1981-06-10June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on June 10,
1981, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom
(arrived at 9:15 A.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. Gerald E. Fisher.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Vice-Chairman, J. T. Henley, Jr.
The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. (This was the first time for a new agenda idea
brought forth by Mr. Fisher, who had recently seen this idea used by other boards in
another state. Agenda items often referred to as routine matters will be set on the
consent agenda. If any Board member objects to an item, he will request that the item be
moved to the regular agenda. Otherwise, the entire consent agenda will be disposed of
without discussion and with only one vote. Also in this way, items which should be noted
as received for the record, will be so noted without reading same aloud.) Mr. Agnor noted
that there were seven items on this new consent agenda. Mr. Agnor stated that item number
three on the consent agenda titled "Federal Payments In Lieu Of Taxes" is something the
Board may wish to discuss in greater detail. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve or
accept all items on the consent agenda with the exception of the letter relating to
federal payments in lieu of taxes. He stated that this is a federal policy he can not
support. Miss Nash said she felt the letter regarding federal payments should be approved
by this Board because even though it~ does not directly affect Albemarle County, it may
heavily affect neighboring counties. Dr. Iachetta's motion was seconded by Mr. McCann.
Dr. Iachetta commented that the federal payments should be tied to the costs of service,
not based on property holdings.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Zachetta and McCann.
Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item 2.2: Take Roads Into State Secondary System (2). Letter having been
received from Mr. Wade Tremblay of Willoughby Corporation requesting that certain roads be
taken into the State System, the following resolution was necessary to complete this
request.
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 Depart-
ment, the following roads in Section 3 of Willoughby Subdivision:
Harris Road: Beginning at station 17+30 of Harris Road, a point
common to the centerline intersection with Harris Road at the boundary
of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; thence with
Harris Road in a southeasterly direction 631.80 feet to station
10+98.20, a temporary cul-de-sac and the end of Harris Road for this
section.
Quince Lane: Beginning at station 5+18 of Quince Lane, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Quince Lane and the edge of pavement
of Harris Road (Station 12+52.34); thence with Quince Lane in a south-
westerly direction 664.63 feet to Station 11+82.63, a cul-de-sac and
the end of Quince Lane in Willoughby.
Pepper Place: Beginning at station 12+10 of Pepper Place, a point
common to the centerline intersection of Pepper Place and the edge of
pavement of Quince Lane (Station 9+13.59); thence into Pepper Place in
a northwesterly direction 202 feet to station 14+12, a cul-de-sao and
the end of Pepper Place in Willoughby.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 56 foot unobstructed right-of-
way for Harris Road, a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way for Quince Lane
and a 40 foot unobstructed right-of-way for Pepper Place and drainage
easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 717,
page 232.
Letter had been received from Mr. S. J. Boatwright requesting the following addition
to the Secondary System, thus necessitating the following resolution:
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 Depart-
ment, the following road in Totier Hills Subdivision:
265
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Fieldcrest D~ive: Beginning at station 0+12 of Fieldcrest Drive, a
point common to the centerline intersection of Fieldcrest Drive and
the edge of pavement of Route 20; thence with Fieldcrest Drive in a
southwesterly direction 1,824.63 feet to station 18+36.63, the end of
Fieldcrest Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and~
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-
way and drainage easement along t~is requested addition as recorded by
plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle~County
in Deed Book 636, page 385 and Deed Book 717, page 417.
Agenda Item No. 2.2. Street Sign Reqmest. In a letter from Albemarle County Engineerin~
Department, it was noted that signs purchased by Virginia Land Company need Go be taken
under Highway Department maintenance; thus the need for the following resolution:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the
following road:
Whippoorwill Road (State Route 839) and Thrush Road (State Route 1616)
at the southwest corner of its intersection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned street sign.
Agenda Item No. 2.3. Letter concerning Federal PaYments in Lieu o£ Taxes. The
following letter was part of the Consent Agenda, but action requested in the letter was
not ~aken. It was received as information only.
"May 27, 1981
From: George R. Long, Executive Director Virginia Association of Counties
The Payments in Lieu of Taxes program is facing its most serious crisis
since it came into existence. Congress appropriated $108 million for
Fiscal Year 1981. As a part of HR 3512, the House of Representatives has
voted to rescind (cut) the entire Fiscal Year 1981 PILT appropriation. The
Senate, on the other hand, has voted to retain the entire $108 million.
Shortly after Memorial Day, i.e. in the immediate future, the two Houses
are scheduled to go into conference on HR 3512. PILT will be a conference
issue.
You are asked to notify your Congressmen by letter telling the exact
budgetary impact of PILT losses. The letter should also cover which county
services will be affected. Since most counties have already developed and
adopted their budgets and outlays for the Fiscal Year 1981-82, the letter
should state how a sudden cutoff of a percentage-of the budgeted funds will
affect them.
Each county is asked to send a copy of this letter to Representative Sidney
Yates, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Znterior Appropriations, and
to each House and Senate conferee. A list of the conferees is on the
reverse of this memorandum."
Agenda Item No. 2.4. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of May, 1981, were presented and
approved as required by the State Compensation Board.
Agenda Item No. 2.5. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of
May, 1981, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail
physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer, and approved as required
by the State Department of Corrections.
Agenda Item No. 2.6. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
April, 1981, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 2.7. Report of the County 'Executive for May, 1981, was presented in
accord with Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of May, 1981,
were also presented as information:
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 104,001..84
501,388.57
1,737,656,53
51,061.77
256,060.30
954.22
65,716.47
356.31
521,034.13
29,228.84
201,737.87
$3,469,196.85
Agenda Item No. 3.
July 16 (night), i980.
not ready for approval.
Approval of Minutes: April 16 (afternoon), June 11, July 9, and
Board members reported no minutes were read, and therefore were
Agenda Item No. 4a) Highway Matters: Discussion of Shawnee Court.
memorandum from Mr. J. Ashley Williams dated June 5, 1981 as follows:
Mr. Agnor read a
"Following is a brief history of the development of Shawnee Court and a
status report of the work being done to get this road accepted into the
State Secondary Road System. This history was taken from our files, the
Board of Supervisors Minute Books and the Highway Department's corres-
pondence.
A letter from the Highway Department dated December 12, 1962, indicates
that several ro~ds, including Shawnee Court were built to state standards
and a resolution by the Board of Supervisors from their meeting of May 19,
1966, asked for the addition of this road. Because of additional work that
needed to be completed, "as-built" plans not yet received and inadequate
service, having only one house at that time, the road was not accepted.
Subsequently, a new resolution was passed by the Board at their meeting of
September 15, 1966 which did not include Shawnee Court since there was
still not adequate service. I found yet another resolution which was
adopted on January 16, 1969 that did include Shawnee Court. There has been
no evidence anywhere that I can find as to the reason this road was not
accepted. It was thought that the developer may have forgotten about
havi~g this road added to the system or merely forgotten adequate service
was never met. The County, likewise, did not pursue this matter with the
developer.
Today the 250 foot cul-de-sac serves five lots all of which are occupied by
residences. The road is in bad need of repair from virtually no surface
treatment in the cul-de-sac to potholes elsewhere. Storm drainage has also
become a problem for some lots.
In November, 1979, this office began to review the situation again to try
and get Shawnee Court into the state system. An estimate was made in
March, 1980, to complete the work to the State's satisfaction. No action
was taken until early this year when we began to bring the entire project
to a conclusion. I met with the homeowners on several occasions and also
with Dan Roosevelt from the Highway Department to get an approval. Our
plans were approved on May 12, 1981. Since that time we again met with the
homeowners and proceeded to get quotes from contractors to complete the
work according to approved plans. The one quote that I have received so
far is $11,640. This proposal reflects $3,700 for pavement work and the
remainder for drainage pipes and other related items. This estimate does
not include a $3,750 performance bond and a $25 a month maintenance fee
that are required by the Highway Department.
It appears that Shawnee Court was left out of the overall completion of
roads in Carrsbrook. I feel that even though the developer never finished
his part and should be the responsible party, the County did not follow
through to see that it was completed so that it could be taken into the
state system. I, therefore, am recommending that the cost to upgrade the
road for state acceptance be shared equally between the homeowners and the
County. This proposal seems to me to be the most equitable solution to the
situation."
Dr. Iachetta said he has been involved with this project for quite some time, and
felt that the problems with the road are not the fault of the present home owners. Dr.
Iachetta said apparently the original specifications for Shawnee Court were below standard
even for the time when it should have been taken into the State system. Dr. Iachetta said
a new drainage easement had to be negotiated in order to help solve some of the drainage
problems, and that he worked with Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation to develop an alignment which would be satisfactory to the Highway
Department without consuming a great deal of the private property. Mr. St. John said
there are several statutes under which the County can draw funds to pay for this project,
but that he would recommend it be taken from rural addition funds. Mr. Roosevelt said
there is an agreement to pay for the cost of the culvert based on a runoff ratio of 2/3
County and 1/3 State. Mr. Roosevelt suggested that the County match any money applied to
the project by the property owners, and any amount not available to cover the cost to
improve the road could come from rural addition funds. Mr. Roosevelt noted that two
expenditures have been made from rural addition funds so far this fiscal year, and that
$6,000 remains undesignated. Mr. Lindstrom asked what happens to that money if not spent
by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Roosevelt said it is carried over to the next year.
Mr. Roosevelt also noted that no money has been set aside for rural additions in the 1981-
82 fiscal year. Mr. St. John said that if the Board wished, money could be used for this
267
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
project from the County's General Fund, but that would require a unanimous vote of the
Board of Supervisors or the County must pay no more than half of the total project cost.
Mr. John Graff and Mrs. Dudley Rochester, residents of Shawnee Court, were present
representing the homeowners. Mr. Graff said the homeowners are prepared to pay for
improvements, but noted that a precedent was set where residents on Powhatan Court each
paid $50.00 to have improvements completed and the road taken into the State System. Mr.
Graff said the homeowners of Shawnee Court are prepared to pay more than $50.00 and are
anxious to see this problem resolved.
Mr. McCann said he felt this was the last time the County would have rural addition
funds to spend for any purpose, and felt since there are sufficient funds to cover this
request, he would support it. Motion was then made by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the
expenditure of rural addition funds up to $6,000 and that the neighborhood be required to
pay for the rest. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. St. John said the rural addition funds are highway funds, and suggested the
motion be restated to indicate that the Highway Department spend $6,000 to pay for im-
provements to Shawnee Court and that the neighborhood be required to pay for the remainder
of the costs incurred. Dr. Iachetta agreed to the word change suggested by Mr. St. John.
Mr. McCann said there is no firm contract price on this project, and he would not agree to
any additional financial support of this project above the $6,000. Mr. St. John cautioned
that the share from the homeowners must be in hand before any work is begun on the pro-
ject.
Mr. Agnor asked if the Highway Department would have its own crew do this work or if
it would be bid to a private contractor. Mr. Roosevelt said he would prefer to see a
priVate contractor do this job, but it will require additional authorizations from his
regional supervisor. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 4b) Highway Matters: Request for Airport Access Funds - Route 649.
Mr. Agnor stated that the State Department of Aviation has been interested for several
years in providing funding to connect airports to primary highways. Mr. Agnor said
improvements to Route 649 were part of the County's secondary road improvement plan until
a shortage of funding caused it to be dropped. Mr. Agnor said recently the Highway
Commission authorized $500,000 as access funds for airports, and that those funds are
available if; 1) the applicant applies for the funds, 2) the local governing body supports
the use of the funds by resolution, and 3) the project will be funded separately from the
primary and secondary road funds. Mr. Agnor noted that recently the airport board made
the request for access funds, and it is now being prepared to be presented to the Highway
Commission, and that this is on the agenda to request the Board of Supervisors' support.
Mr. Agnor noted that there are two restrictions when using these access funds, those being
that funds cannot be used for the relocation of utilities or for the purchase of right-of-
way. He said since it will be necessary to both relocate utilities and purchase right-of-
way in this project, the Board has the option of financing those areas either from the
secondary highway improvement fund or from airport funds which come directly from the City
and County.
Mr. Roosevelt summarized his letter of May 22, 1981 as follows:
"Attached you will find a copy of a letter from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board requesting the use
of airport access funds administered by the Department for the improvement
of Route 649 and Route 606 in the vicinity of the airport.
Although no written policy exists for the administration of airport access
funds, projects of this nature are handled similar to industrial access
projects. I have included a copy of the Administrative Policy concerning
industrial access projects for your information. Onc step that is similar
is the need for a resolution from the local governing body supporting the
use of these funds. The purpose of my letter, therefore, is to give you
certain facts for review concerning this project and request that the Board
consider the project at the June, 1981, day board meeting.
Attached you will find a sketch outlining in red the two locations involved
in this request. The two locations may be considered separately or as a
single request and this is one item which the Board should consider when
reviewing the request. I have lettered the two locations as A and B for
clarification.
Airport access funds are similar to industrial access funds in that they
can only be used for preliminary engineering and construction of the road
improvement. Funds for right-of-way acquisition and the relocation of
utilities cannot come from the airport access fund but must be funded from
other sources.
To assist you in your consideration the following rough construction,
right-of-way and utility estimates have been developed. They are as
follows:
268
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Location A
Location B
Preliminary Engineering
and Construction
Right-of-way
Utilities
Preliminary Engineering
$350,000 and Construction $100,000
donated Right-of-way and
$ 25,000 Utilities $ 20,200
You will note that the right-of-way at location A is shown as donated.
This right-of-way is anticipated to be totally within property controlled
by the airport. Concerning utilities at location A and right-of-way and
utilities at location B, I have no firm indication from the airport board
at this time concerning their support of these costs. The only other
source of funds I am aware of would be the Albemarle~County Secondary
Improvement Funds~.
Also attached to this letter you will find a schematic drawing of the
improvement anticipated at location A. This drawing substantially follows
the alignment proposed in the recently adopted airport master plan. No
sketches have been developed for location B pending your review-and re-
commendation on this project. The improvement contemplated, however, will
correct the existing curve at that location to a standard so that the
improvement can be incorporated into any ultimate improvement of Route 649
in the future.
Since the Board of Supervisors has an administrative responsibility for the
airport and has previously received copies of the executive summary re-
ferred to in Mr. Agnor's letter, I have not included a copy of this report.
If this or any other information is desired by the Board prior to their
review of this matter, I will be happy to try and oblige."
Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any urgency regarding this resolution. Mr. Agnor
stated that if the loop road within the airport can be constructed using a Federal grant,
that would occur within the next two years. It would be essential that the State road be
constructed to make the project complete. Mr. Agnor added that funds will be available
from the State beginning July 1, 1981, and that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
Board wants this project to be one of the first requests received by the State. Mr. Agnor
stated that the right-of-way acquisition to straighten the curve on Route 649 may require
a public hearing process.
Mr. McCann asked where the airport was getting the funds to pay for the relocation of
utilities if the road is improved. Mr. Agnor said for the last three years the operating
fund has been self-supporting to the point where revenues have been generated in excess of
expenses. Those revenues have been placed into a capital fund for projects such as this.
Mr. Agnor then requested approval of the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board has requested the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to expend Airport Access
Funds for the improvement of Routes 649 and 606, leading from Route 29 to
the Airport; and
WHEREAS, the Airport Board has agreed to cover the costs for right-of-
way and utilities not eligible for Airport Access Funds; and
WHEREAS, the improvement of Routes 649 and 606 will improve the useful-
ness of the Airport as well as serve the citizens of Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby recommends use of Airport Access Funds
for the improvement of Routes 649 and 606 as requested by the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Board.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that even if the County has to contribute additional funds to
the project, the leverage this would give the road system in that area of the County would
be well worthwhile. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the resolution as requested
by Mr. Agnor to support the application for airport access funds. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Iachetta who added that he felt it strange there was money for this type of special
project, but no money can be found to fix the Park Street Bridge which is so desperately
in need of reprair. Mr. McCann said he felt even if the County does have to contribute to
this project, the return to the taxpayers will be tremendous. He added that he did feel
that the City and County have sufficiently supported the airport to this date, and that
the airport should be able to finance any capital projects from its own funds. Mr. Henley
asked if the City would be obligated to contribute to this project if full funding did nov
come from the access grants. Mr. Agnor said he felt the ~ity would contribute if asked to
do so by the Airport Board, because this would be an airport project which would mutually
benefit both the City and the County. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the re~
solution as set out above carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 4c) Other Highway Matters: Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Roosevelt to place
posts to prevent dumping on Route 643, at the site recently cleaned up by the Highway
Department. Mr. Roosevelt said he would if Dr. Iachetta felt it was needed. Dr. Iachetta
said the ditch placed there by the Highway Department worked for about a month, but that
debris has started to be deposited there again, and that he felt posts were necessary.
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting~
Miss Nash asked if Mrs. Feggans was satisfied with the decision of the road viewers
regarding Rural Road off of Route 723. Mr. Roosevelt said he has not heard any complaints
about the road and assumed everything was all right.
Mr. Henley asked for a speed study on Mint Springs Park Road (Route 684), stating
that residents in that area would like to see signs posted showing thirty-five miles per
hour since many children walk and ride bicycles to the lake. Mr. Roosevelt said it would
take about a month to complete such a study but that once the results are obtained, signs
will be posted.
Mr. Henley asked if the road and sidewalk could be cleaned at the underpass in Crozet
(Route 240). He said there is a great deal of mud and dirt accumulated there and when it
rains it is quite hazardous. Mr. Roosevelt said he would see that the area is cleaned up.
Agenda Item No. 5. Request for Ordinance Regarding Securing of Residential Swimming
Pools. Mr. Agnor said this request is before the Board because of the following letter
received from Mrs. Peggy McGee, dated May 25, 1981:
"I am writing this letter to request the County Board of Supervisors to
consider an ordinance regarding the securing of residential swimming pools
with safety measures.
Virginia State Code 15.1-29 gives the counties authority to enact an
ordinance to make fences and locks mandatory around a swimming pool.
Our frightening experience of discovering our three year old son, whO
momentarily wandered from our sight, on the deck of a neighbor's four foot
deep above ground pool rudely awakened us to the need of the county to pass
appropriate legislation to prevent a possible, terrible tragedy from
occurring.
With the consequences of not having such an ordinance so devastating and
the victims, invariably, the very young, I ask that the Virginia State Code
15.1-29 be enacted in Albemarle County."
Mr. Agnor noted that pools built at the present time are required as part of the BOCA
code to have a four foot fence surrounding the area as protection against accidents such
as that described by Mrs. McGee. Mr. Agnor noted that the State Code section she describes
would require this type fencing not only for pools built in the future, but all presently
existing pools.
Mr. Lindstrom said a pool sould be considered an attractive nuisance. Mr. St. John
read the definition of swimming pool, stating any manmade outdoor structure constructed of
material other than natural earth or soil, designed and used to hold water for the purpose
of providing swimming or bathing .... Mr. McCann said he assumed this would not apply to
ponds or lakes in the County. Mr. McCann said he was not interested in putting this type
ordinance on the books at this time, and added that he felt if a family wants their child
protected, a fence should be placed around their own yard.
Miss Nash said she felt the public should have an opportunity to decide on this
issue. Dr. ~Iachetta said he would like to see a draft of the ordinance then decide
whether or not to go to a public hearing. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to have the
staff draft an ordinance for the Board's consideration. The motion was seconded by Miss
Nash. Mr. St. John asked which language he should use, that from the State code or from
the BOCA code. Mr. St. John noted that the BOCA code is presently being used by the
County, and Board members agreed that this language would be preferable. Roll was then
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 6. Request from O.A.R. regarding Jailor's House. Mr. Agnor noted
receipt of a request from the director of O.A.R., Mr. Skip Mullaney who has requested use
of the old Jailor's House when it is vacated by regular Albemarle County personnel. Mr.
Agnor noted that this should have been reviewed by the Building and Properties Committee,
but this committee has not met since Mr. Roudabush left the Board last year. Mr. Agnor
suggested that a replacement for Mr. Roudabush be designated so that the use of County
building spaces, which will be vacated when the County moves to the new Lane building, can
be reviewed by Board members. It was recommended that Mr. McCann fill that position, and
Mr. McCann accepted.
Agenda Item No. 7. Report on Problems in County Parks. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum
of June 5, 1981, which was prepared following receipt of a petition from several homeowners
on May 13, 1981:
"Staff members of Parks and Recreation have discussed with Sheriff Bailey
the several problems ~l~G~ed by citizens at the May 13 meeting. The
following improvements are proposed:
1. Closing Parks: through discussion it was determined that the Parks
staff closing the parks during fall and winter months when sunset occurs
earlier in the day, and the Sheriff's department closing them during spring
and summer months had not been properly coordinated, and the parks were not
being closed recently by either department. That deficiency has been
corrected, and a system of checking to make certain the gates are closed
each night has been put into operation.
270
June 10, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
2. Loud Noise: closing the parks properly during hours of darkness will
alleviate most of the concerns over noise. The Parks employees have always
requested users to reduce noise levels where loud noise becomes objection-
able during hours of use. Cooepration with such requests is normal, and
continued problems do not usually occur.
3. Litter: Parks employees traveling to and from the several parks areas
routinely stop on roadways leading to the parks and pick up litter which
appears to have originated from the use of the Parks. This type of litter
is usually a large dumping and does not include the accumulation of items
seen along most roadways. It is not recommended that additional efforts
for removal of litter be initiated.
4. Speeding: Sheriff Bailey has agreed to increase radar patrol near
Chris Greene Lake and the Highway Department is being requested to re-
examine the posted speed limits in light of the increased residential
development in that area. Additional signing on Route 850 warning of the
stop intersection at Route 606 is also being requested.
5. Crowd Control: difficulties with crowd oontrot centers on the size
and their conduct, all within the park. Earlier problems with trespassing
on adjacent properties has been improved.
a. Size of Crowd: On Saturdays and Sundays the number of people has
approached and exceeded capacity for several years at Chris Greene
Lake. Off-duty deputies have been employed on those two days to
assist ~Parks employees. This year, on Memorial Day, Chris Greene had
to be closed for the first time for about three hours due to an over-
flow. A gate fee to use the park could possibly diminish the size of
crowds, but such a sYstem would have to be used also at Mint Springs
to avoid a shift in the crowd, and Mint Springs does not have the
problem as yet. The staff has on several occasions considered the
recommendation to initiate a fee to enter the parks, but has deferred
doing so until it becomes a necessity.
b. Conduct: problems with conduct usually are related to use of
alcoholic beverages and swimming in unprotected areas. Alcoholic
Beverage Control laws prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages
in public places, but private groups and individuals who do not make
an exhibition of their use of beverages, bring alcoholic beverages to
the park and consume them there. If an exhibition does occur, they
are requested to put it away. If it continues, they are arrested.
When problems arise it is generally from overindulgence.
Swimming in unprotected areas is probably related to avoidance of
paying swimming fees, which could be alleviated with a gate fee to use
the park in lieu of paying to swim, although some people will avoid
authorized swimming areas to escape the crowd or be close to their
vehicles, or sunbathe in grass rather than sand with an occasional
swim to cool off.
It is recommended that two corrective measures related to crowd control be
considered: ~
1. That one full-time parks police be employed by the Sheriff's Depart-
ment for patrol and enforcement of regulations, supplementing the use of
off-duty deputies on weekends. Visible patrol in uniform and-a marked~
vehicle improves compli.ance with posted signs and regulations. Parks~
employees are principally involved in maintenance functions. Crowd control
or enforcement of regulations is requiring more attention, and has become
more than a weekend activity. A park police employee could be assigned
April through October to parks duties, and to other law enforcement activities
from November through March.
2. That consideration be given to prohibiting the possession of alcoholic
beverages within the parks, as a County regulation. The parks are becoming
areas where groups gather to have drinking parties. It mostly involves
younger people who become loud and boisterous interfering with other
citizens in their use and enjoyment of the park. Zf the parks are to
remain areas for citizens of all ages to enjoy outdoor activities, then it
may be necessary for the citizens to understand that the activities do not
include the use of alcoholic beverages. It has been suggested that a gate
fee would alleviate drinking parties, but that is questionable in the
opinion of the staff. Even though it may be considered severe to ban the
possession of alcoholic beverages from the parks, one method to correct
problems associated with such beverages is to remove the beverages. The
imposition of any regulation, of course, impacts heavily upon those who
conduct themselves appropriately and are considerate of others in their use
of the publicly owned facilities."
Mr. Allen Kindrick said he has found that the gate to the park is not being closed.
He said regarding the possibility of banning alcoholic beverages at the-swimming area,
this will only drive those, people to the outer edges of the park and-onto his property.
Mr. Kindrick suggested the County construct a path around the lake for better capability
to patrol the farther points of the lake, rather than by'boat. Next to speak was Mr. Tom
Walkers who said that if the County begins to strictly enforce the no alcoholic beverages
rulE, it will cause drinking in cars both in the park and along county roads. Mr. Walkers
said this will bring with it litter problems and property damage. ~
June 10, 1981 (Regular D~y Meeting)
Miss Nash asked about the County's present enforcement of ABC laws regarding drinking
in public. Mr. Agnor said open drinking on the beach or grass areas has been stopped and
that some arrests have been made. Mr. Agnor added that private parties in the shelter
areas of the park have not been denied alcoholic beverages, but that when parties have
become rowdy, park personnel have enforced the no drinking rule.
Mr. Agnor noted that the cost of an additional deputy on the Sheriff's staff to
patrol the parks would be approximately $18,000 plus vehicle costs. Mr. Agnor noted that
this amount is available in the budget because the State compensation Board has assumed
the cost of an additional deputy on the sheriff's staff which was not anticipated, Dr.
Iachetta said he feels this is a social problem which is difficult to deal with; but
rather than close the parks, he would support hiring the additional officer.
Mr. Henley asked what the duties of such a deputy would be. Mr. Agnor said he would
be responsible for closing the gates of all the parks, and keeping order in the parks as
well as handling disturbances.
Miss Nash asked if drinking problems have been reported. Mr. Agnor said the problems
have not been as numerous as at Chris Greene, but he said they do exist. Mr. McCann said
the addition of a deputy is another cost to County taxpayers which is causing the upkeep
of parks and recreation to go out of sight.. Mr. McCann said he would support the additional
deputy if his main duties involve Chris Greene Lake, and not equal time at each Albemarle
County Park facility.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the hiring of an additional
staff member in the department of the sheriff, and that from April through October he is
to work with the Department of Parks and Recreation and from November through March he is
to aid the Game Warden. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lind~strom. Mr. Henley said he
would just as soon ban alcoholic beverages altogether. Mr. McCann said it would be
impossible to enforce such a rule without searching all park users personally. Dr.
Iachetta said if the addition of a new deputy does not work, he will fully support the
banning of alcoholic beverages in the parks as the next measure, and if need be, the
closing of the parks altogether.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution: Tire Splitting Fee at Ivy Landfill. Mr. J. Harvey
Bailey, County Engineer, was present and summarized his memorandum of April 9, 1981 as
follows:
"During the time we were working on the FY 1981-82 budget, we were notified
that CETA employees would not be available. With a full quarter of FY
1980-81 to come, the four CETA employees who were used at the Ivy Landfill
were terminated.
It has taken us several years of steady application to bring the Ivy Land-
fill to a creditable state of operation. Indeed, we have not quite fully
arrived. There still remains a stack of automobile tires uncut and undis-
posed of, approximately 20% of the backlog that was left us at the end of
the contract period of operation--and the same tires! Until we purchased a
second tire splitter and secured CETA people to man them, we were barely
able to keep pace with the tire demand. If we have to rely on the present
personnel, now that the CETA people have gone, the stockpile of undisposed
tires will grow again. We have planned to use the area occupied by the
tire stockpile for the disposal of scrap metal. This commodity is also
growing because metal prices have dropped and we have moved no scrap for a
full year.
Handling tires properly is a full-time operation. There are also other
areas of housekeeping that should be attended to as need arises, if the
sanitary aspect of the landfill is to be preserved.
It is our opinion that at least two full-time employees must be added to
the present roster of landfill employees, in order for us to keep the Ivy
Landfill operation up to an acceptable standard. This will increase the
cost of operation by 2.5 to 3.0 percent, approximately'S14,000. The County
would pay $7,700 and the City $6,300 of this cost.
ed
It is recommend/that two employees be added to the Ivy Landfill crew now."
Mr. McCann expressed concern that if a fee is instituted, people bringing tires to
the landfill will only conceal them in the trunk of the car. Mr. Bailey said that is
possible, but that the majority of tires received at the landfill come from tire dealers
in Charlottesville, and arrive by pick-up truck or trailer loads. Mr. Henley said he
would support the resolution and asked Mr. St. John to read the Proposed wording. Mr. St.
John read the resolution as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED, that Whereas tires require special handling as compared
to other waste at landfills located within the county; present costs having
been computed by the staffs of the County and the City of Charlottesville
at $26.00 per ton or 405 per tire;
June 10~ular Da___ _ ryYJ~~k__
272
NOW, THEREFORE, this Board hereby authorizes and directs that. the
personnel charged with operation of the landfills in Albemarle County shall
henceforth collect from all persons delivering tires to the landfills for
disposal, a fee or sum in'the amount stated above.
Funds collected shall be deemed revenues from operation of the
landfills; funds collected at Ivy Landfill shall be accounted for by the
City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent; funds from the Keene Landfill
shall be accounted for by the operator to the Director of Finance for
Albemarle County.
Mr. Henley asked if the resolution should contain actual dollar figures. Mr. St.
John said it is only a resolution; if it were an ordinance the dollar figure would not be
included. Board members felt that the costs involved in processing tires could change
from year-to-year and that possibly the actual amount should not be stated. Mr. St. John
suggested the addition of the following wording: "If in the future, costs should change
involving the handling of waste tires, changes in such fee or sum may be set at the
administrative discretion of the County Executive and City Manager, in direct proportion
to the processing costs". Dr. Iachetta then offered adoption of the resolution with the
additional wording, as suggested by Mr. St. John. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Miss Nash asked why the director of the Keene Landfill would present his account to
the Director of Finance, when all records for the operation of the landfill are handled by
the Department of Engineering. Mr. St. John said.that could be changed in the resolution
to state that funds shall be turned over to the County Engineer, and that those funds and
records.could then be presented to the Director of Finance for audit procedures.
Mr. Agnor reported that he and Mr. Ray Jones would meet with the City Manager and the
City Director of Finance to discuss setting up a new procedure to account for the costs of
tire handling at the landfill. Mr. Bailey said that since the City is the source of'seven
times as many tires, a more proportionate method of funding the landfill would seem
appropriate.
Roll was then called and the motion to adopt the resolution as follows carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
BE IT RESOLVED, that whereas tires require special handling as com-
pared to other waste at landfills located within the county; present costs
having been computed by the staffs of the County and the City of Charlot-
tesville at $26.00 per ton or 40¢ per tire;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
authorizes and directs that the personnel charged with operation of the
landfills in Albemarle County shall henceforth collect from all persons
delivering tires to the landfills for disposal, a fee or sum in the amount
stated above. If in the future, costs should change involving the handling
of waste tires, changes in such fee or sum may be set at the administrative
discretion of the County Executive and City Manager, in direct proportion
to the processing costs.
Funds collected shall be deemed revenues from operation of the land-
fills; funds collected at IVy Landfill shall be accounted for by the City
of Charlottesville as fiscal agent; funds from the Keene Landfill shall be
accounted for by the operator to the County Engineer .for Albemarle County.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: JABA, Needs of the Elderly-. (NOTE: This Public
Hearing was advertised for and by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, not by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors.)
Mr. Henley turned the meeting over to Mr. Jim Elmore, Executive Director of the
Jefferson Area Board For Aging. Mr. Elmore quoted from his memorandum of April 15, 1981,
to Mr. Agnor as follows:
"The Older Americans Act regulations mandate that area agencies on aging
hold a public hearing or series of public hearings on the needs of the
elderly on an annual basis as part of an on-going planning process for
determining goals and objectives and service programs for the elderly.
In the past, JABA has requested that the six local governments in Planning
District Ten co-sponsor the public hearings on the needs of the elderly.
Again, as in previous years, we have decided to ~hold one hearing in each
jurisdiction for a total of six. By co-sponsoring the hearings, members of
the Boards of Supervisors and City Council have the opportunity to hear
directly from the elderly constituents the problems and needs that older
people are facing in our community. We feel also that since JABA is a
Joint Exercise of Powers agency (created by local governments), that it is
appropriate that each local government have the opportunity to participate
directly in the actual planning process."
There were no comments from Board members, and Mr. Elmore requested comments from the
public. First to speak was Mrs. Rosemary Hayes who stated that she is a worker at the
Meadows Center in Crozet. Mrs. Hayes said this is a good example of planning participation,
but commented that transportation is difficult for the residents. She requested a source
of transportation which would allow the residents to utilize the medical facilities in the
Crozet area.
2:7. 3
June l0t 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Next to speak was Mr. Walter Hurd, member of the JABA Board of Directors. Mr. Hurd
said he hoped that the Board would remember the elderly in its decision-making process,
since the older segment of the population is the most rapidly growing part of society
today. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Hurd his opinion of the location of the Meadows. Mr. Hurd
said the actual facility is very good as far as housing and activities, but it still has
the effect of pushing the elderly out of the mainstream causing the elderly to become very
dependent on society.
Dr. Joyce Spalding said she is a PhD specializing in the problems of the aging and
that the elderly should not be isolated or expected to strictly live together. She said
they should be integrated with people of all ages, and suggested that a day care center in
the near vicinity of a home for the elderly would be excellent. Dr. Spalding said older
people should be allowed to stay in their own homes if at all possible. ~f'
No one else from the public wished to speak. Mr. Elmore said more information
regarding funding of JABA programs will be available at the end of the summer. Mr. Elmore
said if additional funding is received, he will look to expanding the existing services
rather than developing new services.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request for Central Well Permit, Earlysville Forest Water Company.
Mr. George H. Gilliam, attorney representing the Earlysville Forest Water Company, was
present. Mr. Gilliam said since the approval of Earlysville Forest PUD, with the con-
dition set by the Board of Supervisors that a central water system be installed, the
developer has formed a corporation to provide that service. Mr. Gilliam said that in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-341, he is notifying this Board of the inten-
tion to establish a water supply company consisting of a well and the necessary pipes,
conduits, mains, pumping stations and other facilities in connection therewith to serve or
be capable of serving three or more residential connections; and he requested approval of
this system to serve twenty-six lots in Section One. Mr. Gilliam said he has met with Mr.
J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, and that Mr. Williams has approved the
plans.
Dr. Iachetta asked if any agency has an overview of this water system. Mr. Gilliam
said the Health Department and the County Engineer must review and approve the system.
Mr. Agnor noted that the County will test and certify the well for the number of units it
will be allowed to serve.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve this central
well permit for Earlysville Forest Water Company. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appointment, Advisory Council on Aging. Mr. Henley noted that
there are two vacancies. Miss Nash said Mr. John Burns has been sick, and she is not sure
he will wish to be reappointed. Dr. Iachetta noted that a vacancy has existed for over a
year since the term of Mrs. Jacqueline Huckle expired. There were no nominations for
appointment to this Council.
Agenda Item No. llb. Appointment, Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Henley
noted that there are two vacancies to this group. Mr. Lindstrom asked if these vacancies
have been advertised. Mr. Agnor said advertisements are only done at the specific request
of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received a telephone call from Mr.
Jim Murray requesting that these vacancies be filled as soon as possible, and stated that
he would be willing to allow Mr. Frank McCulloch to become the representative from the
Jack Jouett District, which would in turn allow the entire Board to select an appointment
for an at-large position. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to advertise for applications to
this authority for review by the Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. llc. Appointment, Jail Board. Mr. Henley said he has spoken to Mrs.
Marion Rabinowitz and she is willing to serve on this Board. Mr. Henley noted that Mrs.
Rabinowitz was Chairman of the Jail Board when it was first formed. Motion was offered by
Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mrs. Rabinowitz to a three year term, to expire on April 30,
1983. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. It was noted by Mr. Henley that this
appointment requires the concurrence of the City Council before it is final. Roll was
then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. lld. Appointment, Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Miss Nash said she
was not sure if Mr. Edgar Paige would be willing to serve again, and requested a deferral
of this appointment.
June 10~ 1981 (Re_ _gu__ ~ar Da__a~LMeetin~
Agenda Item No. lle. Appointment, Jordan Development Corporation. Mr. Henley said
he has spoken with Mr. W. Harvey Doyle, and that Mr. Doyle has agreed to serve another
term. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to reappoint Mr. W. Harvey Doyle to a second
term to expire June 10, 1982. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Zachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. llf. Appointment, Visitor's Bureau. Miss Nash felt it would be
appropriate to have the curator of Ash Lawn appointed to this Bureau, since she manages a
very well visited tourist site in the County. Miss Nash also felt that the manager of
Castle Hill should be considered for this bureau. Dr. Iachetta said the reason there are
not more tourist site managers on this bureau is because the Board wanted to have citizen
input. Mr. Agnor noted that when the Visitor's Bureau received its charge, it was decided
that the City and County would split the appointments and that representatives on this
bureau would be from tourist attractions, hotel/motel associations, service stations,
restaurants, and citizens. Mr. Agnor said it just happened that the two representatives
for tourist sites were from Monticello and Michie Tavern.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested this vacancy also be advertised and that the Board review any
applications received. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to that affect. The motion wa-s
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. llg. Appointment, Welfare Board. Mr. Henley noted that there are
two vacancies on this Board. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Horace Daniel is eligible for
reappointment to this Board. Dr. Iachetta said Mr. McCann should check with Mr. Daniel to
see if he is interested in being reappointed, since Mr. Daniel was originally appointed by
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. llh. Appointment, Youth Services Citizens Board. Mr. Henley suggested
this appointment be advertised. .Dr. Iachetta asked how~this Board came about. Mr. Agnor
said this was created by the Board in relation to the funding of the Youth Services Center.
Dr. Iachetta said he had someone in his district who seemed interested in this appointment,
and he would report back next month.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said this appropriation was requested
by Mr. Ray B. Jones. In Mr. Jones' June 5, 1981 memorandum, he explained that for the
current year there was an appropriation of $2,500 for the Community Attention Home but
that figure was an estimate of usage by the County. Mr. Jones' memo continued that after
payment of the June 1981, billing by the City there would be a $3,557 overexpenditure.
Mr. Agnor requested the board to appropriate the amount of $3,557 to cover that payment.
Motion was offer~ed by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,557 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to Code 9103-5635, Community Attention Home.
The motion was 'seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Return to Agenda Item No. 3. Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom said he had read the minutes of
April 16, 1980, and he wished to change a reference which appears on pages 466 and 467
which reads "Georgetown Road Hiking Trail" to read "pedestrian trail". Motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes with the noted change, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
At 11:50 A.M., the Board adjourned for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 1:33 P.M.
(Mr. Lindstrom did not immediately return to the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to consider a resolution of intent to amend the
project area map of the Albemarle County Service Authority to co.rrect an omission of the
Candlewyck Subdivision on Old Ballard Road from the Service Authority's water utility
system. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1981.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, said CandleWyCk Subdivision is on
Old Ballard Road behind West' Leigh and is an RPN consisting of clustered lots and open
space. Mr. Tucker noted that Candlewyck SubdiVision was required by the Board of Super-
visors to be served by public water. He noted that roads have already been constructed
and homes are being built but no public water lines have been laid. Mr. Tucker said
June 10~ 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
apparently it was an oversight when the latest map was prepared showing the jurisdictional
boundaries for the Service Authority, that Candlewyck Subdivision was left off.
There were no questions from Board members, and Mr. Henley declared the public
hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. George Rutland, who stated that water lines for
Candlewyck are proposed to travel along the east side of the road, directly past his
property. He asked if he would be allowed to hook up if he paid the connection fee. Mr.
Jim Keister of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said property will be served if it
is contiguous to property within the jurisdictional area and owned by the same person. If
the property is owned by someone else or is not contiguous, the request for connection
will be refused. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 1:40 P.M.) Mr. Tucker said a similar situa-
tion took place along Route 29 north where a water line was laid adjacent to properties
which were considered outside the service area. Mr. Tucker felt there was a clarification
on the map which allowed properties outside of the service area to hook up if they were
directly adjacent to the location of the line. Mr. Henley suggested Mr. Rutland speak
with someone in the Service Authority more knowledgable about the rules.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and
Mr. Henley closed the public hearing. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Miss Nash, to adjust the boundary to include the Candlewyck Subdivision for water service
only. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Henley noted receipt of a letter dated May 29, 1981, from Ms.
Elizabeth A. Payne, Extension Agent, notifying the Board of Supervisors of the resignation
of Mr. Donald R. Bowman effective June 30, 1981.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing to amend and reenact a certain ordinance of the
Albemarle County Code concerning the control of noise. This change is proposed to make
the zoning categories conform with the present Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1981.)
Mr. St. John said this is not a substitute to amend the provisions of the noise
ordinance, but to to make the zones coincide with the new zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John
then read the proposed ordinance as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that a certain ordinance heretofore adopted by the Board and
entitled "An Ordinance Concerning The Control Of Noise" be, and it hereby
is, amended in Section 2(k) thereof as follows:
(k) Residential zone. Any location within an RA, VR,
R-i, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15, PUD or PRD district as shown
on the Albemarle County Zoning Map.
Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened. There being no one from the public
wishing to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance amendment, Mr. Henley
declared the public hearing closed~ Dr. Iachetta asked how this will apply to the RA
zone. Mr. St. John said the ordinance will apply to residential properties in the RA
zone. Miss Nash asked how this will affect commercial ventures. Mr. St. John said they
were not covered by the original noise ordinance. Mr. St. John continued by adding that
there are different noise level standards which apply.
There being no further comment, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, to adopt the ordinance amendment as presented. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters. Mr. Agnor presented copies of the Planning
Commission recommendations on the Capital Budget , and asked the Board if they would
concur with his recommendation that this be discussed at the July 8, 1981 day meeting.
Mr. Agnor noted that a public hearing is not required. It was the concensus of the Board
that this would be placed on the July 8, 1981, agenda for discussion by the Board.
Mr. McCann said he received a letter from Dr. Donald Kaiser of Vegas Court asking the
Boards opinion on a situation where prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance
there were lots across from Stonehenge were duplexes could be~build, now with the new
zoning, duplexes are not allowed, and he asked if the Board would consider changing the
zoning to something which would continue allowing the construction of duplexes in that
area. Mr. Henley felt it was not up to the Board to initiate such zoning changes, but
that Dr. Kaiser could request such a change through normal channels. Mr. St. John said
Mr. Kaiser has been before the Board of Zoning~Appeals twice to get an interpretation by
the Zoning Administrator overturned, but the BZA upheld the language. Mr. St. John said
this has been before Judge Berry and he ruled in favor of the developer in his right to
develop duplexes, and he refused to impose restrictions. Mr. St. John said it is a fact
that in all the "R" districts, except R-4, there is a maximum density and a minimum number
of feet per unit. He explained that under the old ordinance there was no minimum lot size
per unit down to R-1. Under the new ordinance in R-4 there was a minimum lot size for
approximately six weeks, then it was amended and removed because of a problem which caused
this type housing not to work. Mr. St. John said if this section were reamended, it would
prevent duplexes. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes that the problem is that Dr. Kaiser is
June 10, 1981 (R__egular Da~ Meeting)
unhappy because he has a single'family home in an area he was told would remain single-
family; now there are duplexes and he is unhappy. Mr. St. John added that the Planning
Department did not disagree with the interPretation of the ordinance by the Zoning Admin-
istrator. Mr. McCann said he would communicate the feelings of the Board to Dr. Kaiser.
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing to amend and reenact Section 13-9 of the Albemarle
County Code concerning the discharging of firearms within certain residential districts.
This change is proposed to make the zoning categories conform with the present Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance. (Adyertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1981.)
Mr. St. John said this is the same situation as the Noise Ordinance held earlier in
this meeting. He said this will bring the present ordinance categories into conformance
with the new zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John read the proposed ordinance as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended in Section 13-
9 thereof, as follows:
Section 13-9. Firearms -- Discharging within residential districts
(c) For purposes of this section, "residential district'' shall
mean any district described as VR, R-i, R-2, R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15, PUD
or PRD on the official zoning map of the County.
Mr. St. John said this ordinance does not apply in the RA zone. Mr. George Bailey,
County Sheriff, asked if this ordinance is adding additiOnal areas to the current ordinance.
Mr. St. John said no additional territory is being added under this amendment, only a
change in terminology to conform to the terms of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. St. John
emphasized that the ordinance covers urban and village areas, but not rural areas.
Mr. Henley declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposed ordinance amendment, Mr. Henley declared the
public hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the ordinance
amendment as advertised. The roll was called and the motion carried by the f~ollowing
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. F±sher.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 2:10 P.M., there being no other matters, Mr. Henley
requested a motion to adjourn to June 17, 1981 at 2:00 P.M. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn to that time and date. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Chairman