1981-07-08July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
2'98
~ regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia was held
on July 8, 1981, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:15 A.M.), Layton R. MCCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda: Mr. Agnor presented a seven item consent agenda
for the Board's consideration and vote. Motion for approval of the consent agenda (detailed
below), with an amendment to sub-item three regarding State Aid to the Regional Library,
was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 2.1 Consent Agenda: Amend the annual fee for the Insta-Phone Warning
System in the Sheriff's Office. In response to a letter received from Mr. H. Kim Anderson
of the State Office of Emergency and Energy Services, dated May 1, 1981, the Board was
requested to authorize the County Executive to sign a renewal of a contract for the Insta-
Phone Warning System with an increase in the annual rate to $700.00.
Agenda Item No. 2.2. Consent Agenda: Request to redesignate Route 250 between
Charlottesville and Afton Mountain as a Virginia Byway. In response to a letter received
from Mr. Rob R. Blackmore, Director of the Commission of Outdoor Recreation, dated June 4,
1981, Mr. Agnor requested adoption of the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby indicate its support to the Commission of Outdoor
Recreation to designate U.S. Route 250 West from the Charlottesville City
limits to the Nelson County line as a Virginia byway.
Agenda Item No. 2.3. Consent Agenda: State Aid to Regional Library. Mr. Agnor
noted that state ~revenues are $13,397 greater than the amount estimated in the Fiscal Year
1981,82 budget. Therefore, approval of State aid in the amount of $221,126 should be made
subject to the Library Board adjusting their budget to reflect this change and the budget
should be brought back to the Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 2.4. Consent Agenda: Lottery' Permit. Lottery permit application
for the American Cancer Society was approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules
and regulations for the issuance of same.
Agenda Item No. 2.5. Consent Agenda: Statement of Expenses of the Director of
Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Jail for June, 1981, were approved as
presented.
Agenda Item No. 2.6. Consent Agenda: Statement of Expenses incurred in the main-
tenance and operation of the Regional Jail for June, 1981', along with summary statement of
prisoner days and statements of salaries of the paramedics and jail physicial, were presented
and approved.
Agenda Item No. 2.7. Consent Agenda: Report of the Department of Social Services
for May, 1981, received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Fisher reported only a few typographical
errors in the minutes of April 23, April 28 and April 30, 1980. Mr. Henley said he had
not yet read the minutes of June 11 or June 25, 1980. Dr~ Iachetta said he found no
errors in the minutes of July 9, and had not yet read the minutes of September 3, 1980.
Miss Nash reported the minutes of August 14 to be correct as presented, and that she had
not yet completed reading the minutes of July 16 or August 20, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom was
not present to report on the minutes of AuguSt 13, 1980.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of April 23, April 28,
April 30, July 9 and August 14, 1980. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4b. Other Highway Matters. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:15 A.M.)
Mr. Fisher noted reading an article regarding cutbacks in road funds. He noted that the
Federal government is proposing to eliminate maintenance for all federal highways with the
exception of interstate highways, and all other federal roads will become the responsibility
of the individual state. Mr. Fisher said this will make the present road situation in
Virginia even worse than at present. Dr. Iachetta said this was predictable because of
the smaller cars and smaller gasoline purchases.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any planned starting date for the work on the Park
Street Bridge (Route 631). Mr. Roosevelt said all the preliminary engineering work is
completed and all the right-of-way is recorded, therefore the project may start in Spring
of 1982.
Mr. Henley asked if anything has been done to set a speed limit on Mint Springs Road
(Route 684). Mr. Roosevelt said a recommendation will be put before the Highway Commission,
and that a speed of (Mr. Roosevelt was not completely sure of this figure) 40 miles per
hours may be recommended. (Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 9:20 A.M.)
Miss Nash said there is a dust problem on Route 622 from the Fluvanna County line to
its intersection with Route 618. She also noted receiving a telephone call regarding dust
on Route 714. Mr. Agnor said he received a telephone call from Mr. John Thigpen regarding
dust on Route 714. Mr. Roosevelt said the only product he can use to control dust is
cloride, and he does not have any available at this time. Miss Nash said there is a real
health hazard and asked if there was any substitute Mr. Roosevelt could use to control the
dust. (Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 9:25 A.M.) Mr. Roosevelt said he knows
of no substitute.. Miss Nash asked what could be done. Mr. Roosevelt said the property
owners could purchase their own cloride and use it on the road in front of their homes.
He added that he has no money in his budget to purchase any of this chemical and is not
expecting additional allocations until late in the fall.
Mr. Fisher said there is an area of Alderman Road which is in need of repair.
Roosevelt said he has checked this area out and determined that it is in the City.
He has been assured that the City will do something.
Mr o
Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the entrance of the hotel/office/conference complex
on Route 29 North being constructed by Mr. Wendell Wood. Mr. Roosevelt said no application
has been received for a temporary entrance. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned because
the Board had requested the crossover in front of that complex be closed temporarily to
eliminate traffic hazards. Dr. Iachetta said if Mr. Wood is not going to request a
temporary entrance at that location, the crossover should be reopened. Mr. Lindstrom said
that crossover was considered unsafe by many citizens and felt it might be better left
closed. Dr. Iachetta said if that were to be done, a public hearing should be held. Mr.
Roosevelt said he does not feel the law requires a public hearing, but the County must
convey its desire to the Department of Highways and Transportation.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there has been any progress regarding Shawnee Court. Mr.
Roosevelt said the area has been reviewed by highway department personnel regarding
drainage alternatives, and that he would be discussing those alternatives with Mr. J.
Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, this coming Thursday.
Agenda Item No. 4a.
from June 17, 1981.)
Highway Matters:
ZMA-81-22, Willoughby Corporation (deferred
Mr. Fisher said this item was deferred in order to receive additional information
from the Highway Department on several items. Mr. Roy Parks, representing Willoughby
Corporation requested that this item be deferred. Mr. Parks stated that several people
directly involved have been out of town and no solution to the road difficulties has yet
been reached. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be deferred to the August 12, 1981, day
meeting. Mr. Parks agreed to deferring this discussion to that date. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer discussion of ZMA-81-22, Willoughby
Corporation, to August 12, 1981. 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. 5. Exercise option to purchase 01d Berkeley Sewer Plant Site. Mr.
Agnor said Mr. St. John's office has drafted an option agreement in response to an offer
to purchase this property, which will require the signature of the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors. Mr. Agnor said the property has an appraised value of $5,000 and that
price has been offered by Dr. Charles Hurt for the land. Mr. Agnor recommended the Board
approve the agreement as follows:
THIS OPTION, made this 17th day of July, 1981, by and between the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia ("the Board"), and
CHARLES WILLIAM HURT ("Hurt");
W I TNE S SETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum of Twenty-five Hundred
Dollars ($2,500.00), cash in hand paid by Hurt to the Board, receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Board agrees to convey by Special Warranty
deed unto Hurt at any time that Hurt may demand, on or before the completion
of a road across the property described herein, but not later than May 30,
1984, the following described real estate:
Jul~ 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
300
1.77 acres, more or less, located on the east side of U.S. Route 29
North, approximately one (1) mile north of the city limits of Char-
lottesville, Virginia, and described as Albemarle County Tax Map 61,
Parcel 03-3.
The purchase price for this property is Five Thousant Dollars ($5,000.00),
of which Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) has been paid to
obtain this option and of which Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00)
shall be paid by cash or check at the time of passing of the Special Warranty
Deed to Hurt, with complete possession of the property at the time of
passage of the Special Warranty Deed. The Board shall pay the cost of
preparation of the Special Warranty Deed mentioned above. Hurt shall pay
his own attorney's fees, survey fees, if any, and all costs of securing and
closing any financing incident to this transaction, and all recording fees.
The Board hereby reserves and shall reserve in the deed of conveyance
two easements. The deed of conveyance shall reserve and convey unto the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority an easement necessary for its sewer
interceptor line on the parcel. Further, the deed of conveyance shall
reserve unto the County of Albemarle a sixty-foot (60') right-of-way through
the property for the ultimate extension of a collector street through the
parcel in question, connecting to Greenbrier Drive, as shown roughly on the
plat attached hereto.
Mr. Fisher felt three years was a long term for an option. Mr. Agnor said the option
is in order for Dr. Hurt to determine if that parcel is required for the construction of a
road. If the road is not built, the $2,500 will not be returned.
Discussion ensued that possibly the option time was too long, and that Dr. Hurt
should be requested to purchase the proparty outright, or that the County should not sell
until the full purchase price is rendered. It was decided that the only potential buyer
for this site is Dr. Hurt, because the parcel is surrounded by other parcels which Dr.
Hurt also owns, and that it is essential for construction of a road through the proposed
Branchlands PUD.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to accept the offer of Dr. Hurt and authorize the
Chairman to execute the agreement read earlier by Mr. Agnor. The motion was seconded by
Mr. McCann. Mr. Fisher noted that this parcel of land was declared surplus in 1976 and
this is the first offer to purchase same. Miss Nash said she felt a three year option was
far too~long, and would not support the motion. Roll was called and the motion authorizing
the chairman to sign the agreement above, was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann.
Miss Nash.
Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion of Minimum Lot Size in the R-4 Zone. (Note: Dr.
Iachetta left the meeting at 10:04 A.M.) Mr. Fisher said he requested this item be placed
on the agenda for discussion because of some controversy which has occurred since the
enactment of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he has requested the presence of
Messrs. Tucker and Vaughn, and that an interested citizen, Mr. Donald Kaiser was also
presenT.
First to speak was Mr. Donald L. Kaiser, a resident of Vegas Court in the Rio Heights
Subdivision. Mr. Kaiser paraphrased his letter written to Mr. Gerald Fisher dated May 27,
1981, as follows:
"Recent actions by G. Thomas Forloines, Jr. to seek approval for the
construction of duplexes in Rio Heights, the community in which I live,
have made obvious to me and my neighbors a major error in the current
county zoning ordinances. Specifically, there appears to be no provision
within an R-4 zone for the application of a minimum lot size requirement,
as there was in the original ordinance adopted in December of 1980. I
recognize that the amendments made by the Board of Supervisors in March
were intended to eliminate a problem with lot size which would be caused by
tripl~ex and quadriplex development in an R-4 zone. However, the elimin-
ation of the lot size requirement has created difficulty for development in
existing communities.
As the preamble statements to the zoning ordinance make clear, it is the
intention of the ordinance to guide development in a manner that is con-
siste~t with the "existing use and character" of the area. In the case of
our neighborhood, the elimination of minimum lot size has made it possible
to put multi-family dwellings on extremely small lots in a neighborhood
that is solely single-family residences at present.
Clearly this kind of development is inconsistent with the stated purposes
of the zoning ordinanes, and offers no protection whatever to residents who
acquired property in a single-family neighborhood.
We have sought to gain assistance from the Planning Department and from the
zoning administrator and received only shrugs of the shoulders from these
persons, who continue to direct us to the Board of Supervisors as the
proper public servants to protect our interests in the matter. It is
extremely important for the Board of Supervisors to recognize responsi-
bility to protect citizens of the County in situations like this if any
credibility is to be maintained about the effectiveness of the County
government."
301
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker noted his memorandum to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, dated July
2, 1981, regarding minimum lot size for triplex and quadraplex development. Mr. Tucker
stated he felt it would be extremely complicated to make provision in the zoning ordinance
for minimum lot sizes for townhouses, triplexes and quadraplexes, but that it could be
done. (Note: memorandum on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.) Mr. Robert E. Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, quoted from his memorandum to
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher dated July 1, 1981, (NOTE: This memorandum_ is on permanent file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) stating "There is no minimum lot
size area required for the permitted uses; however, the size of structure regardless of
the number of dwelling units it contains is restricted by the minimum yards (setbacks)
requirement of Section 15.3 and also the maximum height restriction. In effect, Section
15.3 sets a a maximum size structure on a given lot within a development, and also sets a
maximum number of dwelling units permitted within a development. These maximum restrictions
assure compliance with the intent of the district as stated in Section 15.1, and gives the
developer the option of townhouses, cluster development, and open spaces, etc., or con-
ventional development provided that yard setbacks, required parking spaces, and other
requirements of the ordinance are met (Sections 15.3 and 4.12).
Mr. St. John said he felt Mr. Kaiser wants the Zoning Administrator to be able to
consider the existing neighborhood and refuse approval to anything inconsistent with the
existing established pattern of development even if it is allowed as a matter of right.
Mr. St. John said this concept is not possible, and would cause the entire zoning ordinance
to become unenforceable.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the action taken in March was to correct an inconsistency
in the ordinance. He added that for the particular type of protection which Mr. Kaiser is
requesting be placed in the ordinance, that it should have been written in covenants or
deed restrictions when the property was purchased. Mr. Fisher said he would like to visit
Rio Heights and see how development is occurring. Mr. Fisher added that he is not in-
clined to change the ordinance now.
Agenda Item No. 7. Industrial Development Authority: Wellagain Limited Partnership.
Present to speak as Chairman of the Authority was Mr. Jim Murray, who stated that the
Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Authority approved this request appro-
ximately three weeks ago. Mr. Murray said the Industrial Development Authority Board and
Bond council concluded that the ordinance as drafted authorizers this type of facility,
that being a quasi-public alcoholic rehabilitation facility. Mr. Murray said the in-
ducement resolution from the Zndustrial Authority is slightly different from what was
requested by the applicant, in that it requires the applicant to supply some equity,
rather than have the bond issuance cover the entire cost of the facility.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there will be any reduction in costs to the patients if this
bond issuance is approved. Mr. Murray said a bond issuance of this type will cause the
facility to have a smaller debt service, thus requiring lower cost per bed to the State of
Virginia, and then directly~in costs to the patients. Mr. Fred Russell, representing
Wellagain Limited Partnership, explained that based on Industrial Development Authority
Bond rates, a "need certification rate" is issued by the Health Department, and that is
the amount charged the patients. Mr. Fisher stated his concern that a genuine benefit
should be seen for the patients from the use of Industrial Development Bonds. Mr. Fisher
felt that these bonds remove funds from the Federal government tax base, and create
additional competition on the open bond market for such things as school bonds, and it
would take a lot to convince him to vote in favor of this project.
Mr. Lindstrom said he shares Mr. Fisher's concerns but felt this use comes about as
close to an ideal situation to support as any he could hope to see. Mr. Lindstrom then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby gives its approval in accordance with Sections 2-50 and 2-
51, Chapter 3, Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by
the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, of an
eighty bed medical and rehabilitation facility in Albemarle County, Virginia,
subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the Industrial Development
Authority adopted June 9, 1981.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. McCann said he would not support' the
motion because he felt this was a strictly private business and even though their rates
will be lowered by the issuance of these bonds, he felt they are still in the business of
making a substantial profit for themselves, and he felt this was a misuse of funds. Miss
Nash said she would support this project, because she feels there is a desperate need for
help for alcoholics. Mr. McCann commented that if the State feels alcoholism is such a
problem, the tax on liquor should be increased to cover rehabilitation for those who abuse
its use. Mr. Henley said he would support the request as he felt it was a worthy project.
Mr. Fisher requested that a permanent file be kept in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors and that representatives of this hospital keep the Board informed of
rate changes or other occurrances which reflect direct savings to patients through the use
of the Industrial Development Authority Bonds. Mr. Fisher said such a f~le will help the
Board track exactly how the use of such bonds benefits the general public, not just those
patients at the facility. Mr. Henley said he felt the Industrial Development Board should
keep that sort of file. Mr. Fisher said he feels the County bears the responsibility for
the Industrial Development Authority; also the Authority has no staff, or capabilities for
record keeping. Roll was then called, and the motion to adopt the resolution as stated
above carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. McCann.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
July 8, 198t (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Murray said he would like the opportunity to discuss philosophy regarding the
financing of Industrial Development Bonds. He said he would never support a business such
as a supermarket with these bonds, but did feel that certain type situations did qualify
for issuance of same.
Agenda Item No. 8. Report of Building and Properties Committee. Mr. Agnor reported
that the old jailors residence and real estate offices should be allowed to become revenue
making entities when County Offices are~moved. He said the School staff has suggested
that some of the offices now located in the old McIntire School be moved into the real
estate offices, which would free the McIntire building for other uses. Mr. Agnor noted
that the jailors residence and real estate offices are also being considered for use by
several agencies which are partially supported by the County. Mr. Agnor said further
reports will be brought back to the Board at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation: Outreach Counseling Services, Inc. Mr. Agnor
said a request was received from Outreach Counseling Services during the budget preparation
in the amount of ~27,500, but that the County did not fund this agency. Mr. Agnor noted
that Mr. Thomas DeMaio, Director of Outreach Counseling Services, has been seeking funding
for the agency, but has not yet received support from independent agencies nor the State
Department of Corrections. Mr. Agnor noted that Ms. Karen Morris, Director of the County
Social Services Department, has requested that the county consider funding this agency on
a temporary basis while seven county clients are receiving counseling services. Mr. Agnor
said if the County does fund this project, billing will be done on a case by case basis.
He concluded by stating it is possible that additional ~funding of this program will help
Mr. DeMaio obtain the state aid he requires to keep the organization in operation.
Mr. Fisher asked where the basic funding is coming from at the present time. Mr.
DeMaio said Title 20 and a State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention Grant. Mr.
DeMaio said he is requesting funding for continuation of the seven cases presently being
handled for the county, with the largest monthly expenditure estimated at $1,700 a month.
Mr. DeMaio said it would be billed on a case by case basis. Mr. Agnor emphasized that M~.
Morris will not add any additional cases until State aid is received. Mr. Fisher asked
the approximate length of time being discussed for these seven cases. Ms. Morris said
most will only be a few months, but there are two persons who may be in counseling longer.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the approximate age of the persons being counseled. Mr. DeMaio
said usually about fourteen or fifteen. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any follow-up is done on
these teenagers. Mr. DeMaio said yes, that the success rate has been excellent in keeping
these teenagers from becoming repeat offenders, but has not been quite so successful with
school dropout rates. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it was a better investment to support
this program than pay for additional jail fees for possibly the remainder of the life of
these offenders. Mr. Henley said he would support this request for the remainder of this
year, but not necessarily next year as a regular budget item.
Mr. Fisher asked if $10,000 would be sufficient. Mr. DeMaio said he would hope for
at least $12,000 or $13,000. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appropriate
$12,000 with the understanding that if the Outreach Counseling Services agency uses less
than that amount, that the funds will not be spent and that no new county cases will be
started. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. McCann said he would not support the motion because if this agency is funded,
many more agencies will come forward requesting funding. Following a brief discussion of
the County's current financial status, roll was called to adopt the motion as stated~by
Mr. Lindstrom and the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $12,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to Code #9103.2-5672 - Outreach Counseling
Services, Inc.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. McCann
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter
17.1 of the Code of Albemarle County, Virginia (1975), as amended, by amending section
17.1-1 through 17.1-13, and by adding a section numbered 17.1-9.1, the amended and added
sections pertaining to The Regulation Of Dealers In Precious Metals. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 1981.)
Mr. St. John said the changes in the proposed ordinance reflect changes in the State
law. Mr. St. John said these changes have already been enacted by the City of Charlottesvill~
and that in discussions he has had with the Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney, they have
no problems with the changes as proposed.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this ordinance, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. McCann said he has noted that the fees have been drastically increased and asked
if this was required by State law. Mr. St. John said no it is not required by State law,
but this is the maximum figure allowed. Mr. McCann said he has a problem changing the
ordinance fees from $25.00 per year to $250.00 per year, especially since no study has ~
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
been conducted to verify the need for these fees. Mr. McCann said this could be a real
burden on the merchants. Mr. Fisher noted that the $25.00 fee is collected twice yearly,
and that if the Board wished to study the actual costs before enacting a new fee, the
Ordinance could state the fee at the current rate, which would be $50.00 a year.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash to adopt the ordinance with a fee of $50.00 a year
rather than the fee of $200.00 a year as advertised. Mr. McCann asked if this fee would
be collected each time a permit was renewed. Mr. Agnor said the fee has been collected at
the time of the initial application, and that (in accordance with the wording of the
original ordinance) if the business is in continual operation since the original appli-
cation, no additional fees are collected. No second was made to Miss Nash's motion.
Motion was offered by Mr. McCann to adopt the ordinance with a $25.00 annual fee and
that the Sheriff is to bring back a recommendation to the Board with a report indicating
the actual fee required to support the regulations of this ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the ordinance which
follows carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
CHAPTER 5 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 5.1-1 THROUGH 5.1-12,
AND BY ADDING A SECTION NUMBERED 5.1-9.1, THE AMENDED
AND ADDED SECTIONS PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF
DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia; that Sections 5.1-1 through 5.1-12 of the Code of Albemarle
County, are amended and that such Code is further amended by adding a
section numbered 5.1-9.1, as follows:
Section 5.1-1. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have
the meanings ascribed to them by this section:
Dealer. Any person, firm, partnership or corporation engaged at
any location in the county in the business of (i) purchasing precious
metals or gems; (ii) making loans for which precious metals or gems
are received and held as security; (iii) removing in any manner pre-
cious metals or gems from manufactured articles not then owned by such
person, firm, partnership or corporation; or (iv) buying, acquiring or
selling precious metals or gems removed from such manufactured arti-
cles. As used herein "dealer" includes employers and principals on
whose behalf a purchase or loan is made and all employees and agents
who personally make such purchases and loans.
This definition shall not be construed so as to include persons
engaged in the following:
(a) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from other
dealers, manufacturers or wholesalers for retail or wholesale inven-
tories, provided the selling dealer has complied with the provisions
of this chapter, if applicable.
(b) Purchases of precious metals or gems directly from a duly
qualified fiduciary who is disposing of the assets of an estate being
administered by such fiduciary.
(c) Acceptance by a retail merchant of trade-in merchandise
previously sold by such retail merchant to the person presenting that
merchandise for trade-in.
(d) Repairing, restoring or designing jewelry by a retail mer-
chant, if such activities are within the normal course of such mer-
chant's business.
(e) Purchases of precious metals or gems by industrial refiners
and manufacturers insofar as such purchases are made directly from
retail merchants, wholesalers or dealers, or by mail originating
outside the county.
(f) Regular purchasing and processing of nonprecious scrap
metals which incidentally may contain traces of precious metals
recoverable as a by-product.
Precious metals. Any item, except coins, containing as part of
its composition in any degree gold, silver, platinum or platinum
alloys.
Gems. Any item containing or having any precious or semiprecious
stones customarily used in jewelry or ornamentation.
Coins. Any piece of gold, silver or other metal fashioned into a
prescribed shape, weight and degree of fineness, stamped by authority
of a government with certain marks and devices, and having a certain
fixed value as money.
× 30
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Section 5.1-2. Permit required.
Effective July one, nineteen hundred eighty-one, no person shall
engage~in the activities of a dealer as defined in Section 5.1-1
without first obtaining a permit from the sheriff of the county.
Section 5.1-3. Same--Procedure for obtaining~ terms; renewal.
(a) To obtain a permit, the dealer shall file with the sheriff
an application form which shall include the dealer's full name, any
aliases, address, age, sex and fingerprints; the name, address and
telephone number of the applicant's employer, if any; and the location
of the dealer's place of business. Upon filing this application and
the payment of a twenty-five dollar application fee, the dealer shall
be issued a permit by the sheriff, provided that the applicant has not
been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude within seven
years prior to the date of application. The permit shall be denied if
the applicant has been denied a permit or, within the preceding twelve
months, has had a permit revoked under any ordinance or law similar in
substance to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Before a permit may be issued, the dealer must have all
weighing devices to be used in the business inspected and approved by
local or state weights and measures officials and must present written
evidence of such approval to the sheriff.
(c) A permit shall be valid for one year from the date of
issuance and may be renewed for one year periods in the same manner as
the initial permit is obtained with an annual permit fee of twenty-
five dollars.
(d) If the business of the dealer is not operated without
interruption, with Saturdays, Sundays and recognized holidays ex-
cepted, the dealer shall notify the sheriff of all closings and
reopenings of such business. The business of a dealer shall be
conducted only from a fixed and permanent location specified in such
dealer's application for a permit.
Section 5.1-4. Same--Nontransferable and to be displayed; business
license required.
The permit issued hereunder shall be a personal privilege and
shall not be trans£erable, nor shall there be any abatement of the fee
for such permit by reason of the fact that the dealer shall have
exercised the privilege for any period of time less than that for
which it was granted. The permit shall at all times be disPlayed
prominently by the dealer on the business premises.
Section 5.1-5. Same--False statements.
A permit issued upon an application containing a statement made
with knowledge of its falsity shall be void ab initio.
Section 5.1-6. Information to be obtained from sellers and borrowers.
Dealers shall ascertain the~ name, address and age of every person
from whom they purchase or accept as security precious metals or gems
and shall require each such person to verify such information by some
form of identification issued by a government agency with a photograph
of the seller thereon, and at least one other corroborating means of
identification.
Section 5.1-7.
of records.
Records~ copies of bills of sale required; inspection
(a) Every dealer shall keep at such dealer's place of business
an accurate and legible record of each purchase or security arrange-
ment involving precious metals or gems. The record of each such
purchase or security arrangement shall be retained by the dealer for
not less than twenty-four months. These records shall set forth the
following:
(t) The name of the dealer and such dealer's employer or
principal, if any;
(2) A complete description of each item purchased or taken
as security, including the weight of the precious metals or gems
purchased or taken as security and all names, initials, serial numbers
or other identifying marks or monograms appearing on the items in
question;
(3) The price paid for each item purchased;
(4) The date and time of receiving the items purchased or
taken as security; and
(5) The name, address, age, sex, race, driver's license
number, social security number, or other identifying number of similar
reliability; and signature of the seller or borrower.
305
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
(b) The information required by subsection (a) of this section
shall appear on each bill of sale, the form of which shall be provided
by the sheriff. One copy of the form is to be retained by the dealer,
one copy to be delivered during regular work hours to the sheriff at
his office within twenty-four hours of the purchase or loan or mailed
to the sheriff within such twenty-four hour period, and one copy to be
delivered to the seller of such precious metals or gems or to the
borrower. If the purchase or loan occurs on a Saturday, Sunday or
recognized holiday, then the delivery to the sheriff shall be made no
later than i0:00 a.m. of the next regular work day.
(c) Each dealer shall admit to such dealer's premises during
regular business hours the sheriff or any law enforcement official of
the state or federal government, and shall permit the sheriff or such
other law enforcement Official to examine all records required by this
chapter, and to examine any item to which the dealer still has access,
which is listed in such records and which is believed by the officer
or official to be missing or stolen.
Section 5.1-8. Prohibited purchases.
(a) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any
seller who is under the age of eighteen.
(b) No dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems from any
seller who the dealer believes or has reason to believe is not the
owner of such items, unless the seller has written and duly authen-
ticated authorization from the owner permitting and directing such
sale.
Section 5.1-9. Dealer to retain purchases.
(a) The dealer shall retain all precious metals and gems in the
condition in which purchased for a minimum of ten calendar days from
the time of filing the bill of sale for their purchase with the sheriff.
During such period of time, the dealer shall not sell, alter, or
dispose of a purchased item in whole or in part, or remove it from
the county.
(b) If a dealer performs the service of removing precious metals
and gems, such dealer shall retain the precious metals or gems so
removed and the article from which such removal was made for a period
of ten calendar days after receiving such article and precious metals
or gems.
Section 5.1-9.1. Record of disposition.
Each dealer shall keep and maintain for at least twenty-four
months an accurate and legible record of the name and address of the
person, firm, partnership or corporation to which such dealer sells
any precious metal or gem in its original form after the waiting
period required by section 5.1-9. This record shall also show the
name and address of the seller from whom the dealer purchased such
item.
Section 5.1-10. Dealer's bond or letter of credit.
Prior to receiving a permit each dealer shall furnish a bond
secured by a corporate surety authorized to do business in this
Commonwealth, to be payable to the county in the penal sum of ten
thousand dollars and conditioned upon due observance of the terms of
this chapter. In lieu of a bond, a dealer may cause to be issued by
a bank authorized to do business in this Commonwealth, a letter of
credit~in favor of the county in the sum of ten thousand dollars. A
single bond upon an employer or principal may be written or a single
letter of credit issued to cover all employees and all transactions
occurring at a single location.
Section 5.1-11. Private action on bond or letter of credit.
Any person aggrieved by a dealer's violation of the provisions
of this chapter may maintain an action for recovery in any court of
proper jurisdiction against such dealer and such dealer's surety,
provided that recovery against the surety shall be only for that
amount of the judgment, if any, which is unsatisfied by the dealer.
Section 5.1-12, Penalties; first and subsequent offenses.
(a) Any person convicted of violating any of the provisions of
this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Upon the first conviction by any court of a dealer for
violation of any provision of this chapter, the sheriff shall revoke
his permit to engage in business as a dealer under this chapter for a
period of one full year from the date the conviction becomes final.
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
306
Section 5.1-13. Severability.
If any section of this ordinance or portion thereof is declared
invalid or unconstitutional by a court, it shall be regarded as severed
and the remaining sections and portions shall continue in full force
and effect. (Not to be codified.)
That this ordinance shall become effective July 1, 1981, and all
dealers doing business under permits issued prior to July 1, 1981,
pursuant to Chapter 5.1 of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, who wish to continue in business in the county must apply
for a new permit effective July 1, 1981, and must pay the twenty-five
dollar application fee as provided in section 5.1-3(a) of the County
Code, as amended by this ordinance.
For similar state law, see Code of Virginia Section 54-859.15
through 54-859.25.
At 12:11 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn
into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
The meeting reconvened into open session at 1:37 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing to review the Five Year Capital Improvement
Program and the Planned Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for the years 1981-86, as well as the
Capital Improvements Budget for the fiscal year 1981-82. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on June 24 and July 1, 1981.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the recommendations of the
Planning Commission as follows:
Project, Program Area
Ranking and Number Amount Comments
1 Miscellaneous Repairs (III.12) $ 75,000
2 Jouett Middle, Henley Middle, 65,000
Brownsville EtementaryMasonry
Repairs (III.6)
Woodbrook Elementary Masonry 179,000
Repairs (III.10)
4 Albemarle High Renovation 1,382,988
Phase II (III.l)
8
9
10
11
12
Water Line Extension/Hydrants
Four Seasons Area (IV.6)
Radio Relay Tower (IV.3)
Fire Engine ( IV. 13 )
Juvenile Court Building (I.6)
Piedmont Virginia Community
College Site Development
(VIII.i)
Health Department Renovation
(VIII.2)
Georgetown Road Pedestrian Path
Hydraulic Road Improvement (V.1)
Expenditures meet emergency situations
that arise in County schools. Project
has received previous capital improve-
ments recommendation.
Prevent further deterioration in masonry
work through relatively low cost correc-
tions. Project has received previous
capital improvements recommendation.
Prevent further deterioration in masonry
work through relatively low cost correc-
tions. Project has received previous
capital improvements recommendation.
Continuation of a partially finished
project. Project has received previous
capital improvements recommendation.
34,000 Project justified in terms of population
served. Project critical safety need.
7,000
125,000
Continuation of partially finished
project. Completion costs relatively
low. Project received previous capital
improvements recommendation.
Replacement of deteriorated fire engine.
Project is a safety need.
2,647 Cost overrun for completed project.
47,285
Continuation of partially finished project.
Monies for classroom construction are
dependent upon local contributions for site
development. Project received previous
capital improvements recommendation.
103,000 Portion of project to correct safety need.
Project received previous capital improve-
ment recommendation.
64,282 Project justified in terms of population
served. Also safety need. Project received
previous capital improvement recommendation.
151,700 Project justified in terms of population
served. Also safety need. Project received
previous capital improvement recommendation.
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
( continued )
Ranking
13
14
Project, Program Area
and Number
Fire Station-Planning (IV,ii)
Aerial Fire Equipment (IV.14)
15
Fire Hydrant Program (IV.2)
16
17
Ivy Creek Natural Area Land
Acquisition & Site Development
( IX. 13 )
Energy Conservation (III.11)
18
19
Piedmont Virginia Community
College Softball Field
Lighting (IX.21)
Scottsville Branch Library
(VII.2)
2O
21
22
23
Swimming Area Improvements
Mint Springs Valley Park
(IX.19)
Maintenance Facility Improvement
Mint Springs Valley Park (Ix.17)
Albemarle High-Jack Jouett Middle
Athletic Field Development (Ix.14)
Lane Building-Architectural Fees
0nly (I.2)
24
25
Albemarle High Renovation
Phase III (III.2)
Proffit Road Water Line (IV.7)
26
27
Albemarle High Renovation
Phase III (III.2)
Broadus Wood Elementary
Amount
5,000
20,000
34,916
47,150
179,000
35,000
165,000
12,000
Comments
Relatively low cost for study.
Annual contract with City for use. Contract
should be negotiated on basis of avail-
ability and use, not fixed rate.
Question whether costs should be borne by
County only or shared with Albemarle County
Service Authority. Locations of hydrants
are Canterbury Hills, Westmoreland,
Barterbrook, Four Seasons & Laurel Hills.
Continuation of partially finished
project. Also justified in terms of
population served.
Federal government appropriated 50-50
match for project. It is dependent upon
match from County.
Project justified in terms of population
served. Project also dependent upon
County match.
Replacement of public facility which was
destroyed by fire. Addition to original
facility received previous capital
improvements recommendation.
Replacement of deteriorated dock at
park. Project is safety need.
2,500 Improvements of existing facilities.
10,000 Improvement project at existing facility.
119,644
50,000
Relatively high costs for fees. Project
has received previous capital improve-
ments recommendation.
Expenditures relatively high for study.
2,000 Expenditures for planning study are not
justified at this time.
899,000 Project dependent upon financing from
Literary Loan Fund.
30,000 Renovation for an addition.
TOTAL $3,848,112
Mr. Agnor next summarized his memorandum of July 1, 1981, to the Board of
Supervisors as follows:
"Since completion of the Planning Commission's review and recommendations of
the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) an additional request has been received
from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad for assistance in the construc-
tion of their planned station on Berkmar Drive. An attached letter outlines
their request, approximating $78,000.
The Planning Commission's report assigned each project a priority, and listed
funding requests which represent estimates of additional funding needs over and
above previously appropriated funds. Revenue estimates also represent additional
funds, i.e. funds over and above those already obligated.
You will recall that action on the CIP by the Board of Supervisors usually
involves two steps:
1. Approval of the five year plan as to which projects are included, rejected,
or deferred beyond the five year planning period.
2. Appropriation of funds for those projects in FY 81-82 which are ready ~or
or in need of funding.
The eleven categories of projects total an estimated $16,808,963. The adjustments
in the early paragraphs of this memo change that total to $16,886,963. The
proposed revenues totalled $7.0 million, without Literary Fund loans for school
system projects, but with the General Fund appropriation being increased $250,000
each year over the five year planning period. If all projects are approved, and
if all are eligible for funding as listed, Literary Fund loans could total
$6,147,000, giving a total potential revenue for the plan of $13,147,000. If
all projects are approved, an additional $3,739,963 would be needed to balance
the five year program. As the report indicates, split collections of real
estate taxes, if approved, could provide $4.0 million.
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
The following amendments to the Planning Commission report are recommended for
your consideration:
1. Water line extensions for the hydrant program should be considered for
funding by the Albemarle County Service Authority. A discussion of this ma~ter
needs to be held with the Authority Board. The decision affects in 81-82:
Priority Project # 5 - $ 34,000 - Four Seasons Area (IV-6)
Priority Project #15 - $ 75,608 - Canterbury Hills, Westmoreland, Barterbrook,
and Laurel Hills (IV-2)
Priority Project #25 - $ 12,000 - Profitt Road (IV-7)
IV-lC - $ 70,000 - S¢ot%sville Shopping Center Water Line'
TOTAL $191,876
2. Project #7, Fire Engine Replacement (IV-13) should be deferred until
revenue and annexation negotiations with the City are consummated, and a revised
contract for ~use of aerial equipment is completed. The current contract with
the City does not require the County to supply two fire engines. Therefore the
assignment of "urgent" priority as a "replacement" unit is incorrect.
3. Project #14, Aerial Fire Equipment (IV-14) $20,000 per year is a~contractual
cost which should be considered in the operation budget, if negotiated, rather
than in the Capital budget.
4. Restore Data Processing project to VIII-4 $350,000 to purhcase computer
hardware and related equipment.
5. Provide for an appropriation in 81-82 of $173,118 to the Ivy Landfill Road
project to recover $150,000 from State Revenue Sharing funds.
6. Reduce the Piedmont College project by $29,785 to reflect an amended
project from $142,285 to $112,500.
These amendments would affect funding totals as follows:
PROJECT REQUEST 81-82 82-83
GRAND TOTAL ' ' $16,808,963 3~848,112 3,480,868
83-84 84-85 85-86
2,244,031 524,109 6,711,843
A~END~ENTS:
1. Hydrants/Water Lines - 191,876
2. Fire Engine - 125,000
3. Aerial Fire Equip. - 100,000
4. Data Processing + 350,000
5. Ivy Landfill Rd. + 173,118
6. Piedmont College - 29,785
Sub Total $16,885,420
- 70,916 - 70,268
- 125,000 ---
- 20,000 - 20,000
+ 350,000 ---
+ 173,118 ---
- 29,785
4,125,529 3,390,600
....... 50,692
20,000 - 20,000 - 20,000
2,224,031 504,109 6,641,151
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS:
Char'vl/Albe. Rescue Sqd.
+ 78,000
$16,9~3',420
Two revenue sources that have not been considered for the Capital budget, but
are recommended by the staff for inclusion in the five year planning cycle, are:
1. Recovery of the County's investment in the Vinegar Hill Library Site
$85,o00.
2. Payment in 1983 by the Rivanna Authority for the capital assets purchased
in 1973, $800,000.
With these two amendments, the revenue projections would be:
(MILLIONS OF DOLLARS )
81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 TOTAL
General Fund Budgeted O. 50 1. O0 1.25 1.50 1.75 6. O0
Revenue Sharing Fund O. 67 O. 72 0.18 .... 1.57
Library Site Recovery ........ 0.08 ........ 0.08
RWSA Payment 0.80 O. 80
Sub Total 1.17 1.72 2.31 1.50 1.75 ~--~
Li!terary Fund Loan 1. O0 O. 95 1.68 2.52 6.15
TOTAL 2.17 ~ 3.99 1.50 4.27 ~
The plan is not required to be balanced. In past reviews, however, methods of
balancing have been considered. Balancing the plan in this cycle can be accom-
plished by:
Deleting projects
Including possible extension of the Federal Revenue Sharing program
Increasing the annual General Fund appropriation
Considering a split collection of real estate taxes in 83-84."
Dr. Iachetta said he remembered discussing the Woodbrook masonry repairs a few months
ago. Mr. Agnor said funds have already been appropriated for the Woodbrook masonry repairs
as well as the Albemarle High School Phase II project.
Mr. Agnor stated he would not recommend any of the water/hydrant projects, as he felt
these should be mainly funded by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said a
meeting with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board should be set to discuss items
listed as numbers 5, 15 and 25. Next, Mr. Agnor recommended deferral of request number 7,
Fire Engine replacement. Mr. Agnor said this is a spare vehicle which does not require
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
urgent replacement. Mr. Agnor said the aerial fire equipment costs are based on a con-
tract with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor said this is a recurring cost and
should be placed in the regular budget. He said regarding the Data Processing equipment,
it was dropped from this budget awaiting a decision to either buy or lease this equipment.
Mr. Agnor said an amount of $350,000 should be put back into the budget. Similarly, the
amount of $173,000 for the Ivy Landfill Road should also be restored to this budget. Mr.
Agnor noted a change in cost from that stated in his memo of July 1, 1980, for the Piedmont
Virginia Community College Site Development. He said the latest figure is $28,750.
Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Sally
Thomas, representing the School Board. Mrs. Thomas asked if item #24, Albemarle High
Renovation Phase III, would be funded. She said these fees for architectual study are
necessary now if construction for Phase III is to be done during the summer months as
scheduled. Mrs. Thomas then asked about item #22 regarding improvements to the athletic
fields at Albemarle High and the Jack Jouett Middle School. Mr. Agnor noted that these
requests for improvements are not from the School Boar~, but came from the Department of
Parks and Recreation. Mrs. Thomas stated her concern that the ranking of Albemarle High
School Renovation Phase II as item #26 meant that it was 26th in line for funding. Mr.
Fisher said this would not be funded last if it received approval, of a literary fund loan.
Next to speak was Mrs. Norma D±ehl of the Planning Commission. She noted that the
Planning Commission was concerned about projects relative to public health, safety and
welfare and this was the basis for the priority rankings given each item.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this proposed capital improvements
program and budget, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he
has some serious concerns about purchasing the data processing equipment instead of
leasing it. Mr. Agnor said this has been placed back into the capital improvements budget
so this expenditure would not be overlooked.
Dr. Iachetta noted the fact that'the plan indicated support of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Rescue Squad. Dr. Iachetta said he felt all volunteer squads, both fire and
rescue, should be reviewed by the County. He noted that some operations have more than
sufficient funds while other companies find it difficult to survive. Dr. Iachetta ex-
pressed his concern that expenditures for these volunteer organizations are extremely
expensive and there does not seem to be sufficient commitment to meet the necessary
timetables for construction and payback of advances.
Mr. Agnor recommended that 1) the request from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue
Squad be included in the request column, 2) the 81-82 column reflect the amount for the
Rescue Squad of $62,500 which is ten years of their annual appropriations if those appro-
priations remain the same. Dr. Iachetta asked if that amount would be covered under an
agreement similar to those for Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and Stony Point Fire Company.
Mr. Agnor said the agreement would be the same. Thirdly, Mr. Agnor recommended a meeting
be scheduled with the Service Authority to resolve the issue of payment of the utility
lines, but not change any of those projects until after that meeting. Lastly, that the
plan be adopted as an unbalanced program over the five year period or to show that 1983-84
potential revenue of 4.0 million dollars.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the unbalanced budget as recommended by
the Planning Commission with adjustments to item #9 (Piedmont Virginia Community College
Site Development) in the amount of $28,750; item #27 (Broadus Wood Elementary Renovation
for an addition) in the amount of $30,000; and adding the following three items as recommended
by the County Executive: item #28--Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad $62,500; item
#29--data Processing Equipment $350,000; and item #30--Ivy Landfill Road $173,118. The
motion was seconded by Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could not see adopting the five year program as presented
because it seemed unrealistic to him. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support many of the
items shown in the budget without first considering such items as the Crozet Interceptor
and either repairs or replacement of Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. Lindstrom said the
County has waited patiently for the State to fund the Crozet Interceptor and as yet
nothing has been done. He said he cannot sit quietly and do nothing while raw sewage is
allowed to drain into the Reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom suggested approval of only the 1981-82
budget and that some adjustment be made to the five year plan to reflect these two urgent
projects. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the same way about highways. Dr. Iachetta noted
that funds for road improvements and new roads have been cut by more than half and that
there are no funds at all for many of the projects this Board has already approved. Roll
was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to adopt an ordinance to amend Chapter 7 of the
Albemarle County Code by the addition of a Section 7-5(cl) concerning the withholding of
certain soil erosion permits pending subdivision and site plan review. (Deferred from
May 20, 1981.)
Mr. Tucker noted that a recommendation was received from the committee appointed by
the Chairman following the May 20, 1981, meeting of the Board. Mr. Tucker read those
recommendations as presented in the following ordinance amendment rather than the amendment
advertised:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that the
Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is, amended in Chapter 7 thereof by the
addition of section 7-5 (cl), as follows:
Sec. 7-5. Review of plans and specifications:
(ct) The foregoing notwithstanding, except as specifically provided
herein, the zoning administrator shall not approve and no permit shall be issued
for any activity which is necessitated by or which is to be done in connection
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
with, any use, change in use, development, subdivision of land or other action
for which a subdivision plat or site development plan is required by law unless
and until such subdivision plat or site development plan shall have been approved
as provided by law. For purposes of this section only, such subdivision plat or
site development plan shall be deemed approved if it shall be approved con-
ditioned upon the issuance of such erosion control permits as may be required
pursuant to this chapter.
Permits may be issued for the following activities in accordance with law
prior to the approval of a site development plan or subdivision plat under the
conditions set forth hereinafter:
(1) the correction of any existing erosion or other condition conducive to
excessive sedimentation which is occasioned by any violation of this ordinance;
or by accident, act of God or other cause beyond the control of the owner;
provided that the activity proposed shall be strictly limited to the correction
of such condition;
(2) clearing and grubbing of stumps and other activity directly related to
selective cutting of trees as permitted by law;
(3) installation of underground public utility mains, interceptors,
transmission lines and trunk lines for which plans and specifications have been
previously approved by the operating utility;
(4) filling of earth with spoils obtained from grading, excavation or
other lawful earth-disturbing activity; and
(5) clearing, grading, filling, and similar related activity for temporary
storage of earth, equipment and materials; and construction of temporary access
roads; provided that, in each case, the area disturbed shall be returned to
substantially its previous condition with no significant change in surface
contours, within thirty days of the completion of such installation or temporary
use or within thirteen months of the commencement of any land-disturbing activity
on the site which is related thereto, whichever period shall be shorter.
Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman of the Planning Commission, and a member of the committee
to develop this ordinance, spoke next. Mrs. Diehl said the items listed in the ordinance
were considered as possible emergency situations which~might occur. She noted that #3 in
the ordinance came to a vote before the committee and was approved by a vote of three in
favor and two opposed. Mrs. Diehl noted that the discussion regarding #3 was with regard
to whether or not all on-site utility lines should be allowed.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Hazel
Ho~l~an representing the League of Women Voters. Mrs. Hollman said the wording in the new
section seems excessively complex. She said with the exception of item #1, the other four
proposed changes will preempt the ability of the Planning Commission and staff to make
changes in site plans. She said the League urges the Board to leave the original ordinance
in place and work toward better enforcement.
Next to speak was Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, representing the Piedmont Environmental
Council. Mrs. Van Yahres said the first and second parts of this proposed ordinance seem
to be contradictory. She said it is confusing and will be difficult for the Zoning
Administrator to enforce. She added that the original ordinance provided a better tool to
encourage the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Van Yahres suggested this ordinance
either be sent back to the Committee or that the original proposal be adopted by the
Board.
Mr. Roy Patterson representing Citizens for Albemarle said he wished to endorse the
recommendations of the Piedmont Environmental Council.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. St. John said that under item #3 in
the proposed ordinance, that the right to install utilities is being expanded beyond where
it exists outside the soil erosion ordinance, and he suggested adding a clause reading
"and the Planning Commission under Virginia Code Section 15.1-456". Mr. St. John said
that without such a clause, it appears to allow any utility company to install utility
lines and mains without any review under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if
special permits were required for the installation of any major utility lines. Mr. St.
John said yes special permits are required in some instances, and without the clarification
such as was just recommended, it gives the impression that no special permit is required.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the addition to item 3 read "and approved by the County in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-456, if necessary". Mr. Lindstrom said that
seemed less open ended.
Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator described the procedure used presently in
obtaining a soil erosion permit, and how a bond is used.
Mr. Fisher said he felt this proposed ordinance filled a "large hole" in the present
ordinance which allows large scale grading for roads, etc. Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs. Diehl
for chairing the committee, and requested a motion from the Board. Motion was offered by
Miss Nash to adopt the ordinance as set out above with the addition of wording to item
three as suggested by Mr. Lindstrom. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. McCann
said he would support the motion, noting he felt this ordinance was better than the orig-
inal draft.
Mr. Vaughn said'the overall plan should be submitted showing the different phases
being requested. Mr. Vaughn said it is conceivable that on a small project where utility
mains require less than 10,000 square feet of soil disturbing activity, would exempt it
under the. State statutes requiring a permit. Mr. Vaughn said he would like to see wo~ding
that the overall plan be submitted for approval in phases. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that
Mr. St. John and Mr. Vaughn meet and work out wording. Mr. St. John said he did not think
it was necessary to address this problem.
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta said he felt it was an error to allow this kind of excavation before
site review. Mr. Fisher gave an example that if you were the third lot in, you would not
be able to get a transmission line to your property until the first two lots submitted a
site plan. Roll was then called and the motion to adopt the ordinance as amended carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
At 3:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 3:30
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend Chapter 13 of the Code
of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by adding Section 13-23.1 relating to the Fencing of
Swimming Pools. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 24 and July 1, 1981.)
The ordinance as advertised is as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the County Code be, and it is hereby, amended, by the addition thereto of a
Section 13-23.1, as follows:
1. Section 13-23.1. Fencing of Swimming Pools.
(a) For the purposes of this section the following terms shall
have the meanings respectively assigned to them:
"Swimming pool" shall include any outdoor man-made structure constructed
from material other than natural earth or soil designed or used to
hold water for the purpose of providing a swimming or bathing place
for any person or any such structure for the purpose of impounding
water herein to a depth of more than two feet; and
"Fence" shall mean a close type vertical barrier not less than four
feet in height above ground surface. A woven steel wire, chain link,
picket or solid board fence or a fence of similar construction which
will prevent the smallest of children from getting through shall be
construed as within this definition.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to construct, maintain,
use, possess or control any swimming pool on any property in the
county, without having completely around such swimming pool a fence as
hereinabove defined. Every gate in such fence shall be capable of
being securely fastened at a height of not less than four feet above
ground level. It shall be unlawful for any such gate to be allowed to
remain unfastened while the pool is not in use. Each such fence shall
be constructed so as to come within two inches of the ground at the
bottom and shall be at least five feet from the edge of the pool at
any point.
(c) The foregoing notwithstanding, the governing body may permit
the substitution for the fence described herein of a natural barrier,
hedge, pool cover or other protective device in any case in which the
governing body shall determine that such barrier or other protective
device or structure will prevent access to such pool by small children
to a degree not less than that afforded by such fence.
(d) This ordinance shall apply to swimming pools constructed
before, as well as those constructed after the adoption hereof; provided
that this ordinance shall not apply to any swimming pool operated by
or in conjunction with any hotel located on a government reservation.
(e) Violation of this ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of
not more than three hundred dollars or confinement in jail for not
more than thirty days, either or both. Each day's violation shall be
construed as a separate offense.
2. This ordinance shall be effective 90 days from the date of its adoption.
At the request of Mr. Fisher, Mr. Robert Vaughn reviewed the ordinance presently
in effect in Albemarle County, that being the 1978 BOCA Code as part of the State law.
Mr. Fisher noted that the ordinance proposed is basically identical except that it is
retroactive. Mr. St. John noted that this ordinance is not as stringent as the State
Code, in that the State code requires a four foot fence, and the BOCA Code will accept a
hedge.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Jim McGee, who
stated it was a letter from his wife which first brought this matter before the Board.
Mr. McGee said he could see no reason why the owner of a pool, constructed prior to the
1978 BOCA Code requiring fencing, should not also be required to fence that pool. He
stated that an unfenced pool is "an attractive nuisance" and no matter how long the pool
has actually been there, the situation is still the same and should be treated the same
under the law.
Sheriff George Bailey spoke and quoted statistics to the Board regarding drownings in
Albemarle County. Sheriff Bailey noted that since 1965, only three drownings have been
reported in swimming pools, while he has already had two drownings in farm ponds this
year. sheriff Bailey said he personally owns a swimming pool and said it would be very
expensive to fence that pool area. He said he felt it unnecessary in his situation,
because the nearest road and home is more than a half mile from the pool location.
_ Jul~ 8 ~ L~Me~
Mr. Francis Brawley said he felt this was an unwise, unfair ordinance being considered
by the Board. He said that most small children are under supervision and that a fence
will not prevent older children from entering an area if they really wish to enter.
Mr. Larned Randolph read a statement which noted that the ordinance does not show any
distinction between very rural and highly populated areas of the County. He felt this
ordinance would be further blatant unwarranted interference on the part of local government.
Mr. John Watterson said he, as a resident of Farmington, has a swimming pool, and so
do four of the seven homeowners on his street. He felt it unfair to require fencing of
pools in the rural agricultural district and not require fencing of farm ponds, streams,
etc. Mr. Watterson said he wished to see this ordinance, if adopted, exempt the rural
agricultural area.
Dr. Virgil Marshall, also a resident of Farmington, said he also opposes the enactment
of this ordinance. He suggested the County Attorney research and find out why the State
of Virginia did not create the legislation to be retroactive in 1978 when it was initially
adopted. Dr. Marshall said he spends many thousands of dollars on his yard each year to
obtain privacy without a fence, and would not like to see a law undo his work.
Mr. Howard Eades agreed with Mr. Watterson, stating that he also is a resident of
Farmington and felt that landscaping was adequate "fencing" around his pool and that any
other type fencing would create an eyesore.
Mr. John Busbee presented letters from insurance agencies which stated that there is
no difference in insurance premiums paid whether there is or is not a fence surrounding a
pool. Mr. Busbee interpreted this to mean that pools create no extraordinary hazard.
Mr. Tom Ward, a landscape architect, said many homes have pools which are constructed
not for swimming, but for visual appearance only. He asked if these also must be fenced.
Mr. Fisher referred Mr. Ward to the definition in the proposed ordinance which is taken
directly from the State Code°
Mr. Landon Birckhead~said he lives in Carrsbrook Subdivision, and he. could not see
fencing his pool when there is a large lake barely a hundred yards~away.
Mr. Dave Brice asked how this ordinance would affect a four foot deep, above-ground
pool. Mr. Vaughn said the present law is written that if a pool has a removable ladder or
is covered when not in use or is fenced, that is all that is required and it is exempt
from the four foot fencing requirement.
Mr. James Marshall asked if the State legislation came about because of the adoption
of the BOCA Code. Mr. Fisher referred the question to Mr. St. John who stated that the
BOCA Code is totally separate from the legislation requiring the fencing of swimming
pools. Mr. St. John said the legislation for the fencing of swimming pools was enacted in
1962, but that it does not require cities and counties to adopt same, but that it does
allow the enactment of this statute retroactively. ~
Mr. LoUis Si~ons~ said his three year old daughter is capable of opening the gate to
his private pool and could not see how this would prevent other small children from
entering other such pools.
Mrs. Doris Murphy of Bedford Hills said in the ten years she has had her pool, the
only thing that has accidently fallen in were two puppies.
Mrs. Salley Whaley said as a member of the Blue Ridge Swimming Pool, she can safely
report that the club could not financially afford to erect a fence around the pool.
Mr. Charles Fossum said he would not like to see the many beautiful gardens of
Albemarle County which surround swimming pools, ruined because of this fencing ordinance.
Mrs. Herman Dorrier said her pool is about 800 yards from the Rivanna River, and she
has never had difficulty with her children going near either source of water.
Dr. James Marshall said he is sympathetic toward Mr. and Mrs. McGee's concerns about
small children near unprotected swimming pools, but stated that it is the parents r~~I~i~
to see that the children receive water safety lessons, which he noted were available even
for very small infants.
There being no one else wishing to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance,
at 4:19 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Dr. Iachetta said he wished
to make a letter received from Mr. Dick Brownlee, dated July 7, 1981, part of the record.
Dr. Iachetta noted that Mr. Brownee was opposed to the retroactive requirement .to fence
pools.
Mr. Fisher noted that all the letters received by· him Dave been opposed to the enactment of this
ordinance. Mr. Fisher said on the basis of the letters received, and what was heard at
the public hearing today, that this matter should be dismissed and not considered further.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom not to adopt the proposed ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Miss Nash. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed with many of the comments made before
the Board, in that there are many other water hazards in Albemarle County just as serious
as private swimming pools. Miss'Nash said she felt the BOCA code would handle~ the fencing
problem as many of these rural areas become more dense in the future. Mr. McCann said he
was opposed to this ordinance from the beginning, but agreed to the hearing to receive
public comment. Roll was then called and the motion not to adopt the ordinance carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
31_3
July 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 10. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said many applications have been
received in response to advertisements for openings on Boards and Commissions. Mr. Fisher
asked how the Board wished to select an appointee. Mr. McCann said he felt the only way
was to interview those applicants. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to set
interviews for July 15, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. It was the concensus of the Board that it
would be agreeable to hold interviews on July 15, 1981 beginning at 3:00 P.M., and Mr.
Fisher requested the clerk to arrange a schedule for those interviews at approx£mately
twenty minute intervals.
Agenda Item No. 10a.
time.
Advisory ~Council on Aging. No appointment was ~.made at this
Agenda Item No. 10b.
time.
BOCA Code Board of Appeals.
No appointment was made at this
Agenda Item No. 10c.
this time.
Industrial Development Authority.
No appointment was made at
Agenda Item No. 10d. Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was of~fered by Miss
Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mr. Edgar Paige, Jr., to another term scheduled
to expire on March 31, 1983. 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. 10e.
this time.
Jordan Development Corporation.
No appointment was made at
Agenda Item No. 10f.
at this time.
Land Use Classification Appeals Board.
No appointment was made
Agenda Item No. 10g. Visitors Bureau. No appointment was made at this time.
Agenda Item No. 10h. Welfare Board. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mr. Horace W. Daniel to another term on the Welfare Board,
scheduled to expire on June 30, 1985. 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. 10i.
time.
Youth Services Citizens Board.
No appointment was made at this
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor requested the
confirmation by the Board of the appointment of Mr. Andrew Evans as Deputy Zoning Admin-
istrator, to be effective immediately. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Agnor requested an opinion from the Board as to the wording for the signing of
the new county office building. It was the concensus of the Board that "Albemarle County
Office Building", was most appropriate.
Dr. Iachetta said the Resource Recovery Study Commission has asked him to request the
Board's action on the Commission's letter of March 23, 1981, requesting that the Com-
mission be dissolved and the uncommitted funds be returned to the City, County and Uni-
versity. Dr. Iachetta said the City and University have already acted on this request.
Dr. Iachetta then reluctantly offered motion to dissolve this Committee and accept the
Commission's report and remaining funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
July 8~ ~981 (Regular Day Meeting)
31'4
Dr. Iachetta said at a meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission a
rePort was made by Dr. Richard Prindle of the Health Department, about changes being
proposed in Richmond regarding funding of the local Health Department facilities. Dr.
Iachetta said it is being considered that funding would be done on a 70/30 basis, (County
70%, State 30%), rather than 55/45. Dr. Iachetta said there is no indication that the
State intends to increase those funds, which in 'essence means less money would be avail-
able to the Health Department unless localities substantially increase their contributions.
Dr. Iachetta said the Planning District Commission is asking Mr. Oglesby, who is in charge
of preparing the Health budgets in Richmond, to make the final proposals known (through a
public hearing), in time for localities to respond.
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 4:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive
session to discuss legal matters, Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss
Nash, to adjourn into executive session 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.
At 5:00 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn to July 15, 1981, at 3:00 P.M., in the
County Executive's Conference Room of the Albemarle County Office Building for the
purpose of interviewing applicants for Boards and Commissions. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the foZlowing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Cha~/irman