1981-05-132t2
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 13, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvill(
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at
9:47 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:15 A.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen
V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present': County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George
R. St. John; and Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher who announced that this is Youth in Government Day for Albemarle High School and Mr.
Agnor will be bringing students to tha meeting later.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: May 14, 1980 and May 21, 1980.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes of May 14, 1980 and found no errors. Motion was
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of May 14, 1980 as
presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Since the minutes of May 21, 1980, were assigned to Dr. Iachetta and he was not present,
they were deferred to later in the day.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Take Roads Into the State System.
Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, said the Board on September 10, 1980,
adopted a resolution to take Big Oak Road and the remainder of Turkey Ridge Road in Section
II of Peacock Hill Subdivision into the State Secondary System. The geed book references
for the drainage easements were not available at that time but have now been received.
Therefore, the resolution is ready to be readopted. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the Virginia Department of Highays and Transportation be and is hereby requested
to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection
and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Section
II in Peacock Hill:
Beginning at stati'on 25+72.60 of Turkey Ridge Road, a point
common to the centertine intersection of the end of maintenance
of Turkey Ridge Road (State Route 1621); thence in a northwesterly
direction 1,296.45 feet'to station 38+69.05, a cul-de-sac,
the end of Turkey Ridge Road in Peacock Hill.
Beginning at station 0+I0 of Big Oak Road, a point common to
the centerline intersection of Big Oak Road and the edge of
pavement of Turkey Ridge Road; thence in a-southwesterly
direction 1040 feet to station 10+50, a cul-de-sac, the
end of Big Oak Road in Peacock Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right
of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County in Deed Book 589, pages 212-219 and Deed Book 630, pages 63 and
64, and Deed Book 713, pages 511-514.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Mc~ann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Mrs. Moon then presented request dated August 6, 1980, from Mr. Caleb N. Stowe, Director
of Holkham Associates, Ltd., requesting Holkham Drive in Phase-I of Lewis Hill RPN, be
taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr.
McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
~AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
213
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Phase I, Lewis Hill RPN:
Beginning at station 0+12 of Holkham Drive, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Holkham Drive and the edge
of pavement of State Route 678; thence with Holkham Drive in
a northeasterly and southeasterly direction 3,431.19 feet
to station 34+43.19, a cul-de-sac, the end of Holkham Drive
in Phase I of Lewis Hill RPN.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 and 60 foot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded
by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County
in Deed Book 695, page 344 and Deed Book 708, page 122.
Mrs. Moon then presented request dated February 9, 1981 from Mr. James M. Hill, Jr.,
agent for Vi~gi~.ia Land Company, for acceptance of Westfield Road and Minor Ridge Road in
Phase I of Wynridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr.
Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
roads in Phase I, Wynridge Subdivision:
Beginning at station 10+79..63 of Westfield Road, the centerline
intersection of Westfield Raad and the edge of pavement of
Commonwealth Drive (State Route 8520); thence with Westfield
Road in a northwesterly direction 712.90 feet to station
17+92.53, the end of Westfield Road in Phase I of Wynridge.
Beginning at station 0+18 of Minor Ridge Road, a point common
to the centerline of Minor Ridge Road and the edge of pavement
of Westfield Road opposite station 14+06.50; thence with Minor
Ridge road in a clockwise direction 1,707.68 feet to station
17+26.68, the edge of pavement of Westfield Road opposite
station 17+25.89, the end of Minor Ridge Road in Wynridge,
Phase I.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 56 foot unobstructed right of way
on Westfield Road and a 50 foot unobstructed right of way on Minor Ridge Road
and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats
in the Office'~of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Book 677, page 179.
Mrs. Moon then presented request dated March 4, 1981, from Mr. Robert. H. Blodinger,
attorney for Mr. William F. Kirby, for Whitetail Lane in Running Deer Subdivision, to be
taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following ~
road in Running Deer Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+10 of Whitetail Lane, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Whitetail Lane and the edge
of pavement of Running Deer Lane (State Route 808); thence with
Whitetail Lane in a southeasterly direction 1,295.33 feet to
station 13+05.33, a oul-de-sac, the end of Whitetail Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways ~nd
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way
and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 674,
page 288.
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
214
Mrs. Moon presented request dated May 11, 1981, from Mr. J. S. Lee, developer of
Camellia Garden, for Albert Court in Camellia Garden Subdivision to be taken into the State
Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the
following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Camellia Garden Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+11 of Albert Court, a point common to
the centerline intersection of Albert Court and the edge of
pavement of Whitewood Road (State Route 1455); thence with Albert
Court in a clockwise direction 632.58 feet to station 6+43.58,
the end of Albert Court and the edge of pavement of Whitewood
Road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right of way
and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 706, page 692.
Agenda Item No. 3b. Letter from Highway Department re: Hollymead Drive.
?
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated April 7, 1981, from Mr. D. S.
Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, regarding Hollymead Drive in Hollymead Subdivision:
"In reviewing the Hollymead Subdivision file in my office it has become
apparent that certain agreements were made in 1972 concerning the
construction and future upgrading of Hollymead Drive and Woodburn
Road as development occurred.
My files are incomplete but it appears that as a part of the approval of
the Hollymead PUD the developer was required to increase the cross section
and base of Hollymead Drive as actual traffic volumes using that street
approached certain volumes. It appears that Hollymead Drive was added
to the state highway system with 8" of aggregate base and 2" of plant
mix in place. At the time of addition this was equivalent to a Category
IV base and surface and capable of carrying up to 3,000 vehicles per day.
My reading of the agreement indicates that when traffic volumes approach
3,000 vehicles per day, Hollymead Drive will have its shoulders and ditches
widened and additional surface placed to bring the base and pavement
design in line with what was then classified as Category V.
Traffic counts taken on Hollymead Drive in 1980 indicate traffic volumes
in the 1500 to 2000 vehicle per day range. It would appear that with the
recent development of the apartment complex beyond Hol!ymead School and
the proposed rezoning of the land north of the Hollymead Dam, that traffic
on Hollymead Drive could well exceed 3,000 vehicles per day when recounted
in 1982.
The purpose of my letter is to request that the County review the
requirements included in the approval of the Hollymead Planned Community
and advise me concerning the County's position regarding the upgrading
of Hollymead Drive."
Mr. Fisher said he requested the Planning Staff to review the matter as requested in
the above letter. Letter dated May 8, 1981 (On file in the Clerk's Office), from Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was received in response to the request. (Mr.
Lindstrom arrived at 9:15 A.M.) Mr. Tucker indicated that the Hollymead PUD, Phase I, was
reviewed and he agrees that Hollymead Drive was built to carry 3,000 vehicle trips per day
and the latest traffic volume on Hollymead Drive is in the 1500 to 2000 vehicle trips per
day range. Therefore, Mr. Tucker feels that the 1000 to 1500 vehicle trips per day margin
allows ample t±me for reviewing and requiring the necessary road improvements when the next
request for a~subdivision plat or site plan is submitted for final approval. However, Mr.
Tucker does feel that the question of the status of the road improvement conditions should
be addressed by Mr. St. John since the PUD was approved prior to the Hylton decision. Mr.
Fisher then asked Mr. Roosevelt if the response was satisfactory.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. Mr. Roosevelt did not
feel the developer was required to do any more than he had done according to the minutes of
May 8, 1972 when the Hollymead P~ was approved. He noted concern that the PUD was approved
for 740 dwelling units which could generate 5,000 vehicle trips per day and the pavement is
designed for 3,000 vehicle trips per_~day.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John to comment on the matter. Mr. St. John did not
feel any requirement was clear in the minutes of May, 1972 when this PUD was approved.
However, he did feel a strong argument could be made that the memorandum from Mr. Robert
Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, set out in those minutes was part of the conditions for
the PUD.
215
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
~After a short discussion on the status of Hollymead Drive, Mr. Fisher stated that he
did not feel this matter could be resolved today and suggested that the Highway Department
work with the Engineering, Planning and Legal staffs to determine if any Board action is
necessary.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt dated May 5,
1981:
"Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors resolution passed at
the April 8, 1981, day meeting concerning the closing of the first
crossover north of the south fork of the Rivanna River on Route 29.
The Department has reviewed your request and approved the temporary
closing of this crossover. In anticipation of the start of the
construction on the River Heights we will take steps to close the
crossover in the near future."
Mr. Fisher asked if the closing of the crossover would be delayed until some construction
begins on the River Heights Hotel site, which is on the west side of Route 29 North. Mr.
Roosevelt felt the consensus of the Board at the April 8, 1981 meeting was to close the
crossover regardless of the hotel project. Mr. Fisher agreed.
Mr. Fisher then noted receipt of letter dated April 23, 1981 from Mr. A.~S. Brown,
State Secondary Roads Engineer regarding the designation of $150,000.00 of the County's
Revenue Sharing Funds to be applied to Project 0637-002-169, C50! as requested in resolution
from the County on April 8, 1981.
Mrs. Moon then presented the following letter dated April 7, 1981 from Mr. Leo E.
Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer for the State Department of Highways
and Transportation:
"As requested in your resolution dated March 11, 1981, the following abandonment
from the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective
April 7, 1981.
ABANDONMENT
Route 653 from its south intersection with Rt. 601
to a point 0.16 Mi. East of Route 601.
LENGTH
0.16 Mi."
Mr. Roosevelt then noted letter dated May 8, 1981, sent to the Board outlining allocation~
for Secondary System construction for Fiscal Year 1981-82 along with background data indicating
the basis for the distribution of funds. Mr. Roosevelt said according to a meeting he
attended last week in Richmond on the Highway Department's financial problems, the determining
factor on advertisement of improvement projects will be the cash flow that the department
has in hand and not money indicated as available on the printout of monies distributed to
the counties. The funds available to counties will be taking a back seat to the amount of
money in the State Department of Highways and Transportation. The overriding factor in
the advertisement of projects is going to be how far the dollars in the Department's bank
account can be stretched. The only way that the dollars can be stretched is to match them
up against some other funds; primarily federal funds. Therefore, it appears that during
the next several years, the only projects that are going to be advertised by the Highway
Department are those that can be matched by federal funds regardless of which highway
system the road is in. Mr. Roosevelt felt the proposed Albemarle County road budget for
next year needs to be reexamined and some changes made in what was originally proposed. He
then presented a list of options. The amount advertised for the public hearing next week
was $767,320, and is within $15,000 of what was anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said if the
plan is adhered to, sixty-four percent of Hydraulic Road would be financed and only thirty-
eight percent of Park Street. Hydraulic Road is a state funded project and Park Street is
a federal project. Under the circumstances, Mr. Roosevelt did not feel Hydraulic Road can
be advertised during the next year as long as it is a state funded project. The State
Highway Department will not advertise a $2,900,000 project and use that amount of state
funds when that money could be matched with Federal funds and a five or six million dollars
job could be advertised. Mr. Roosevelt reviewed the options and particularly noted that
the Hydraulic Road project has been deleted from the proposed budget and the Park Street
Bridge inserted with the full amount of $101,820. Mr. Roosevelt also felt it may be necessary
to transfer funds currently available for Hydraulic Road to the Park Street Bridge in order
to place that project in a favorable position. Mr. Roosevelt said "favorable position"
means one of three things: 1) Ready for advertisement, which it is; 2) Federal Aid
project, which it is; and 3) Seventy percent of the money available on paper to finance it
which would be possible if some funds were transferred from Hydraulic Road. In conclusion,
Mr. RooseveLt felt the first step necessary is to have as many funds as possible for the
work on the Park Street Bridge and the only way to do such is to revise the proposed budget.
Mr. Fisher felt more changes will be needed and such should be taken up after or
during the public hearing on May 20, 1981. Mr. Roosevelt felt the Board should understand
that he is going to recommend that the budget be revised as he has suggested today which is
deleting Hydraulic Road and inserting the Park Street Bridge project. Without any further
comments, the Secondary Budget will be presented at the public hearing as advertised.
~a~l~l~(Regular Da_~ Meetin~
21G
Mr. Roosevelt said he would send all the information he has on the earth dam on
Woodburn Road in Hollymead to the Board members (ZMA-79~33).
Mr. Henley then noted appreciation for work done on several roads in his district.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter dated April 23, 1981, from Mrs. Josephine Feggans
appealing the road viewers recommendation of denial for rural addition funds for 0.30 miles
off of Route 723. Mr. Roosevelt said he and Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County
Engineer, are to meet with Mrs. Feggans on May 15, 1981, to stake out the one rural addition
on the roadway that was approved and he will discuss with Mrs. Feggans at that time the
reason for denial.
Agenda Item No. 4. Sale of County Property.
This matter regarding the sale of County property known as the Berkeley Sewer Plant
site was deferred from April 8, 1981, in order that the County appraisers could reappraise
the property based on the proposed sales contract from Dr. Hurt, specifically the reservation
of the easement involved in Section 9 of the sales contract.
Mrs. Moon said Mr. Agnor received a call from Mr. Jim Hill~ agent for Dr. Hurt, yesterday
and indications are that Dr. Hurt is willing to pay the $5,000 which is the latest appraisal
from the County Real Estate Department. However, Dr. Hurt desires to pay $2,500 as an
option which will run until road construction is completed. The closing on the sale of the
property and the remaining $2,500 will then occur at the completion of the road construction.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he was aware of this proposal. Mr. St. John said no. Mr.
Fisher then requested Mr. St. John to discuss this further with Mr. Agnor to determine if
this proposal is possible and if resolved, to be discussed at the May 20, 1981 meeting.
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Youth Services Center.
Mr. Fisher asked the reason for another resolution when one was adopted on June 11,
1980, and an appointment has been made to the Youth Services Citizen Board and the Youth
Services Center' is included in the County's current budget. Miss Amy Melville, Director
of the Youth Services Center, was present and said several specifics were included in the
June 1980 resolution which are no longer applicable. One of the specifics was the allocation
amount and the desire is to have that amount deleted in order that the Center is not bound
to that amount. Another item included was that the Youth Services Center would be under
Family Services and that Board would act as the Youth Services Center Board. A transition
has been made for a Youth Commission to identify, plan and coordinate services for the
youth and to oversee the functions of the Center. Miss Melville said the proposed resolution
for the Board's consideration today is hopefully general enough that the Center will not
have to return for another._resolution. Mr. Fisher felt the proposed resolution is basically
a housekeeping procedure and he was not opposed to the adoption of same.
Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the following resolution.
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Lindstrom
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is
supportive of~the establishment of an Office on Youth, hereafter the Youth
Service Center, and a citizen's board, entitled the Youth Commission, that
will f~ter wholesome youth development and the prevention of juvenile
deli~uency; and
WHEREAS, the County is desirous of establishing ~nd sponsoring a
Youth Commission which will serve as a policy making and governing board for
the Youth Service Center to identify, develop and provide comprehensive
integrated youth services and a delinquency prevention program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County will jointly appoint with the City Council of Charlottesville a nine (9)
member Youth Commission to identify, plan and coordinate services for
youth and oversee the functions of the Youth Services Center. This Commission
shall be composed of private citizens, youth representatives and professionals,
such that the majority of members shall not be employed by local or state
youth-serving agencies or be an elected governmental official. Appointments
shall be for a three (3) year term. The responsibilities of the COmmission shall
be those listed in the Minimum Standards for the Delinquency Prevention and Youth
Development Act (Sections B.3.a. and B.4.a.).
Mrs. Judy Gough from the Finance Department then introduced four students from
Albemarle High School visiting that department for Youth in Government Day.
Agenda Ztem No. 6. Resolution: Monticello Community Action Agency.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency, has submitted a resolution asking that the Board endorse the continuance of
Federal support of the Community Action Agency. Mr. Fisher felt uncomfortable with adoption
of this resolution since this would indicate that the Board felt this a higher priority
than any other federal funding which may occur. Therefore, he preferred not getting into
a situation of picking and choosing federal funding priorities. Miss Nash did not feel
May_13~ 1 8~eg_ular Davy Mee%i_ng)~
the resolution would do any harm because it would put people on notice of what the necessities
are. Mr. Henley was unsure of what he would be voting on because he had no knowledge of
what the national anti-poverty policy referred to in the resolution is. Mr. Fisher said
with the consent of the Board he will respond by stating that the County supports the
activities of the Community Action Agency but prefers not to support one program for
federal funding out of all the other possible programs that the County may be asked to
support. Mr. McCann felt similar requests will be made and preferred waiting until it is
known which funds will be cut and what the needs may be. He also expressed concern that
if this resolution is supported then the County may have to provide the funding lost. The
general consensus of the Board was for Mr. Fisher to respond as indicated above.
Mr. Agnor arrived at 9:46 A.M. and introduced a group of students for Youth-In-Government
Day from Albemarle High School assigned to the Board of Supervisors and County Executive.
Agenda Item No. 7- AHIP: Quarterly Report.
Miss Ann Paul, Director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present and
summarized the third quarter of Fiscal Year 1980-81 for AHIP. Five major rehabilitations
were completed during the third quarter, one minor rehabilitation and one HUD indirect
job.
Mr. Gary Oliveria then presented a slide presentation of the projects during the
third quarter.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board will visit the Self-Help project at Bishop Hill today
at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher .then extended the Board's appreciation for AHIP's efforts and the
report.
Agenda Item No. 8. Decision on Route 29 Bus System.
Mr. Fisher said four alternatives for the Route 29 North Bus System were presented at
the Board meeting on April 8, 1981 and deferred to this date in order to allow the Board
an opportunity to study the matter further and make a decision on whether to continue the
Route 29 Bus System. Mr. Jim Skove reviewed his presentation of April 8 and noted that
some minor revisions were made in the bus schedule in February. He also noted that the
ridership figure for April was 3,000 and this is a ten percent increase over the March
figures. Mr. Fisher summarized the four alternatives and the costs estimated for same.
He asked if the estimates were for a twelve-month period. Mr. Skove said yes and noted
that the estimates are based on the assumption that the Federal funding will be fifty
percent of the operating deficit at least through September 1982. After that period of ~
time, funding is doubtful. Mr. Skove also noted that the fares cover only about thirty
percent of the total operating cost of the bus service. Mr. Skove said seventy percent of
the ridership goes to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle Square area. Dr. Iachetta felt alternative
three, extending the Charlottesville Transit Service trunk route to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle
Square area, would provide a better projection of ridership and aid in determining if the
system should be continued for another year. Mr. Skove felt~alternative four, extending
the route to the high density areas, was a drastic change and would show a decline in
ridership.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if any support had been indicated from the commercial businesses
served by this system. Mr. Agnor said in discussing this with representatives for the
Fashion Square Mall and Albemarle Square merchants, the feeling was that the system is not
beneficial to their employees due to the bus schedules. The general feeling for customer
use is to continue the service but the representatives pointed out that the parking at
both facilities is designed for adequate free parking and not for bus service. Mr. Agnor
said the representatives also indicated that they were not interested in providing funds
for the system since they did not feel there was sufficient benefit to warrant such support.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the industrial facilities benefit from the system. Mr. Skove
said very few people ride to the industrial sites such as Sperry and Stromberg.
Mr. Fisher then noted that some comments had been received supporting the continuation
of the system.
Mrs. Hazel Hollmann, Vice President of the League of Women Voters, was present and
noted that the League supports continuation of the bus system. The League supports, the
system primarily due to the savings of energy and the decrease of traffic in the already
congested Route 29 North Corridor. Mrs. Hollmann also noted that the system should be
publicized more in order to promote ridership.
Mr. McCann felt the County needs to decide whether it wants to go into the public
transportation business or not. A very select portion of the County is served by this
system and the main route is to shopping facilities where the merchants are not willing to
participate in the costs. Therefore, Mr. McCann did not support funding the continuation
of the system and was concerned that the entire cost may be placed on the County if the
federal funding is deleted. He restated his original feelings that the government does
not have any business providing public transportation. Dr. Iachetta said there would not
be any bus systems in the United States if that were true because private enterprises
cannot economically operate a bus system.
Mr. Fisher felt the area, at least to Albemarle Square, has reached a density of
commercial development that requires availability of public transportation. Therefore, he
felt alternative 3, extending the Charlottesville Transit Service trunk route to the
Fashion Mall/ Albemarle Square area, is one that he could justify trying for a year to
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
218
determine the amount of ridership. This alternative reduces the total mileage from what
the system currently offers but retains approximately seventy percent of the ridership.
Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Fisher and felt the system should be given another year to
determine its feasibility. Mr. McCann again emphasized that he did not support the system.
Mr. Henley noted that he was not that excited about the system originally and felt enough
experimenting had been done in the one year of service. Therefore, he felt the system
should be discontinued now.
Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it is true that people who drive their own cars pay their
own way. He felt that if government did not subsidize transportation, no one would get
any place. Mr. McCann disagreed because everYthing that is paid for by the government is
paid for by tax dollars and is not a subsidy as such to maintain a bus line. Mr. Lindstrom
did agree that the idea of a bus system is to serve people and enable them to get to jobs
but he was unsure of the necessity of transporting shoppers. However, he did feel it
should be recognized that this system will not only be subsidized by the local government
for at least another year, but also by the federal government. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom
felt financially speaking.the return on a dollar is something justifiable to him at this
point. Mr. McCann did not feel there will be any return on the dollar because one dollar
~¢e~v~a~rom the federal government, will mean another local dollar will be added to
it. After considerable discussion of the Route 29 North Bus System, Mr. McCann offered
motion to discontinue the bus service when the grant funds are used up. Mr. Henley seconded
the motion. Mr. Agnor then noted that a message has just been received from the Chairman
of the Albemarle Square merchants that the merchants have asked that the service be continued
for another year and more advertisement be displayed about the service. However, they are
not in a position at this time to provide any funding for the system. Roll was then
called on the foregoing motion and same failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Henley and McCann.
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt alternative
#3 which is: "Trunk Extension. The City's trunk route which presently operates to and
from the Downtown Mall, the University of Virginia, Barracks Road Shopping Center and K-Mart,
~Q~td be extended to Albemarle Square. The route would operate six days a week on 30-minute
headways during the midday period and on Saturdays. Hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m
to 7:30 p.m." for one more year. Mr. McCann felt the County should buy its own buses and
start a system. Mr. Henley felt the schedule could be cut down and have less buses running
in order to save money. Mr. Fisher said that is an alternative which could be included in
the agreement. Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Henley and felt that if the system is going to
be operated, it should be done in the most economical way. Roll was called on the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Henley and McCann.
Mr. Fisher then suggested a formal proposal be presented to the County Executive,
County Attorney and to City Council for review in order to get this matter resolved.
Agenda Item No. 11. Adjustment of Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule.
Mr. Agnor presented his memorandum dated May 6, 1981, regarding an adjustment in
parks and recreation fees:
"As you know, the FY 81-82 budget anticipates increases in Parks and Recreation
fees over FY 80-81. The staff has studied how these revenues can be realized,
examined the schedules of fees with the cost of the programs and facilities, and
compared the fees with other recreation activities in the area, both public and
private.
Currently the County derives revenues from (1) program or class fees paid by
participants, (2) swimming fees from two lakes collected via seasonal passes
and daily usage fees, and (3) by rental of the Greenwood Community Center building.
(1) Fee Based Activities: For FY 81-82, it is proposed that program or class
fees be established according to the estimated costs associated with the
activity involved on a case-by-case basis. The activities will be calculated
to be self-supporting, as a minimum, and some will generate revenues that
~xee~d..~p~s.~for use in supporting the activities that are not revenue
producing. It is estimated that $15,000 in additional revenues can be
realized over the 80-81 revenues of $32,300.
(2) Swimming Fees: For FY 81-82, it is proposed that swimming fees be
increased, and that a new fee be established for Non-County residents, as
follows:
Present Proposed Proposed
Dai~y Fee: Ail Users County Resident Non-County Resident
Adult $1.25 $1.75 $2.00
Child .75 1.00 1.25
Season Pass:
Family $40 $50 $60
Adult 20 25 30
Child 15 15 20
It is estimated that $23,500 in additional revenues can be realized over the 80-81
revenues of $72,000.
May 13, 1981 [Regular Day Meeting)
(3) Greenwood Center Building Rental: The rental fees are calculated according
to the type of activity and the extent of the hours and custodial work involved.
It is not a significant revenue producer, and is estimated to provide $1500
in FY 81-82.
(4) Shelter Reservations' For FY 81-82, it is proposed that reservations for
private parties for picnic shelters include a fee of $25. Reservations have been
provided for a number of years without any fee. Such reservations usually involve
company picnics or family reunions. Guaranteeing the availability of a
shelter removes that shelter for a period of time from use by others. The
reservations in County parks average between 150 to 200 per year, and could
provide $3500 - $4500 in new revenues.
(5) Park Gate Fees: The staff considered recommending a gate fee for the
use of the parks in lieu of the swimming fee, or in addition to the swimming fee.
It is recommended that such a fee be postponed for future consideration as a
revenue measure after experiencing the results of the above recommended changes,
and after comparing these revenue changes with the expenditure changes. Such
a comparison would be a process of the next budget cycle, and a movement toward
fees for usage of parks would therefore be a consideration in the FY 82~83 budget,
if the Board agrees with this recommendation."
Mr. Fisher asked if the reduced fee was still in effect for swimming after 5:30 P.M.
Mr. Agnor said yes; from 5:30 P.M. until closing it is one-half of the daily fee. Mr.
Henley did not feel the fee should be reduced after 5:30 P.M. because other than on weekends,
5:30 P.M. until closing would be the prime usage during the day.
Mr. Fisher then asked what action is necessary by the Board. Mr. Agnor said concurrence
of the f.ee schedule is requested and then an ordinance would have to be drafted and brought
to the Board next week for action on an emergency basis since the swimming fees are set
out in a County ordinance. Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any other charge per person
for the rental other than the shelter charge. Mr. Agnor said no. Dr. Iachetta felt it
would not be unreasonable to have a minimum charge per person for the users of the shelter
since it is a public facility and when reserved, the general public cannot use same. Dr.
!achetta then offered motion to adopt the County Executive's recommendation for the fee
schedule. Miss Nash asked if the reduction of fees for swimming after 5:30 P.M was part
of that motion. Mr. Agnor said such is included in the Parks and Recreation Ordinance.
Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion to include that the fee be the same regardless of
what time a person arrives. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked what
percentage of the total operating costs of the Parks these fees would pay. Mr. Agnor said
about sixty percent or $170,000; the total operating budget of the Parks and Recreation
Department is $320,000. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the proposed fee for use of the
shelters is comparable to other public facilities. Mr. Agnor said the City does not
charge a fee but some other areas charge by the hour or by the size of the crowd. Mr.
Lindstrom felt the staff should examine the possibility of a higher fee for use of the
shelters since such would be unavailable for use by the general public. Roll was then
called on the foregoing motion and same c~arried by the f~ollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Electoral Board.
Mr. Richard Florence, representing the Electoral Board, was present. He noted that
the recent change in the magisterial districts has created a problem because Broadus Wood
School, which was a polling place in the Rivanna District, is now in White Hall District.
Therefore, he requested that the Board consider Ho!lymead School as the polling place for
that portion of the Rivanna District. The other change Mr. Florence requested is that the
area moved from the Scottsville District into the Samuel Miller District, particularly for
the area south of Charlottesville, that Interstate 64 be used as the dividing line between
the two precincts. The voters in the Samuel Miller District would then go to Red Hill
School rather than to Ivy. Mr. Florence said Mr. McCann does not object to the change in
the Rivanna District. However, he was unsure about the Red Hill School change. Mr.
Fisher said he had not had a chance to review the matter. Mr. Florence said the voters
are closer to Ivy than to Red Hill but Ivy has 2,630 voters and North Garden has only 756.
Mr. Fisher said he did not have any objection to the change and asked what action is
necessary. Mr. St. John said a resolution is necessary with same being submitted to the
Justice Department. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby
establish on the recommendation of the Albemarle County Electoral Board that the
polling place for the Rivanna District be changed from Broadus Wood Elementary
School to Hollymead Elementary Sohool.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
establiSh the boundary between the North Garden Precinct and the Red Hill Precinct
within the Samuel Miller District will be Interstate 64.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
220
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Helen A. Pitts Final Plat. (Plat showing survey of
Parcel A and Parcel B, being a portion of Tax Map 130-?arcel 38, Children of Helen A.
Pitts Property Parcel B to be added to the land of Katherine Pitts Phillips, Tax Map 130-
Parcel 38A, Situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District, drawn by Wm. Morris Foster,
Land Surveyor, dated February 13, 1981.)
Mr. Fisher said a number of letters have been received regarding this plat but before
discussing them he has been advised by the County Attorney that there are limits to the
legislative authority that the Board of Supervisors has in dealing with subdivision matters.
He then asked Mr. St. John to summarize the issue and the powers the Board has. Mr. St.
John said he. does not find any authority in County ordinances or the State Code for the
Board to exercise architectural review or review of the architectural matters in this
case. He felt such is the main concern in the correspondence received and that was the
reason he had advised the Chairman of the Board's authority in this matter. Mr. Fisher
asked if this means~that the Board does not have the power to control the design or the
size of a building. Mr. St. John said yes. A brief discussion then following on the
Board's power to approve or disapprove a subdivision plat. Mr. St. John did not feel the
Board had any power to disapprove a subdivision plat if the subdivision complies with
existing ordinances and if the building proposed on the plat can meet setbacks, etc.. The
Comprehensive Plan does address historical sites and the efforts to preserve the surrounding
area and the compatibility of historical sites but such regulations have never been implemente¢
in the County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan is
simply as set out in Section 15.1-456 respecting public' facilities, sewer, water, roads,
etc.
Mr. Bernard Chamberlain was present. He felt the location of the building is an
issue~ec~e the statutes do not state that the Board cannot decide where the building is
placed. Mr. St. John said he could find nothing in the ordinances that gives the Board
power to locate a house in a place different than the place that the owner desires.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following staff
report:
"Location: A portion of Parcel 38 on Tax Map 130. Scottsville District,
located on the south side of Rt. 1302 (Warren Street) and west of
the intersection with Harrison Street in Scottsville.
Acreage: 2.51 acres and .56 acres with 126.1 acres in residue.
Zoning: Village Residential.
Proposal: To divide a 2.51 acre parcel from 126.1 acres and add a .56
acre parcel to an adjacent lot.
Topography of Area: Gently rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Rt. 1302 currently
carries 402 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation to be tolerable.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This property l~es within the Scottsvi!le
Village area and is recommended for medium density development
(5-10 du/acre).
School Impact: There is a total projected enrollment of approximately one
student.
Type Utilities: Public water is available from an 8Tv line along Rt. 1302
(Warren Street). Public sewer is also available, but in a limited
capacity. (Mr. Tucker said in discussing this with the Albemarle
County Service Authority, indications are that.since there would be just one
dwelling, there is adequate capacity to attach same onto the sewer line.)
Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
commented that a private street commercial entrance will be required.
Mrs. Virginia Moore, an adjacent property owner, has informed the
staff that a designated historic home, C!iffside, is located across
the street from the proposed division. Mrs. Moore owns Cliffside
and is concerned with the visual impact of a new home. The staff
understands that she is requesting that the Planning Commission require
a deeper building setback from Rt. 1302. Presantly, there is a twenty-
five foot building setback.
This plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and
the staff recommends approval with the followimg conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Certification of a 30,000 square foot building site;
b. Location, area and dimensions of building site;
c. Signature of Scottsvit!e Planning Commission;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of a private street commercial entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and
sewer plans."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 21, 1981, recommended
approval of the plat with conditions lb and Id of the staff and amended conditions as
follows: la. Determination of a building site; lc. Approval of the plat by the Town of
Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said the Town of Scottsville has approved the plat and the reason
for their review was because a portion of the property is in the Town of Scottsville. Mr.
Tucker said a letter of approval has been received from Mr. Thomas Bruce, Chairman of the
Scottsville Planning Commission, with the following conHition: "No building, residence,
garage or any other permanent structure shall be alloweH either in whole or in part on any
portion of that land located within the corporate limitsl of the Town of Scottsville without
prior approval of the Town Planning Commission and the ~own Historic District Architectural
Board and the Town Council of Scottsvil!e." Mr. Tucker Ithen pointed out on the plat the
proposed location of the dwelling. He also peinted out ithe steeper topography near the
rear property line where the drainage swale is located.
May!13, 1981 (Regular Day Me~ting)
Dr. Iachetta said the plat shows the dedication of right-of-way and asked if ~uch
would be dedicated to the state highway department. Mr. Tucker said that has already been
taken into account and the two and one-half acre parcel is exclusive of right-of-way.
Miss Nash said according to the County Zoning Ordinance there is space for another building
site on parcel A. Mr. Tucker said the density would permit another dwelling but the site
has not been examined to see if it is a buildable site. With utilities available, zoning
would permit two units on that property.
The following letter of appeal was then noted from Mrs. Virginia Moore, dated April
27, 1981:
"Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Commissioner
Department of Planning, Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Tucker,
I wish to appeal to the Board of Supervisors the Planning Commission's
approval of a subdivision on the Helen Pitts estate directly across from this
historic landmark, Cliffside, my house for 52 years. The house which Mr.
Fred Schneider proposes to build close to the road, therefore to the house
at Cliffside, would degrade Cliffside aesthetically and monetarily. It is
incompatible.
Since the Board of Supervisors has more power of discretion, more leeway,
I am told, I have great hope."
Mrs. Virginia Moore was present and noted that Cliffside is an historic landmark and
on the Virginia and National Registers for protection of historic structures. She noted
objection to the proposal unless the setback or building line is adjusted. She had been
assured by other attorneys that the Board does have discretion in this matter by reason of
the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman of the Planning Commission, had suggested
she appeal this plat to the Board since the Board has certain powers of discretion so the
placement of the building could be discussed. Mrs. Moore then requested the minimum
setback be one hundred feet and felt this was reasonable considering the size of the lot.
Mrs. Moore then reviewed what the applicant, Mr. Fred Schneider proposes to do. She also
noted that Mr. Schneider intends to have his entrance opposite her entrance and she objects.
Mrs. Moore felt there were many advantages such as better air and more privacy if the
house were set back further from the road. She stated that the road is very dangerous and
when the road is improved, the minimum right-of-way required will be fifty feet. If the
road is ever widened, it will be at Mr. Schneider's front door. She then continued toi
point out the advantages of having the house further back from the road. Mrs. Moore noted
letters have been submitted for basically the same reasons as she has stated which is
degradation to the historic landmark, Cliffside. The letters were from Messrs. William T.
Stevens; Robert K. Spencer, President of Scottsville Historic Landmarks Foundation; Floyd
Johnson, restoration architect; Jeff M. O'Dell, architectural historian; and Kingsley
Hughes,~ resident on Warren Street. In conclusion, Mrs. Moore said she understood that the
Board had the power of discretion in the matter of setbacks and she feels C!iffside deserves
protection.
Mr. Bernard Chamberlain said he would like to address the legal issue of the Board
actions. He felt the Board has discretionary powers in the public interest which powers
are set out in the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. He then reviewed those goals.
Mr. Chamberlain discussed the general provisions in the Zoning Ordinance particularly
Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.5, and 1.6. Mr. Chamberlain said the Board is being reque~Hd'~to
require the applicant to place the house further back from the road, and he felt such is
an advantage for the applicant and would not reduce the historic value of Cliffside. Mr.
Chamberlain again stated that he felt the Board has the power to do this according to the
Comprehensive ~lan and felt the Board should make a minor change here regarding the setback.
Mrs. Randolph Phillips, one of the heirs of the Helen Pitts estate, spoke next. She
felt this is a chance to limit intensive development in the area. She did not feel there
was any historic confrontation and felt the screening and setback were adequate. In
conclusion, Mrs. Phillips felt the house would be built in a manner that would not devalue
Cliffside.
Mr. Morris Foster, surveyor for the applicant, was present and felt the issue is the
subdivision plat. He felt the objectives of the Comprehensive plan and the Zoning Ordinance
are to promote growth. Mr. Fisher then asked how far back the house could be located on
the property. Mr. Foster said the lot has a very small frontage and the back of the lot
follows a ravine. Therefore, he felt that at fifty feet from the building setback line
there would be a considerably level site. Mr. Foster then noted his understanding from
Mrs. Phillips that the intent of the deed is to limit the use of the tract of land to one
dwelling. Mrs. Phillips said the deed will have the restriction of one dwelling unit for
the two and one-half acres.
Mr. Fred Schneider, applicant and registered architect, was present. He felt the
plat meets all the requirements for Village Residential zoning according to the Zoning
Ordinance. Mr. Sc~hneider noted approval from the Scottsville Planning Commission and the
unanimous approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and he urged the Board to
uphold the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Schneider then discussed the landscape of
the property, the historic quality of Scottsville and the style of his house. He then
pointed out reasons for locating the house in the proposed location and noted that the
site slopes steeply farther in from the property. Since the northern end of the house is
along the road and in an open area, this will contribute to its solar advantage and have
no real impact on public appearance. Mr. Schneider said he has considered the best solar
orientations and disagreed with Mrs. Moore about the appropriate location of the house.
In conclusion, Mr. Schneider requested approval. Mr. Fisher asked the minimum setback
proposed. Mr. Schneider said the building line as shown on the plat is set back twenty-five
feet from the property line as required by the Ordinance. The house itself sits anywhere
from two feet to twenty feet from that setback because the house is at an angle to the
road. He felt a larger setback would limit the solar aspects of the house.
~May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
222
Mr. Benjamin Dick, counsel for Mr. Schneider, was present. He said this area is not
an historic district and there are no lawful guidelines to enforce such a district. He
agreed with Mr. St. John that the Board has no jurisdiction to deny the subdivision or to
require a greater setback than required by the Zoning Ordinance. He felt Mr. Chamberlain's
reference to the Zoning Ordinance was to general provisions, not specific provisions and
did not apply to Mr. Schneider. In conclusion, Mr. Dick did not feel there was any lawful
provision for the Board to impose on Mr. Schneider and the plat should be approved.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr'. St. John if the Board had any power to control the location
of a building on a site. Mr. St. John said no. He did not feel the Board could impose a
greater setback than the Ordinance prescribes.
Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it was within the Board's authority to override the laws
of the State or the County and felt the only way to protect historic sites is to have an
ordinance regulating historic districts. Mr. Lindstrom felt what has been proposed is
much better than what the zoning allows by right on the property. Therefore, he did not
see any grounds, technical or otherwise, to reverse the Planning Commission's approval.
Miss Nash agreed. Mr. Fisher said this request points out that an historic district is
needed. Mr. Fisher said without a motion to change the conditions of the Planning Commission,
their approval stands.
Agenda Item No. 14. Destruction of Paid Bonds and Coupons.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following resolution and requested Board approval of
same as well as the authorization for a Committee to be comprised of the Director of
Finance, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
destroy paid bonds and coupons in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58-919.3 as amended:
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance for Albemarle County, Virginia, has
petitioned this Board for authorization to destroy all bonds and coupons
currently on file which were paid prior to June 30, 1975; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 58-919.3, as amended, enables this
Board to designate a committee of three persons to supervise and witness
the destruction of such bonds and coupons and to thereafter execute a
certificate setting forth the means by which the same were destroyed,
together with the issue, series, number and maturity date of the paid
bonds so destroyed, and the fiscal year in which paid, and said certificate
shall set forth the amount of the coupons paid in such fiscal years;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Director of Finance of Albemarle
County, Virginia, be authorized to proceed with the destruction of such
bonds and coupons as aforementioned, and for the purpose of supervising
and witnessing the destruction of such bonds and coupons, the Director
of Finance, Ray B. Jones, together with the Clerk to the Board and Chairman
of the Board are appointed to the committee for such purpose; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said committee shall execute a certificate
meeting the requirements as set out above, causing such certificate to
be executed and acknowledged by them in the manner prescribed for
acknowledgment of deeds. Such certificate shall be prepared in
duplicate, with the original being made a part of the minutes
of this Board, and a copy retained as a permanent record in the office of
the Director of Finance.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the
foregoing resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. i0. Petition: re: Chris Greene Lake.
Mr. Fisher noted petition dated May 13, 1981, from Mr. Paul O. Scott, representing
property owners on Route 850 and Mr. Meredith C. Leake, representing property owners on
Route 606. The petition detailed problems resulting from the Chris Greene Lake Park. The
basic problems stated in the petition were excessive speed, failure to lock the park gate
at dark, and misuse of alcoholic beverages. (Copy of petition on file in the Clerk's
office.)
Mr. Paul Scott was present and noted problems such as traffic hazards, safety hazards,
noise and litter on Route 850. The feelings of the community is that these problems are
related to Chris Greene Lake. He then summarized the petition and noted that a similar
petition was also submitted in July 1979. Speed limit signs were posted as a result of
that petition. However, the residents feel that forty miles per hour is too high for
Route 850. Mr. Scott felt the park is not opened or closed on a regular basis as set out
in the County Code specifically at sunrise and sunset. Mr. Scott said the parking in the
park is also a problem because on a sunny day, people are parked on the hillsides and in
the boat ramp area. Disorderly conduct is a problem and the park is not oriented anymore
for family use due to excessive noise and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Scott
said litter is a problem. He also noted excessive noise from loud speakers. Mr. Scott
concluded by stating that the citizens signing the petition desire to have some type of
control on entry into the park such as a gate with a fee charged.
223
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Meredith Leake representing the property owners on Route 606 was present. He
supported the statements given by Mr. Scott. Mr. Leake also noted property damage suffered
from People leaving Chris Greene Lake. He suggested some type of warning device for the
stop sign at the intersection of Routes 606 and 850. He also suggested that the speed
limit on Route 606 to its intersection with Route 850 should only be thirty-five miles per
hour instead of forty-five miles per hour. In conclusion, Mr. Leake stated that a uniform
system needs to be established for the opening and closing of the park.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to comment on the request. Mr. Agnor said most of the
tools are available to improve the situation with the exception of the entry gate. This
has been a problem for a long time because the gate is continuously torn down once it is
locked. Mr. Agnor said that closing the park has been assigned to a deputy in the area
and this has been done on an irregular basis due to the possibility of that deputy being
called to another area at closing time. Mr. Agnor said consideration has been given to
having a parks employee assigned to the opening and closing of the park but the necessary
funds for a vehicle and compensation of that person are not justified at this time. Mr.
Agnor said that recently a parks employee was deputized to help handle some of the disorderly
conduct problems. However, even though arrests are made, the penalties are not severe
enough to make much of an impression. Mr. Agnor said as for the loud music, there is now
an adopted noise ordinance that should help particularly after 11:00 P.M. However, there
is no ordinance to prohibit noise during other hours. Speeding is an enforcement matter
and is dependent on the Sheriff's schedule for radar detection. He has had conversations
with Mr. Roosevelt about the erection of a warning sign for the stop sign but was unsure
if that will help. Mr. Agnor said a report is forthcoming on authority to close the parks
on Saturdays and Sundays only and generally between 11:00 A.M. and midafternoon once the
park is filled to a certain capacity. Mr. Agnor concluded by stating that with the increased
enforcement of speeding, a warning sign for the stop sign at the intersection, and arrests
for disorderly conduct, some of the problems may be alleviated.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Fisher expressed his desire for some mechanism to be
established in order that the gates be opened and closed at the appropriate times. Mr.
McCann felt the County has created these problems and should do something to assure the
rules are adhered to. Dr. Iachetta felt a parks policeman was needed in order to maintain
the park and agreed with Mr. McCann that the County had committed itself to this operation
and should be certain that the rules are enforced. Mr. McCann felt the property owners
deserve the maximum protection that can given. Mr. Fisher agreed and requested a report
be made in June on these issues.
Sheriff Bailey was present and favored the speed limit on Route 606 being reduced to
thirty-five miles per hour. Mr. Fisher said that issue has been battled before and did
not feel there would be any success in requesting such a change. Sheriff Bailey felt it
would because the area is now a residential district. Dr. Iachetta suggested requesting
the Highway Department to lower the speed limit. Mr. Fisher said hopefully some action
can be taken to correct the problems and requested a report at the June 10, 1981, meeting.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said the following request has been received from Dr. Clarence McClure,
Superintendent of Education, for an appropriation:
"SUBJECT: Appropriation Request for Woodbrook Repairs
The bids on the repair work for the Woodbrook School building were
opened on May 7, 1981, and the low bidder was R. E. Lee and Son. This
project has been expanded because of a requirement based on accommodating
handicapped students, the fact that the roof project was delayed and because
it was discovered that five sections of walls needed to be replaced instead
of just two. The work to be done in this project is outlined below.
Replacement of the bricks in all of the walls in the
Woodbrook building except the cafeteria and gymnasium.
The latter will be repaired, but replacement is not
necessary.
$166,336
Handicapped facilities improvements including three
outside entrances to classrooms and renovation to
toilet facilities for the handicapped.
13,164
Replacement of the roof. This project was slated
to have been done last spring, but because of the
masonry problems that was discovered the project
was delayed.
110,000
Total $289,500
The appropriation request that is being made by the School Board
amounts to $179,500. An explanation of this amount is reflected in the
outline below.
Total Project Cost
$300,000
Funds already appropriated for the roof in 19.17 and
17K-603
Planning funds previously appropriated in 19.31
Appropriation Request in 19.31
110,000
10,500
$179,500"
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
224
Mr. Fisher said with this request, there will have to be a reduction in School
Construction funds. Dr. Iachetta asked if any Literary Funds are available for this type
of repair. Mr. Agnor did not feel so. Mr. John Massie from the School Office was present
and said Literary Funds are available for extensive renovation work. After a brief discussion
about the shortage of funds, Dr. Iachetta asked if this request had to be approved today.
Mr. Agnor said this is work which must be done during the summer and the School Office is
ready to let the contract. Mr. Bob Vickery, architect, was present and said the work must
be finished before the school reopens in ~ the fall. Therefore, the contract has to be
let soon. He also noted that the walls could fall in if this repair is not done. Mr.
Fisher then asked if Mr. Agnor recommended approval of the appropriation. Mr. Agnor said
yes, out of the General Fund Unallocated Balance. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $179,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund Unallocated Balance and Coded to 19.31 for Woodbrook School repairs;
FURTHER RESOLVED that $108,000 be transferred as follows: From
Code !9.17K to 19.31, $38,220.02 and from Code 17K-603 to 19.31, $69,779.98.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
At 12:42 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 25. Znspect Bishop Hill Subdivision and meet with the Soil Conservation
Service at Ash Lawn. The Board left the County Building at 1:30 P.M. and returned to the
meeting at 3:11 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Code.
Set Public Hearing to Amend Two Sections of the Albemarle County
Mr. Fisher said he discussed with Mr. St. John several weeks ago, the necessity of changin
the names of zoning categories in Section 13-9 of the County Code and in the Noise Ordinance.
This change is necessary in order that the zoning categories in the County Code conform with
those in the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on June 10, 1981, amendments to
the above two sections of the County Code.~Roll was called on the motion and same carried by
~h~!~f~l~o~ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriations.
Mr. Agnor said in August 1980, action was taken by the Board for a $1.76 million
addition to Red Hill School. The project was to be funded by $760,000 in local funds and
$1,000,000 in Literary Funds. The Literary Fund loan has been approved, allocated and is
expected to be received during this month. Therefore, Mr. Agnor said action is necessary
to approve an appropriation of the $1,000,000. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,000,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School
Construction Fund to Code 19.27--Red Hill School Renovations.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Agnor said an oversight occurred last July in reappropriating funds for the
purchase of school buses. There was an outstanding encumbrance on June 30, 1980, in the
amount of $74,740 for this line item. Mr. Agnor said the bus bodies were ordered in the
last fiscal year but are being paid for in this fiscal year. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $74,740 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School
Fund and coded to 17D1-400, Replacement of Buses.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, !achetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS:. None.
Mr. Agnor said the next request is for $11,000 to the refund account on tax relief
for the elderly and handicapped. This is requested to reflect the adjustment in the
income levels that were approved in the summer of 1980. At that time, the amount which
would be required was unknown. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution
Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
May 13, 1981 ~Regular Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $11,000, be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to 9201-5803.13, Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Mrs. Katya Gothie accepting her appointment to
Youth Services Board. He also noted letter received from Mr. R. Douglass Horn, Chairman
of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board Nominating Committee, suggesting that
Miss Ellen V. Nash be appointed to the Community Action Board. Miss Nash said she would
accept the appointment. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to
appoint Miss Nash to the Monticello Area Community Action Board of Directors for an unspecifie~
term. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Receipt of Audit: County Clerk and Clerk of Circuit Court.
Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of the audit for the County Clerk and Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County for calendar year 1980; said audit received from the
Auditor of Public Accounts for the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Audit on file in the Clerk's
Office.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff and
Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of April, 1981, were presented. On motion by Miss
Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of
April, 1981, was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, this
statement was approved as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of April, 1981, along with summary statement of prisoner
days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. Motion to approve
the statements as presented was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash~
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1981, was
presented for the Board's information.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of April,
1981, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund.
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
· own of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Debt Service Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 110,371.77
572,475.38
1,828,755.42
50,293.83
374,641.80
50.14
63,700.47
352.89
247,876.27
172,599.90
35,477.23
130,548.51
$3,587,143 61
Agenda Item No. 22. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
March, 1981, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting)
May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
228
Agenda Item No. 23. Set public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority
jurisdictional map (Candlewyck Subdivision).
Mr. Agnor said recently the Albemarle County Service Authority has discovered that
the Candlewyck Subdivision (formerly called Westview) was left out of the Service Authority's
jurisdictional area for water. The subdivision was constructed and the water was there
when the jurisdictional area map was revised. Therefore, the Service Authority has
requested a public hearing to consider the above omission. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on June 1.0, 1981, at
1:30 P.M., an amendment to the project area map of the Albemarle County Service Authority
in order to correct an omission of the Candlewyck Subdivision on Old Ballard Road from the
Service Authority's water utility system. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said action needs to be taken to change the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30
P.M. to 8:00 P.M. since the Board will be attending the Jack Jouett celebration at Castle
Hill. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta~ seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to change the time
of the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, MoCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher then noted letter from the County Attorney regarding the County's liability
insurance and requested that the Board review the correspondence.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes of May 21, 1980.
Iachetta said no, but would attempt to have them finished by next week.
Dr.
Agenda Item No. 26. Executive Session: Legal Matters.
At 3:26 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn
into executive session in the County Executive's Conference Room 'to discuss legal matters.
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 Board reconvened into open session at 4:32 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 27.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
~HAIRMAN
May 20, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle county, Virginia, was held
on May 20, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, CharlOttesville, Virginia.
Present: Mes.srs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, Layton R.
McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
Officers Present: Counby Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George
R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Coldspring Hill Preliminary Plat Appeal. (Plat showing Coldspring
Hills, Rivanna Magisterial District, owner and developer Richard Muller, land planning and
engineering by Cox, McKee and Harrover, dated November, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher noted that the plat was appealed by the applicant's attorney, Mr. J. Benjamin
Dick and deferral was requested by Mr. Dick on March 18, 1981. (See minutes of March 18,
1981)