginia
Association of Counties encourages local governments to support general revenue sharing.
Mr. Fisher said there is a good probability that an executive session will be needed
on legal matters, and suggested 3:30 P.M. on April'27, 1981, in the County Executive's
Conference Room.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a request for resolution to recognize National Volunteer
Week from April 27 through May 3, 1981. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board has authorized
the Chairman to handle such requests.
Mr. Agnor said the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will be holding a meet±ng at
2:00 P.M. on April 20, 1981, in the basement conference room of Charlottesville's City
Hall, at which time the engineering firm conducting the study on the Buck Mountain Creek
Reservoir will make a report.
Agenda Item No. 19. At 11:25 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta to adjourn to April 27, 1981, at 3:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference
Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Chairman
April 27, 1981 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on April
27, 1981, at 3:30 P.M., in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 4:00 P.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at. 3:35 P.M., by
NOT DOCKETED. Resolution to recognize National Volunteer Week. Mr. Fisher presented
the following resolution, which he said will be jointly adopted by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council:
WHEREAS volunteering of one's time, talents and resources has been an
integral part of our American heritage since the early days of our nation;
and
WHEREAS it is essential that we continue this tradition of giving and
sharing in order that we can preserve and continue to improve the quality
of life for all citizens in our communities; and
WHEREAS anyone, regardless of circumstances or station, or factors of
race, age, sex, color or creed, can participate in volunteer service to
neighbors and community; and
WHEREAS our nation is experiencing a time of diminishing natural and
technological resources and a time when our people have reached a realization
that government cannot or should not provide every service necessary to
build a better environment; and
WHEREAS each year a special week is designated in our nation for the
dual purpose of recognizing those who give of themselves and of encouraging
all citizens to become involved; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED jointly by the Council of the City'of CharlottesVille, Virginia,
and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that the
week of'April 27 through May 3, 1981, is recognized as NATIONAL VOLUNTEER
WEEK in the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle in honor of
our area's selfless volunteers who truly give a helping heart and we urge
all of our area's citizens to help renew and sustain the spirit and vitality
of our nation by committing a portion of their time to addressing the needs
of our communities through voluntary action.