1980-06-11June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of. Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June ll, 1980 at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Boom of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.~ F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
(NOTE: Due to time constraints, agenda items were discussed out of order.)
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by
the Chairman~ Gerald E. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Minutes~
September 5~ 1979 (Nighs Meeting): Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Lindstrom reported no errors or
corrections in these minutes as presented.
September 19~...1979 (Afternoon): Mr. Roudabush said on page 83, the word "cases" should be
removed from the sentence. Mr. Roudabush said a correction was necessary on page 84, the
references to "Squirrel Ridge" should actually read "Rivanwood" in both places.
September' 26~ 1979: Mr. Henley reported he had not completed reviewing these minutes.
October 3~ 1979 (Afternoon)-
presented.
Miss Nash reported finding no errors in these minutes as
October ll~ 1979: Mr. Lindstrom reported he had not completed reviewing these~minutes.
January 9~ 1980~: Mr. Fisher said that at this meeting Dr. Prindle (of the Health Department)
had made a report from the Health Department about Albemarle County's requirement for two
septic, drainfields in areas tuning off in reservoirs, but not. in other areas. Therefore,
the Health Department is not requiring a second drainfield site in any other part of the
County. Mr. Fisher suggested this matter be placed on the agenda for the July day meeting.
January 16~ 1980: Dr. Iachetta noted on pa&e 3, second paragraph, the word "engine"
should actually be "motor".
Motion was offered, for approval of the minutes of September 5 (night), September 19
(afternoon), October 3, 1979, (afternoon)~ January 9 and January~ 16, 1980 by Dr. Iachetta,-
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom~ and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrso Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and ~oudabush~.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN- Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the follcwing memorandum dated June ~, 1980 from Miss
Lettie E~ Neher, Clerk regarding ~he minutes of August 15, 1979 (page 493 - Minute Book
l?). Mr. Fisher said~these minutes haVe already been approved, and this correction is
necessary to verify a statement.
"It has recently come to my attention that the above ment~oned~paragraPh'n~eeds
a correction~ I would like to request that the Board approve the correction as
set out below; words c-rDs~sed o~t to be deleted; words underscored to be added.
Dr. Iachetta commented on,.,the;~e.~zm~:&~me~l-e¢-¢~e,-~e~e~e~a~e-a~8-e~a~e
timetable set forth for expenditure of funds for certain schools in
the County. He said"he 2s not convince~.abo.ut the economics of
operating two small school~ in lieu of bui~¢ing one .large school--
~a~e~-~-~e-ema~e~-ee~ee~e which has been exp~.ored in the case of
Meriwether Lewis. Mr. Fisher said he.and Mr. Lindstrom met with members
of the School Board, the Planning ~emm&ee&ea staff and the school
staff regarding a location for Meriwether Lewis School and improvements
to Red Hill School. He said he was not convinced that a new school
loeated i~;the vicinity of Meriwether Lewis-is the right thing to_ do~,,
but he. felt funds should be, allocaSed For the.pro~e:¢t and allow the
details to be worked out later. Mr. Lindstrom said he is mostly
concerned about planning-for growth in the area near Meriwether Lewis
School ~hen the school is Rot in the proposed Ivy_Vil:lage. However,
~e-ea&~.he agreed with Mr. Fisher that the money should b.e allocated
~e~-~e'-~&~&~-~e~ee~ but said he would like to see more analys~s
on the cost benefit of renovating Mer'iwether Lewis as opposed to constructin~
a new building. ~e~a~&~-~e~-a~e~&a~e~-~&~&~&ee
~e~e~-e~e-we~-~e-eeme-~e-e~,~e~&e~-~.e~-~&~&~-~ew~h-~e-aeeem~a~
Mr. Fisher then asked for comments on other parts of the Capital Imp~oyement
Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said just because no monies are incl'ud'ed in this plan z-or
expansion of utilities does not mean the idea has been 'dropped. The B~ard is
merely waiting for adoption of the zoning ordinance and a. pOlicy on. how such
expansion will be funded--. HopeCully~-:-all oD this information will be .available
next year."
Motion to approve the recommended minute correction was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta', %tndstrom and MasS.' Nash :and Mr. Eoudabush.
NAYS: None.
June 11, 198g (Regular Day Meeting)
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a certified notice from the Central Virginia
Cooperative of hearings on the adoption of the termination of Customer Service Standards.
Hearings will be held on July 21, 1980.
Agenda Item No.. 3A. Highway Matters:_ Westmoreland Subdivision Sewer Project. Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. ~D. B. Hope, District Engineer of the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated May 23, 1980:
"This is with reference to your letter of May 15, 1980 setting forth the
Board's desires with regard to the Westmoreland Subdivision and the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
One of the Department's responsibilities is to maintain and preserve the
roads and streets in a good condition. When issuing permits for work to be
done within the limits of the right of way, we endeavor to have the right
of way, including the pavement surface, left in as nearly the same condi-
tion as it was found prior to the work being accomplished as possible.
The streets in the Westmoreland Subdivision were surfaced a yearmOr two .ago
and are in excellent condition. The objective of the requirement of the
permit is to replace the street surface to its condition prior to the
laying of the sewer line.
If the Service Authority doesn't do it, secondary highway funds allocated
to Albemarle County will have'to be used, maybe not now, but sooner than it
would normally be required.
I am sure that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors realizes the
limited amount of secondary funds available to them, therefore if it is
their desire to use secondary funds to resurface the streets of this
subdivision due to the work being done by the Service Authority, I will
allow this requirement tO be eliminated from the permit.
Please let Mr. Roosevelt know what the final decision of the Board is so
that he can take this into consideraticn when preparing future budgets."
Mr. Roosevelt said he interpreted the letter to mean that because of the utility road
cuts, this road may have to be resurfaced sooner than if no cuts are made. Mr. Fisher
said if funds are allocated in this case, then each time a utility must cut a road, then
the COunty will be expected to have state Secondary Road funds cover the costs cf resur-
facing. He was worried about setting a precedent. Mr. Roosevelt agreed, adding that
other utilities would also expect the same consideration (i.e. Vepco, Centel etc.)
Dr'. Iachetta said what Mr. Hope suggested in his letter is not exactly what the
County or the Service Authority have asked for. Dr. Iachetta said the Service Authority
requested, and should be allowed to do a less extensive repair than required by the State
Highway Department (50 feet on each side of the cut must be resurfaced) and if that lesser
repair does not hold to the Highway Department's satisfaction, then the repair job must be
redone by that utility to the Highway Department's standard within a reasonable time. Mr.
Roosevelt said he felt any flaws in workmanship should be evident within a one year period
of time. Mr. Bill Brent of the Service Authority was present, and said' he felt a guarantee
of the Service Authority's workmanship for that period of time would certainly be given.
Mr. Roosevelt said he felt the proper method for handling this request would be for the
Board of Supervisors to request a waiver of the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation standards in this instance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to write a letter to
Mr. Hope and say "in lieu of the requirement for repaving the fifty feet on either side,
we req~uest you to substitute a letter of-guarantee of warranty from the ~Service~Authority
to stand behind their workmanship for a period of one year." Dr. Iachetta asked if that
wording was agreeable to the Service Authority. Mr. Brent said it was. Roll was then
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash and Mr. ~Roudabush.
None.
As the result of the previous motion, the following letter was written to Mr. D. B.
Hope, ~istrict Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated
June 18, 1980, by Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority:
"You are aware of the plans~ of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
install sanitary sewer lines in Westmorland subdivision in this county, I
previously requested a waiver of the paving requirements for this project
which were imposed by your office.
In response to your letter dated May 23, 1980 the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors agreed to ask you to waive the fifty foot paving requirement if
the ServiCe Authority would guarantee the restoration of the streets in
this subdivision should the pavement deteriorate due to this construction
prior to the normal repaving schedule.
This is to advise you and the Board of Supervisors that the Albemarle
County Service Authority assumes responsibility for the resurfacing of any
portion of the streets in Westmoreland subdivision which, as a result of
our sewer line construction, may settle or deteriorate during the expected
life of the present paving.
I understand that these streets have been resurfaced within the past two
years and that the expected life of this paving is approximately five
years.
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on June ll, 1980 at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
(NOTE- Due to time constraints, agenda items were discussed out of order.)
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. Minutes:
Sept.eWber 5~ 1979 (Night Meeting): Mr. Roudabush and Mr. Lindstrom reported no errors or
corrections in these minutes as presented.
September 19~ 1979 (Afternoon)' Mr. Roudabush said on,page 83, the word "cases" should be
removed from the sentence. Mr. Roudabush said a correction was necessary on page 84, the
references to "Squirrel Ridge" should actually read "Rivanwood" in both places.
september 26~ 1979: Mr. Henley reported he had not completed reviewing these minutes.
October 3~ 1979 (Afternoon): Miss Nash reported finding no errors in these minutes as
presented.
October 11~ 1979: Mr. Lindstrom reported he had not completed reviewing these minutes.
January 9, 1980~: Mr. Fisher said that at this meeting Dr. Prindle (of the Health Department)
had made a report from the Health Department about Albemarle County's requirement for two
septic drainfields in areas runing off in reservoirs, but not ia other areas._ Therefore,
the Health Department is not requiring a second drainfield site in any other part of the
County. Mr. Fisher suggested this matter be placed on the agenda for the July day meeting.
January t6~ 1980: Dr. Iachetta noted on page 3, second paragraph, the word "engine"
should actually be "motor".
Motion was offered, for approval of the minutes of September 5 (night), September 19
(afternoon), October 3, ~979, (afternoon), January 9 and January 16, 1980 by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the fo!lcwing memorandum dated June 4, 1980 from Miss
Lettie E~ Neher, Clerk regarding Dhe minutes of August 15, 1979 (page 493 - Minute Book
17). Mr. Fisher saidthese minutes haVe already been approved, and this correction is
necessary to verify a statement.
"It has recently come to my attention that the above ment~0ned..paragraph needs
a correction. I would like to request that the Board approve the correction as
set out below; words cr, o~sed out tom be deleted; ~ords underscored to be added.
Dr. ~achetta.commented on~t.he~.~m~m~-~-~.~,-.~e,~a~e-~-e~a~e
timetable set forth for expenditure of funds for certain schools in
.the County. He said he is not Convince~ about the economics of
operating two small schools~ in lieu o~ b~l~ing ore large school
~a~e~-~a~-~we-~ma~e~-~e~ which has been explored in the case of
Meriwether Lewis. Mr. Fisher salad he and Mr. Lindstr~om met with members
of the School Board, the Planning ~.mm&**&.a staff and the school
staff regarding a location for Meriwether Lewis School and improvements
to Red Hill School. He said he was not convinced that a new school
located~in~the vicinity ~of Meriwet~her~Lewis~is~the. right thi~g.~to do~ ·
but he. felt funds should be~a!!oca~ed ~£~or the.pro~ect and allow. ~ ~ the _
details to be worked out later. Mr. Lindstrom said he is mostly
concerned about planning~for growth in the area near Meriwether Lewis
School when the school is~not in the~proposed Ivy~Vil.~age. However,
~e-$a~ he~.agreed with Mr. Fisher that the money should be allocated
gg~-~.~.-~~a~-~e~e,~ but said he would like to see more analysis
on the cost benefit of renovatin~ Meriwether Lewis as~opposed to constructing
a new building. ~e~a~&~-~e~-a~e~a~e~-~~&ee M~-~&~e~em-ea~e
~e~e~e~e-we~6-~e-eeme-~ge-eg-~e&&e~-¢e~-~&&&~-~ew~-~e-aeeem~a~
Mr. Fisher then asked fcr, 0°mments on other parts of the Capital Improvement
Plan. Mr, Lindstrom said just because no monies are included in this plan for
expansion of utilities does not mean the idea has been dropped. The Board is
merel.y waitin$ for adoption of the zoning ordinance and a policy on. how such
expansion will be £~nde'd..', 'HopeCu,lly~-, al-loft.this information will beavailable.
next year,"
Motion to approve the recommended minute correction was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachett~, L±ndstrom and MisS' Nash :and Mr; Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Your cooperation in helping us~ eliminate.the serious health pr.o_blemin this
suUdivision is greatly appreciated."
Agenda Item No. 3B ApPeal: Ferdinand .Bazine~Breliminary Plat. (Preliminary Subdivisio
of Lots I through 9, the property of Ferdinand and Judith Bazine, located at the end of
State Route 666, about 2.5 miles northwest of Earlysville, Albemarle County, Virginia;
dated March 18, 19'80, and drafted by R. O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc.,:P.C.) Mr. Fisher
noted receipt of the following .two letters requesting that the F~rdinand Bazine Prelim-
inary Plat be appealed:
"May 2, 1980
Col. William R. Washington, Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Re- Bazine Subdi¥ision
Dear Sir:
My wife and I are writing to you, requesting an appeal on the' decisio~
related to the Bazine Subdivision. At the outset, I want to say that we
are not questioning the right of the Bazines to subdivide their property,
but rather question the way the property is to be divided With relationship~
to the old county road. Our appeal is based on the following considerations:
first, it is our impression that the recommendation for subdivision by the
planning off,ice was based on the c~ondit±on of Route-664,-a-p~ave-~ road and
not Route 666, the gr~vel road, which~t~erminates in the~right of~waY.~o~he
pro_perty in question. The condition of Route 666 is such that I do not
believe that it would adequately handle the increased amount of traffic
necessitated by this subdivision, unless this road were to be upgra'ded. I
believe that before this subdivision is approved, a recommendation from the
Highway Department should be made regarding this road's abiTity ~-stand
the increased usage.
Second, it was evident: from..other disc~s~sions durin-g She evening~of oSher ~-
subdivisions on public roads, that only one or two entrances into the
subdivision were desirable. The subdivision, as proposed, would require
approximately six'or seven entrances off the old county road and this is
Certainly an aberrance Wibh~the above po~ic'y. A statement was made during.
the meeting that this was a private road, but,~-in fact, this is an old
county road, which has never been abandoned and, therefore is a public
right of way. I submit that if this is indeed a public right of way, that
this is, in fact, not a private road and, therefore, should be treated as a
public road. I do not believe that it is the intent of the-pl~anning
commission to approve strip development of public roads.
Third, suggestion of alternate developments of the property were made and,
having personally walked over the property myself, it is evident that a
single access road into the property extending along the hiEher elevations
would be appropriate and would allow maximum development of the property
with good house site locationS. I believe that if the contour map of this
property were studied that it would be evident that this would be possible
without sacrificing the best house site for the property. I would, there-
f6re, suggest'that~ alternative plans~fOr thePro~ertyb.~ Studi.edtefore .......
granting the final approval.
Fourth, considering t~,e grades and slopes of the property, it would appear
that there should be some concern fOr run'Off control~ resulting from buil~ding
sites or multi~le drivewaYs on th8 slop'e~s'~tc eaCh~-individual lot'. I~ believe
that this factor should also be considered.
Fifth, I believe that' the Buck Mountain~mWaterShed Report is', iff fact; a
major concern, althOugh .granted that there has been no official approval of
a policy regarding it. I think" however, the Planni'ng-Office' should be
fully familiar with this as a potential consideration and I think a simple
call to Mr. Williams at the Rivanna Water AUthority would clarify this
consideration.
On the basis~ of the above considerations, we would like to appeal the
recen~ decision-regarding the' Bazine Subdivision.
Sincerely,
(signed) Harry A. Wellons, Jr., M. ~D. ~ .....
Florence Lee Wellons"
"April 30, 1980
Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Pursuant to Section 18-4(A) of the Albemarle County. Code,. I hereby appeal
the decision of the Department of~PIanning approving the-s~ubdi~wision--o.D40
acres off Route 666 into 9 lots by Mr. & Mrs. Ferdinand Bazine. I am
appealing this decision on the following grounds:
i. State Route 666 is ~a dirt ~oad currertly classified as '~to~erable" but
the resulting doubling or tripling"of traffic-witlChange .the.road to
less than tolerable and will constitute a danger to the safety, well-
being, and comfort of the residents of Route 666.
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
At the meeting of April 22nd, 1980, mention was made of a strong
likelihood Buck Mountain Stream will be dammed up to become a re-
servoir, but the Planning Department ignored this unless more in-
formation could be produced. I now have the study done for the h~
RiYanna~ Wa~er Authority~which states building should be halted i~his
There is a discrepancy~as to whether this section of Route 666, off
which these~lot~ are propos~d~ is an "Old Country Road" or a priyate
road· I have more information regardd, ng this.
My property adjoins the Bazine property which qualifies me to appeal but
the Board of Supervisors should be aware I am also acting on behalf of the
residents of Route 666. I have surveyed most of the r~sidents~D£ Route ~6~
and they are unanimously against this subdivision, iwill pr_,sent my ............
survey and other information to the Board of Supervisors when this appeal
is heard. Will you kindly let me know when this matter will be ~he.ard~
Respectfully yours,
(signed) Dennis Marcello"
Mr. Tucker read the P~lanning Staf~f report as well_as .the list of conditions recommended
~y the staff and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 22, 1980:
Location: On the west-side ~t the end of RQute 666 ~o£f o.f Reute 66~ nor~thwest
of Earlysville. Property is described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 19 in the
White Hall Magisterial District.
Total'Acreage: ~l.~BB1 act,es.
Zoning: A-l, Agriculture.
History: December l?, 197~ - The Albemarle County Planning Commission condi-
tionally~ a~pprov~ed the division of Parcel B from a 17B acre property.
Proposal: A ~equest to divide nine lots with ~an average lot si~e of ~...~ acres.
Reason for Planning Commission Review' Parcel is s'e~ed.bY~'private road.
Topography ~of Area: ~here are 25~~ or grea~er slopes loc~ted'~n thi~p?~Pe~tY. ....
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: .Route 666 currentl~ accommodates 109
vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna.
Soils: Are deep, well drained except along the streams and steep slopes ap-
proaching the stream. ~.
Comprehensive Pl~nReco~mendation: Agricultural conservation with one dwelling
unit per five acres. ~ ·
School Impact.: Will he_slight with a total projected enrollment of'£ive students.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Staff commenti The Buck Mountain Reservoir study indicates that a~small Portion
of this property will be in the imp°Und~ent area~ most of t~e~remaining~
property will be in the buffer area.
The Highway Department'~s only con~ment was that, as additional properties
are subdivided beyond the end~of state maintenance, additional burden will
be pla6ed~on Route 666 which is presen$1y a narrow gravel rOad.
An adjacent property owner submitted a letter-opposing'the division because
of the County Road condition and 'the density of lot divisions surrounding
their property.
This preliminary plat will meet t~e Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
requirements and staff recommends approVal subject to'
Recow~mended Conditions Of Approval:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
Health Department approval;
Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County
Engineer approval of the road and entrances; 2. County Attorney
approval of the maintenance agreement;
Waiver of Section 18-B8.6(d) for Lot 1.
On April 22, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the Ferdinand
Bazine Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
lo The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
Health Department approval~
Compliance with the private road provisions, inCluding: 1. County
Engineer approval of the road and entrances~ 2. Count~
Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement~
Show joint entrances where possible ~..i .......
June 11, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
At the meeting of April 22nd, 1980, mention was made of a strong
likelihood Buck Mountain Stream will be dammed up to become a re-
servoir, but the Planning Department ignored this unless more in-
formation could be produced. I now have the study done for the ~
Rivanna Water AuthoritFwhich states building should be halted in this
area. .._ ~
There is a dis~crepancy as to whether this section of Route 666, off
which these lots-are proposed, is an "01d Country Road" or a private
road. I have more information regarding this.
My property adjoins the Bazine property which qualifies me to appeal but~ .
the Board of Supervisors should be aware I am also acting on behalf of the
residents of Route 666. I have surveyed most of the residents Of Route 66~
and they are unanimously against this subdivision. I will pr_,sent my .....
survey and other information to the Board of Supervisors When this appeal
is heard. Will you kindly let me know when this matter will be heard?
Respectfully yours,
(signed) Dennis Marcello"
Mr. Tucker read the Ptanning Staff report as well as .the list of conditions recommended
by the staff and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 22, 1980:
Location: On the ~west ,side at the end o,f Route 666 o~f of Route 664'nor.thwest
of Earlysville. Property is described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 19 in the
White Hall Magisterial District.
Total~Acrea$~: 41.~3~1 acres.
Zoning: A-l, Agriculture.
H.ist.ory: December 17, 1979 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission condi-
tionall.y a~pproved the division of Parcel B~from a 173 acre property.
Proposal:
A r:equeSt'.t-o .divide nine 10ts with an average~lot ~siz:e_..of_4:~_4 acres.
Reason for Planning Commission RevieW: Parcel is served by a 'Priva~ roadJ ·
Topography of Area:
There. are, 25% or greater slopes loc~ted'-on this. propertY',~..
Condition of Roads. Serving Proposal: ~Route 6616~currently accommodates 109
vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment:
South' Fork Rivanna.
Soils: Are deep, well drained except along.the streams and steep slopes ap-
~ proaching the stream.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural conservation with one dwelling
unit per five acres.
School Impact: Will be slight with a total projected enrollment of five' students.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Staff Comment: The Buck Mountain Reservoir .study indicates that a small portion
of this property will be in the impoundment area; most' of the-remaining
property will be in the buffer area. ''
The Highway_.Department's only comment was that, as additional properties
are subdivided beyond the end'of state maintenance, additional burden will
be Pla6ed~on Route 666 which is presently a narrow gravel road.
An adjacent property owner submitted a letter'opposing 'the division because
of the County Road condition and-the density of lot divisions surrounding
their property. ~ '
TBis preliminary plat will meet the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
requirements and staff recommends approVal subject to:
Recommended Conditions Of Appr.ova.!.:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
Ce
Health Department approval;
Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County
Engineer approval of the road and entrances; 2. County Attorney
approval of the maintenance agreement;
Waiver of Section 18-~8.6(d) for Lot 1.
On April' 22, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the Ferdinand
Bazine Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
ae
Health Department approval;
Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County'
Engineer approval of the road and entrances; 2 Count~
Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement;
Show joint entrances where possible.
June ll~ 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Your cooperation in helping us eliminate the serious health pro_blemin this
subdivision is greatly appreciated."
Agenda Item No. BB. ApPeal: Ferdinand BazinePPreliminary Plat~ (Preliminary Subdivisio
of Lots i through 9, the property of Ferdinand and Judith Bazine, located at the end of
State Route 666, about 2.5 miles northwest of Earlysville, Albemarle County, Virginia;
dated March 18, 1980, and drafted by R.-~O. Snow and R. W. Ray, Inc., P.C.)~ Mr. Fisher
noted receipt of~ the following two letters requesting that the Ferdinand Bazine Prelim-
inary Plat be appealed:
"May 2, 1980
Col. Will~iam R. Washington, Chairman
Albemarle County Planning Commission
Re: Bazine SubdiVision
Dear Sir:
My wife and I are writing to you, requesting an appeal on the dec~isio~
rela.ted to the Bazine Subdivision. At the outset, I want to say that we
are not queS-tioning the right of the Bazines to subdivide their property,
but rather .question' ~the way the property i's to be divdded with relationship
to the old county road. Our appeal is based on the following considerations:
first, it is our impression that the recommendation for subdivision by the
planning office was based on the conduit±on of Route 66~,-a ~paved~ re'ad and
not Route '666, the gr~vel road, which~ermin~es in..the~right of~'~way So-the
property in question. The condition of Route 666 is such that I do not
believe that it would adequately handle the increased amount of traffic
necessitated by this subdivision, unless this road were to be ~upgraded. I
believe that before this subdivision is approved, a recommendation from the
Highway Department should be made regarding this road's abiTity .~o "~stand
the increased usage.
Second, it was eWident' from ~other discussions durin~g-the evenin.g~o~f ~ther
subdivisions on public roads, that only one or two entrances into the
subdivis~ion were desirable. The subdivision, as proposed,~ would require
approximately six or seven entrances off the old county road and this is
certainly an aberrance with the above policy. A statement~'~Was made duri~ng~
the meeting that this was a private road, but,.~in fact, this is an old
county road, v.~hieh has never been abandoned and, therefore is a public
right of way. I submit that if this is indeed a public right of way, that
this is, in fact, not ~ private road and, therefore, should be treated as a
pUblic road. I do not believe that it is the intent of the-planning
commission to approve strip development of public roads.
Third, suggestion of alternate developments of the property were made and,
having person'ally walked oVer the 'property myself, it is evident~ that a
single access road into the property extending along the higher eleVations
would .be appropriate and would allow maximum' development of the property
with good house' site locations. I believe that if the contour~map oF this
property were stud~ed that it would be evident that this would be possible
without sacrificing the best house, site for the property. I would, there-
f6re, suggest~ that~ alt~e~native pl~ns '~ for theproperty ~b'e Studiedbefore ~
granting the final approval. .
Fourth, .considering the grades and S~iopes of ~the property, it would app~ear
that the~e should be 's~0me"cOncernlfo~~ runoff ~6ontr01~reSUlting from buil~ding
sites or multiple d~iveways on th8 SloP~e~'~tc'6ach~indiVi'dual 10t~ ~I' believe
that this factor should also be considered.
Fifth, I believe that the Buck MOuntain~Wat'ershed Report is'~ in fact, a
major concern, although granted that. there has been no official approval of
a policy regarding~'it. I think, however, the Planning Office should be~
fully familiar with this as a potential consideration and I think a simple
call to Mr. Williams at the Rivanna~Water Authority Would cl. arify this
consideration.
On the basis~of the above considerations, we would like to appeal the
recent decision-regarding theBazine Subdivision~ ~' ~ ~
Sincerely,
(signed) Harry A. Wellons, Jr., 1~I. ~'D.
Florence Lee Wellons"
"April 30, 1980
Mr. Robert Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
Dear Mr. Tuckeri
Pursuant to Section 18-~(A) of the Albemarle County~Code,~ I hereby appeal
the decision of the Department of PIanni~g approving-t~e s~ubdi~wision-oD 4~0
acres off Route 666 into 9 lots by Mr. & Mrs. Ferdinand Bazine. I am
appealing this decision on the following grounds:
1. State Route 666' is a .dirt road.currertly classified as '~toterable" but
the resulting doubling or tripling'of traffic witlchange-the road to
less than tolerable and will constitute a danger to the safety, wel~l-
being, and comfort of the residents of Route 666.
June ll, ~1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said that Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, has made a different
recommendation for the impounded area and the l'00 foot setback from that impoundment for
building and septic. Mr. Tucker Continued by stating that ~he~applicant has also shown a
revised plat that combines lots 6 and ?-if the County decides to accept the buffer area as
shown by the RivannaWater and Sewer Authority~(which would completely inundate lot 7).
However, if a setback is decided upon as suggested bY Mr. Bailey, lots 6~and 7 would
remain as shoWn.
Mr. Fisher said~he wished to clarify the~point that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir
boundaries~are not be£ore the Board as an agenda item, and that this information cannot be
used because no determination has beenmade on this matter at this time by any agency.
Mr. Tucker said since this is a preliminary plat, it might help the applicant t~
before he prepares the final plat, what direction the Board might wish to take regarding a
reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek. Mr. Fisher said this stresses the importance of re-
ceiving a recommendation from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as.to where an im-
poundment and buffer area shoUld be located. Mr. Fisher said since the.planning for the
proposed reservoir is yet unfinished, it leaves the Board uncertain as~to how to handle
this preliminary plat appeal.
Mrs. Mary Marcello~ wife o~ Dennis Marcello, appealant, read the following .statement:
Exhibit One: Map from Route 66~ to end of Route 666. Shows four bl~nd c~ves in
first 8/10th mile (State maintained part). First 8/10th of a mile of Route 666
is a dirt road just wide enough for two cars to pass. This part of the road is
almost always~-fUll of pot hoies and in the winter is very m~shy, while in the
dry weather cars set up clouds of dust. This sectiOn is classified as "tolerable"
by the State. The resulting doubling or tripling of traffic will surely~change
the road~to less~than tolerable and~will constitute a danger to the safety~,
comfOrt~ health and well-being of the residents of Route 666. The~minutes of
the Board of Supervisors dated March 2~, l~?? (Page-I~)~states that Route 666
residents Wilson, Runquist, and Morris complained or, bad road conditions.~and
asked why the State doesn't pave the road. A State road expert stated "the road
has bad alignment, is narrow and there is little or no-base". These conditions
haven't improved and mo~re development will make the road worse -- untolerabIe.
Where conditions will be less then tolerable there is precedent for denying more
development. Mrs. Norma Diehl of the Planning Commission ga~e two or three
recent examples of ~denials and she voted against this proposal~ too.
Exhibit Two: Survey of l~ homeowners b-y Dennis MarC~ello'. Three or four homes
were not conbacted due to time or homsowners not home~ Of ~ homeowners con-
tacted, all l~ are opposed to this mde~elopment. All-l~ feel the road~is~b~d now
and can't handle more traffic. The Board of Supervisors decision will affect:
The health and safety of ~6 current residents p~us those not reached by
this survey.
Over 1000 acres Plus that of owners not reached.
Approximately ~1,827,000 worth of property~plus that of those not reached.
Surely the rights and property value of the current residents and t~xpayers
should out-weigh the right of a developer to make a profit at the expense of the
aforementioned current own~ers.
Exhibit Three: · ~
a) Newspaper clipping from the Daily Progress dated April B0, 1~80.
b) Report by Camp-Dresse~ and McKee Inc. Environmental Engineers off July,
1977.. This report was done for the Rivanna Wate~ and Sewer Autlh~rity..and is
titled "Report on Alternative Water Supply Source". POints of interest:
1., The Bazine property lies in the run-off area to Buck Mountain Stream
2. Thirty lots proposed in "Wind-Drift" development are in Buck Mountain
Stream run-off-area.
Population of Albemarle County is projected to go from 52,'800 in 1980
to 105,500 in the year 2,000 and 161,000 by 2020. Where will the water
come from for all these people? Existing facilities Will'not meet the
demand by the year 2015.
The Rivanna Reservoir is considered to be in eutrophic state.
5. Of the many new sources of water studied, the water quality of Buck
Mountain Stream is prohabl'y the best of all sources.
6. Changes such .as Bazine development and Wind Drift deVeloPment will add
to eutrophic conditions,
While at least '~6 residents of Route 666 will be affected by the PropoSed devel-
opment, all the residents of Albemarle County will be affected by a lack of
potable water in the future if.the Board of Supervisors doesn't halt this kind
of~development around watershed areas, now. Surely the Board of Supervisors will
see their, duty.to.the current and future citizens of Albemarle County.
Respectfully submitted,
(signed) Dennis Marcello and other residents of Route 666"
Next to-speak was. Dr. Harry A. Wellons, Jr[, who~ summarized his letter to the Planning
Commission of~ May 2, 1980.
Mr..Fred Landess, representing the apPlicant, said the applicant tried to design an
interior road system-as suggested by those ap. pealing this plat. Mr. Landess said the
applicant's engineer stated that this could not he'done successfully, and~designed a
preliminary plat ~showing lots in compliance with all County ordinances. Mr. Landess said
the plan is to develop t-he road as a private road in accordance with count standards and
with a proper maintenance agreement. Mr. Landess noted that Mr. and Mrs. Bazine were
present and would be glad to answer any questions from the Board. ·
June 11, 1980 (Regular Day MeetinE)
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Landess~took the~position that this portion of Route 666 is a
private road.- Mr. Landess said it was his understanding from research that the road was
in existence as a "public county road" in the 1930,S when the State_took over all County
roads. At that time, the State chose not to take this particular road into the State
system. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker if it is expected as a condition of approval
that this subdivision hav.e acces~ via pub~lic road~ Mr. Tucker said at the time this plat
was submitted, i~ was thought that this was an old County road because property lines went
to the centerline of the easement. This has recently been updated to an existing private
road. Mr. Tucker said Mr. St. John should~discuss the legal~status o~the road. Mr. St.
John said research was done on this, s.nd an Attorney General'~s opinion was_obtained on
this subject in 1976 regarding the status of roads which were County roads prior to the
1932 Byrd Highway Act. Mr. St. John said he agrees with the Attorney GEneral's opinion
that County roads not taken~by~the~State into the secondary system ~n ~9.~2~ nonetheless
were public ~roads in 1932 and they remain public roads today, unless this~Board of Super-
visors has taken action since then to abandon the public right of ~ay. Mr. St. John said
it is presumed that the road is 30 feet wide. Mr. St. John said unlike a subdivision
road, the fee is not-vested in the County, the~ee~to the road is held bY th~adJoining
landowners, provided the road is a boundary between them. If the ~land ~s owned on both
sides of the road by the same person then that person owns the whole road, and~i'f' the
County should abandon the road, then the rights of the public would be extinguished and
the road would revert to the landowner. Mr. St. John said absent proof to the contrary,
this is.a public road, and under the subdivision ordinance, this does ngt give the owner
the right to treat it as a state.highway and develop along the road as he could if he had
frontage on a State secondary road~ The ordinance requires..that either~lots ha~e frontage
on a state'highway or that new roads be constructed to state.highway specifications or
that a private road be ~approved by the Planning Com~i~sion and built to County standards.
For maintenance purpos~s,.this is~treated as a private road. Mr. Fisher asked since a
maintenance agreement is required for a private road, would all parcelS which use this
private road be required to be party to that maintenance agreement. MrJ St.~John said
there was no way to force homeowners not a part of this subdivision but who also have
access via this private road, to bec~me part of the subdiVision's maintenance agreement.
~Dr. Iachetta said if the road is now the property line between the Bazine and Wellon's
property then half~ of that road is on Dr. Wellons' property. Mr. St. John said 15 feet is
on Dr. Wellons' prOPerty. Dr. Iachetta then asked~if the subdivider has-the right to cut
lots beyond the centerline of that road. Mr. St. John said no, the applicant had no
rights to cu~ lots~ unilaterally along that road. Mr. Fisher said 'tm~ere is'a ~problem,
There are two plats, each is signed and sealed with the name~R0ger W. Ray, but one states
that this is a County road and the other states it is a private road. Mr. ~Landess stated
the reason Mr. Ray did that was because he called the State highway department which said
there was no record of that road,' but he ~ls0 could find no record that'the road was ever
abandoned. Mr. St. John said if an old plat is discovered that says "old county road" on
it, that will be all there is available.' Mr. St. John added that the only true method for
determining if this ever was truly a County road is to interview longtime residents of the
area. MisS Nash asked how is it determined where the centerline of the road is located.
Mr. St'. John said the surveyor would loCate the old'roadbed a~d ~hmen just 'measure. Miss
Nash then asked if the present road were constructed to a 20 foot width, if all the
additionalfootage would have to CmOme from the Bazine property.~ Mr. St. John said that
was correct, that no additional footage cou!d come from the WeIlons' prOperty unless it
was purchased or condemned.
Dr. Iachetta said he felt there was enough doubt as to-the locmation of the road to
put in question whether or not this will be a proper subdivision under current ordinances.
Mr. St. John said there has been a survey of the area showing exactly where the road is,
and there is no other survey that he knows of that indicates the road to be elsewhere.
Mr. Roudabush said he would mot be willing to approve this plat if half of the proposed
private road. is located on the property Owned by the Wellons'. Mr. Roudabush said that
would be placing a burden on Mr. Wellons which~is not his to bear, and ~he felt the plat
should Only be apprOved if the entire road for the Bazine subdivision is plac~d, on the
Bazine property.
Dr. Wellons said Route 666 is actually shown on the tax maps in the-Albemarle County
Real Estate Office, as a continuation of that dead-end, going all the way back to the rear
oF the Wellons' property to where it meets Route 776 at the foot of-Buck Mountain.
Mr. C. L. Mooney said at one time his father owned all the property presently in
question regarding this Plat. Mr. Mooney said the road at-one time served as an entrance
to the family farm, and that since that time, the bed of the road has been moved several
times and is not where it was originally located.
Mr. Landess said botch his office and'the office of surveyor Roger W. Ray have re-
searched the location of~the road, and it appears Clear that thiS is the location of the
original county road until the year 19~2. Mr. Fisher sa~id he'mfound'.it very unusual to
find two plats signed and sealed by the same surveyor, dated within a few weeks of each
other, indicating a different status for the same road.
An unidentified lady asked at what point the adjacent preperty owners-will know
exactly what is approved'by'the Board of S~pervisors. Mr. Tucker said this is a pre-
liminary plat, and the applicant must still go through final plat process. This same lady
then asked if there would be something in writing saying the approved plat must remain the
same as shown, and what her legal liability would be if half the road is located on her
property. Mr. St. John said there would be no legal liability if the road were properly
maintained and nothing was done to willfully cause an accident to happen,-M-r. Fisher then
commented that he could never foresee this road being taken into the State secondary
system, because there are just too many problems involved. Mr. Landess noted that any
conditions placed on this plat by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Super-
visors are written directly on the plat, so there will be no confusion.
Mrs. Bazine said the surveyor designed this plat the way-it is being presented today,
because of the numerous setback requirements which must be complied with according to
County Ordinances. An unidentified man said he d'isagreed with Mrs. Bazine's statement,
and could not see how certain setback requirements could make it difficult to build homes
on seven lots on ~2 acres of land.
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Landess~took the position that this portion o~ Route 666 is a
private road. Mr. Landess. said it was his understanding from research that the road was
in existence asI a "public county road" in the 19~0's when the State took over al~ County
roads. At that time, the State chose not to take this particular road into the State
system. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker if it is expected as a condition of approval
that this subdivision hav,e acces.s via public road~ Mr. Tucker said at the time this plat
was submitted, it was thought that this was an old County road because property lines went
to the centerline of the easement. This has recently been updated to an existing private
road. Mr. Tucker said Mr, St. John should discuss the legal status o~ the road. Mr. St.
John said research was done on this, and an Attorney General's opinion was~obtained on
this subject in 1~76 regarding the status of roads which were County roads prior to the
1~2 Byr~d Highway Act. Mr. St. John said he a~grees~with the Attorney General's opinion
that County roads not taken~by~the State into the secondary system ~n ~9.~2~ ~onetheless
were public roads in 1~2 and they remain public roads today, unless this Board of Super-
visors has taken action since then to abandon the public right of ~ay. Mr. St. John said
it is presumed that the road is 50 feet wide. Mr. St. John said unlike a. subdivision
road, the fee is ~not vested in the County, the~fee to the road is held by the.adjoining
landowners, provided the road is a boundary between them~ If the land is owned on both
sides of the road by the same person then that person owns the whole road, and i'f' the
County should abaodon the road, then the rights of mthe public would be extinguished and
the road would revert to the landowner. Mr. St. John said absent proof to the contrary,
this is a pUblic road, and under the subdivision ordinance, this does not give the owner
the right to treat it as a state highway and develop along~the road as ~e could if he had
frontage on a State secondary road~ The ordinance requires ~that~either'lots have frontage
on a state.highway or that new roads be constructed to state highway specifications or
that a private road be ~approved by the Planning Com~ission and built to County standards.
For maintenance purpos~s,~.this is~treated as a private road. Mr. Fisher asked since a
maintenance agreement is reGuired for a private road, would all parcels which use this
private road be required to be party to that maintenance agreement. Mr~ S~.~John said
there was no way to force homeowners not a part of this subdivision but who also have
access via this private road, to become part of the Subdivision's maintenance agreement.
Dr. Iachetta said if the r.oad is now the property line between the Bazine and Wellon's
property then half~.o.f that rOad is on Dr. Wellons' property~ Mr. St. John said 15 feet is
on Dr. Wellons' property. Dr. Iachetta then asked~if the subdivider has the right to cut
~ots beyond the centerline of that road. Mr. St. John said no, the applicant had no
rights to cut lots unilaterally along that road. Mr. Fisher said t~ere is a ~roblem,
There are two plats, each is signed and sealed with the name Roger W. Ray, but one states
that this is a County road and the other states it is a private road. Mr. Landess stated
the reason Mr. Ra~ did that was because he called the State highway department which said
there was no record of that road, but he ~ls0 could find ~o record that the road was ever
abandoned. Mr. St. John said if an old plat is discovered that says "old county road" on
it, that will be all there is available. Mr. St. John added that the only true method for
determining if this ever was truly a County road is to interview longtime residents of the
area. Miss Nash asked how is it determined where the centerline of the road is located.
Mr. St. John said the surveyor would loCa~e the old roadbed' anmd t~en just~me~sure. ~iss
Nash then asked if the present road were constructed to a ~0 foot width, if all the
additional footage would have to oome from the Bazine property. Mr. St. John said that
was correct, that no additional footage could come from th~ Wellons' ProperSy unless it
was purchased or condemned.m
Dr. Iachetta said he felt there was enough'doubt as to the location of the road to
put in question whether or not this will be a proper subdivision ~nder current ordinances.
Mr. St. John said there has been a survey of the area showing exactly where the road is,
and there is no other survey that he knows of that indicates the road to be elsewhere.
Mr. Roudabush said he would oot be willing to approve this plat if half of the proposed
private rOmad is located on the property owned by the Wellons'. Mr. Roudabush said that
would be placing ~ burden on Mr. Wellons whichis not his to bear, and he felt the plat
should only be approved if the entire road for the Bazine subdivision is placed on the
Bazine property.
Dr. Wellons said Route 666 is actually shown on the tax maps in the Albemarle County
Real Estate"Office, as a continuation of that dead-end, going all the way back to the rear
of the Wellons' property to where it meets Route 776 at the foot of Buck Mountain.
~. C~ L. Mooney said at one time his father owned all the property presently in
question regarding ~is Plat. Mr. Mooney said the road at one time served as an entrance
to the family farm, and that since that time, the bed of the rosd has been moved several
times and is not where it was originally located.
Mr. Landess said both his office andthe office of surveyor Roger W. Ray have re-
searched the loCation of the road, and it appears clear that this is the'loc&tion of the
original county road until the year 1~2. Mr. Fisher sa-id he found it very unusual to
find two plats signed and sealed by the same surveyor, dated within a few weeks of each
other, indicating a different status for the same road.
An unidentified lady asked at what point the adjacent property owners will know
exactly what mis apprOved by'the Board of S~pervisorSo Mr. Tucker said this is a pre-
liminary plat, and the applicant must still go through final plat process. This same lady
then asked if there would be something in writing saying the approved plat must remain the
same as shown, and what her legal liability would be if half the ro~d is located on her
property° Mr. St. John said there would be no ~eg~l liability if the road were properly
maintained and nothing was done to Willfully cause an accident to happen. ~Mr. Fisher then
commented that he could never foresee this road being taken into the State secondary
system, because there are Just too many problems involved. Mr. Landess noted that any
conditions placed on this plat by either the Planning Commission or the Board of Super-
visors are written directly on the ~lat, so there will be no confusion.
Mrs. Bazine said the surveyor designed this plat the way-it is being-presented today,
because of the numerous setback requirements which must be comDlied with according to
County Ordinances. An unidentified man said he d'isagreed with Mrs. Bazine's.statement,
and could not see how certain setback requirements could make it difficult to build homes
on seven lots on ~2 acres of land.
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr~ Tucker said that Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, has made a different
recommendation for the impounded area and the l~00 foot setback from that impoundment for
building and septic. Mr. Tucker continued by stating that~ the~applicant has also shown a
revised plat that'combines lots 6 and ?-if the County decides to acceDt the buffer area as
shown by the Rivanna W~ter and Sewer Authority.~(which would completely inundate lot 7).
However, if a setback is decided upon as suggested by Mr. Bailey., lo't~s 6 and ? would
remain as shown.
Mr. Fisher said~he wished to clarify the point that the Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir
boundaries.-are not before the Board as an agenda item, and that this information cannot be
used because no determlin~tion has been'made on this matter at this time by any agency.
Mr. Tucker said since this is a preliminary plat, it might help the applicant
before he prepares the final plat, what direction the Board might wish to take regarding a
reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek. Mr. Fisher said this stresses the importance of re-
ceiving a recommendation from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority'as to where an im-
poundment and buffer area should be located. Mr. Fisher said since the~planning for the
proposed reservoir is yet unfinished, it leaves the Board uncertain as"to how~to handle
this preliminary plat appeal.
Mrs. Mary Marcello, wife of Dennis Marcello, appealant, read the following statement:
Exhibit One: Map frOm Houte 664 to e~d or-Route 666. Shows four bl~nd curves in
first 8/10th mile (State maintained part). First 8/10th of a mile of Route 666
is a dirt road just wide enough for two cars to pass. This part of the road is
almost always-~fu!1 of pot~hotes and in the winter is very m~shy, while in the
dry weather cars set up clouds of dust. This section is~classified as ~"tolerable"
by the State' The resulting doubting or tripling of traffic will surely~change
the road~to less than~tolerabla'~and will constitute a danger to'the safety~,
comfort,~health and well~being of the residents of ROute 666. The minUtes of
the Board of Supervisors dated March 23, 1977 (Page~II~)~sSates~that Route 666
residents Wilson, RunquiSt, and Morris complained of~bad road.~-conditions, and
asked why the State doesn't pave the road. A State road expert stated "the road
has bad alignment, is narrow and there is little or no base"~ These conditions~
haven't improved and more development will make the road worse -- untolerable.
Where conditions will be less~then tolerable there is precedent for denying more
development. Mrs, Norma Diehl of the Planning Commission-gave two or three
recent examples of ~denials and she voted against this proposal too.
Exhibit. Two: Survey of l~ homeowners by Dennis MarC~e!lo. Three. or four homes-
were not conbacted due to time or homaOwners not home. Of ~.4 homeowners con-
tacted, all 14 are opposed to this development. All ~l~ feel the road~is bad now
and can't'~andlemore traffic. The Board of Superv--~sors decision will affect:
The health and safety of 46 current residents p~us those not reached by
this survey.
Over 1000 ~acres Plus that of owners not reaohed. ~
ApprOximately $1,827,000 worth of property~plus that of those not reached.
Surely the rights and property value of the current residents and t~xpayers
should out-weigh the right of a developer to make a profit at the expense of the
aforementioned current owners.
Report by Camp-Dresser and McKee Inc. Environmental Engineers of July,
1977. This report was done fOr the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority~.and is
titled "Report on Alternative Water Supply Source". POints of interest:
I, The Bazine property lies in the run-off area to Buck Mountain Stream
2. Thirty lots proposed in "Wind-Drift" development are in Buck Mountain
Stream run-off.area.
3. Population of Albemarle CoUnty is projected to go from 52,800 in 1980
to 105,500 in the year 2,000 and 161,000 by 2~20. Where will the water
come from for all these people? Existing facilities Wil!-not meet the
demand by the year 2015.
~.The Rivanna Reservoir is considered to be in eutrophic state.
5. Of the many new sources of water studied, the water quality of Buck
Mountain.Stream is.probably the best of all sources.
6.. Changes such ,as Bazine development and.Wind Drift deVelopment will add
to e.utrophic conditions.
While at least '46 residents of Route 666 will be affected by the proposed devel-
opment, all the residents of Albemarle County will be affected by a lack of
potable water.in the future if..the Board of Supervisors 4oesn't halt .this kind
of_development around watershed areas now. Surely the Board of Supervisors will
see their, duty to the current and future citizens of Albemarle County.
Respectfully submitted,
(signed) Dennis Marc.ello and other residents of Route ~66" ·
Next to-speak was. Dr. Harry A. Wellons, Jr.,, Who. summarized his letter to the Planning
Commission of May 2, 1980
Mr..Fred Landess, representing the applicant, said the applicant tried to design an
interior road sy. stem .as suggested by those aDpealing this plat. Mr. Landess Said the
applicant's engineer, stated that this could not be~dOne successfully, and-designed a
preliminary plat-showing lots in. compliance with all County ordinances. Mr. Landess said
the plan is to develop the road as a Private road in accordance with count standards and
with a proper maintenance agreement. Mr. Landess noted that Mr. and Mrs. Bazine were
present and would be glad to answer any questions from the Board.
Exhibit Three: · ~ ~
a) Newspaper clipping fr.om the Daily Progress dated April 30, 1980.
b)
June 11, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department ~o£ Highways and Transportation said he
would like to disagree with one other statement. He said Route 666 is actually in the
non-tolerable category, carrying 109 vehicles per day. To be tolerable, it should be 16
feet wide and paved, whereas it is actually ~l~ feet wide and unpaved and tolerable to 49
vehicles per day. Mr~ Roosevelt added'that with a potential for nine lots, that would
create a possible increase in traffic of about 50 to 55%, not two or three times the
present number of vehicle trips per day as noted earlier.
Mr. Fisher then closed the discussion for a decision by the Board. Dr. Iachetta said
he would recommend sending this plat back to the Planning Commission, because there is an
undefined road, which makes this plot's compliance with-the Subdivision Ordinance ques-
tionable. Dr. Iachetta also questioned how a private road can be created on half of
someone else's property~ Mr. St. John said it is within the power of the Board to send
the plat back for clarification. Mr. Fisher questioned the status of the existing roadway--
where~it can be developed, how it can be developed, whose land it will be developed on,
and who will be permitted to use it~ Mr. Fisher said the misinformation received by the
regarding the tolerability Of Route 666~make~ it
Planning Staff and Planning Commission be permitted .at all. Mr. Fisher said 'lastly that
questionable if the subdivision should
e wondered if there were a better layOut for the tots which woul~ create fewer problems
h~ -~ ..... ~T .~ ~n~t orooerties and the reservoir downstream.
or erosion on ~n!s prop~r~, ~ ..... ~ ..... ~- ~ ' ~ . ~ · .
Dr. Iachetta offered motion that this preliminary plat be re~erred back to the
Planning Commission for resolution of the following questions: ~ - ~ ~ ~
l' StatUs of the existing private road to-determine if an Internal road could be
used to serve-'all of the lots.
2. Whether these people could develop'the property using t is road as~an access.
3. Whose land the road is on. ~
4. Who would be permitted to use the road if it was'constr cted.~ ~
5. If Route 666 is in a tolerable state.,
6. Whether there is a better layout for the lots in order ~o create lesser problems
of erosion on this property, adjacent properties and th~ reservoir downstream.
Mr. St. John said presuming that legally the county road exists, would-the Board want
the Planning Commission to investigate whether or not it is more feasible to put the road
somewhere entirely on the applicant's property, even though he may legally do it this way.
Dr. Iachetta said he would only approve of a private road wholly ~n this applicant's
propertY, and that the road conform with the proper~junction of the State maintained Route
666. Dr. Iachetta's motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded
vote: ~
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
At 10:43 A.M., Mr. FiSher declared a brief recess.
A.M.
The meeting reconvened at 10:55
Agenda~Item No. 3C.
presented plans and an option sheet to the Board for their review.
Discussion of the Hydraulic Road Projeqt. Mr. Dan Roosevelt
$~,356~285~
294.790
$1,651,075
Option #1: Four lane, curb and gutter roadway from Route 29 to Georgetown Road
with sidewalk on west side of road. (includes a taper beyond Georgetown): ~ ·
R/W & Utilities $ 482,000
Construction 1~289,000
~' Total $1,771,006
Option #2: Four'ilane roadway with curb and gutter from Route 29 to Swanson Drive.
Three-lane roadwaywith curb and gutter and sidewalk on the west side from Swanson
Drive to Georgeto:wn Road; (includes a taper beyond Georgetown).
R/W & Utilities $ 482,000
Construction . 1~118,'000
Total ~ $1,600,000
Option #3: Same:as Option #2 plus extending three lane roadway to Whitewood Road
(with c~rb andgUtt~r sidewalk and biketrail along west side.) (Includes. a
taper bey.ond~Whitewood).
. -_ R/W & Utiliti.es $ 920,000
Construction 1~533,000
Total ~2,453,000
Option #3-~:~ Same as~ Option #3 without curb and gutter, sidewalk or biketrail and
with donated right ~of way on school property and Goodwillie.?~o~r~.~nd reduced
damage at Hop-In Store.
R/W & Utilities $ 775,000
Construction . ~ _ 1,~88,000
Total $2,263,000
"Options For Hydraulic Road Improvement
Funds available for Hydraulic Road; Balance 4/80
Allocations80-81
June 11 ~1980. (Regular Day Meeting)
Option #4:- ~Same as~'Option #3 plus a twb lane rural cross section along the
approved alignment to Rio Road.
R/W Utilities $1,516,000~
Construction 1,878,000
TOtal $3,39-4,'000 -
Option #5: Reconstruct the Rio/Hydraulic intersection to bring Rio in at a right
angle and allow for left turns from Hydraulic Road.
R/W & Utilities $150,000
· COnstruction 150~'000
_~ TOtal $300,000
Mr. Roosevelt referred to the options sheet, stating that $90,000 has already been
spent preparing the planS, and as yet, no right of way has.been purchased, Mr,~ Roosevelt
said it was anticipated in the budget that as much as. $715,000-would be allocated to this
project this year, but'due to a shortfall in revenues, only $294,790 will be allocated in
the 1980-81 budget, bringing the total avaitable~for this project to. $1,651,075. Mr.
Roosevelt said money COUld be drawn from'o~her projects to make up for ~t-he reduction i~ .....
funds, and noted that with the present funds, construction could not go much further than
Georgetown Road. Mr. Roosevelt said in Options 1 and 2, it is recommended that curb and
gutter be placed along the left side of the road because storm sewers have been designed
all the way from Georgetown Road~to Route 29, and it was concluded that a proper improve-
ment to this' area~ mus~ include a storm sewer system. Mr. Roosevelt.said the City of
Charlottesville has agreed to participate with the Highway Department and ~the County in
the cost of a storm drainage system, in order to alleviate a.water problem in the~Cedar
Hills area. Dr. Iachetta said he felt all the proposals end up with a substantial re-
duction in vehicle carrying capacity. Mr, Roosevelt said option one does not cut the
capacity of the road, only the length of the project. Option two would allow for three
lanes past Georgetown Road, the cen~er lane would mainly be used for left turns which
would allow ~the congestion to flow past those turning vehicles. Mr. Roosevelt added that
option two is a short term solution to'the problem; in years to come four lanes will
definitely be reqUired. Dr. Iachetta said his observation is that none of the options
even approach the areaof Albemarle High School, which has the most severe traffic problem
on Hydraulic Road at the present time. Mr. Roosevelt said option three does address that
area with three lanes of proposed roadway, assuming right of way must be purc.hased. Mr.
Fisher said the reason this is being discussed today, is that some decision must be made
for the Six'Year Highway Plan as to where funds should be allocated. Mr. ~Fisher said he
did not want to continue accumulating funds for Hydraulic Road when there are so many
other road needs in the County; for example the Meadow Creek Parkway (McIntire/Rio Road
improvement).
Mr. Lindstrom asked how long it would take to accumulate the funds to go ahead with
Option #3. Mr. Roosevelt said the revised financial plan shows approximately $640,000
available next year which could go to either McIntire ROad or Hydraulic Road improvements,
out of a total budget of $1,071,000. Mr. Roosevelt said the costs quoted do not include
funds which will be paid into the project on Hydraulic Road by the City of Charlottesville
for the storm sewers and the County of Albemarle for sidewalks and bike trails. Mr.
Roosevelt~said the construction estimates are based on bids received on current construc-
tion projects. Mr. Roudabush asked how much time it would take to redesign Hydraulic Road
for any of the options presented today. Mr. Roosevelt said he believes the March adver-
tisement date can be met, and added that the right of way to he. purchased will be-the same
no matter which construction option is chosen. Mr. Roosevelt said he would recommend that
the Board choose no less than a combination of options 3 andS~ ~Mr. Roosevelt said
option 5 is necessary because of the turn that is presently there, as well as the "Town-
wood" development which is being planned based on the road being corrected to a right
angle intersection. Mr..Fisher said deducting those costs paid by the City and the
County, a total cost for Options 3 and 5 would be approximately $2'500,000. Mr. Lindstrom
asked if it would be f~asib!e to gO ahead with option 3 end-in a subsequent budget allocate
to option 5. Mr. Roosevelt said there is enough money allocated to this project now to
begin construction with the understanding that future allocations would cover the re-
maining debt Mr. Roosevelt added that the Rio/Hydraulic intersection portion should be
kept with the Hydraulic Road project, because later on it would cost more to fund this
work due to inflation and smaller projects do not get large volume prices.
Dr. Iachetta said he could not think of any road which-needs more improvement than
the stretch of road between Route 29 and Albemarle High School on Hydraulic Road. Dr.
Iachetta said the problem of the County growing in population and having no money to make
the necessary road improvements has grown critical over the last few years, and maybe it's
time the local government representatives make'more noise to legislators to try and get
secondary highway funding directed to the fast growth areas of the state. Mr. Fisher
asked if-the Board goes with options 3 and 5, how this will affect the financing of future
projects. Mr. Roosevelt said it is scheduled to advertise the McTntire/Rio Road project
for June, 1983, and it appears the necessary fdnds'will be available by that scheduled
time. However, Mr. Roosevelt noted that plans for that project are going so slowly that
it may be impossible .to meet such a deadline. Mr. Roosevelt said if the County authorized
an additional $640,000 allocation to be made to the HydraUlic Road project this year, that
money could be made up cn the~McIntire Road pr'Oject the following year, and advertisement
for McIntire could be made in June, 1984.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is a tremendous commitment. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion that the Board go forward with Options 3 and 5 as proposed by the Highway Depart-
ment, which represents a substantial change from the existing commitment made on Hydraulic
Road. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked if this amount 'includes the
right of way along the length of the project. Mr. Roosevelt said the only right of way
included in this funding is that right of way within the design limits in order to build
what is shown here, but it is the ultimate right of way. Mr. Fisher asked if it included
the right of way between Whitewood and Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said it does not.
1980
Dr. Iachetta sa~d he would support the motion, although he felt neither this~project
nor the McIntire/Rio Road project wilt be completed to the form which traffic and development
demand per the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta repeated that eVerything possible should
be done to convince the people in Richmond that the road situation in areas of fast growth
requires additional money. Mr. Fisher said this is a dramatic change from what the County
had hoped to accomplish a few years ago, and hoped the citizens of the County understood
the problems in meeting the needs of the community. Roll was then Called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: ~Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan. Prepared by
William Morris Foster, dated April 14, 1980, of Parcel 31D, Tax Map 45, Charlottesville
District, located on the south side of Route ?43 adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir. Mr.
Tucker read the Planning Staff report and Planning Commission recommendation from its
meeting of May 27, 1980 as follows:
Location: Parcel 31D~ Tax Map 45, Charlottesville District; located on the
south side of Route ?43, adjacent to the Rivanna Reservoir.
Acreage: 3.2?6 acres.
Zoning: A-l, Agricultural.
Proposal: To locate the Monticello Wesleyan Church on this site to.be completed
in two phases (ll,400 square feet).
Topography of A~ea:
Gently rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route ?4B currently carries
3,535 vehicle trips per day and is listed as tolerable.across the frontage
of the property. Route ?~3 becomes nen-tclerable northeast o£ .the site.
Watershed ImpoUndment: South Fork Rivanna.~
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils are deep and~well
drained with a depth to bedrock at 60. inches. Soil e~osion measures
should be maintained due to the slope~of the land. ~ ~
Comprehensive Plan~.Recommendation: Rural area.
Type Utilities: No public faCilities are available.
Staff Comment: Staff has received one letter from an adjacent landowner stating
concerns about the runoff from the building and the ability of the ~parcel
to handle the buildingand septic field. The Health Department commented
that there is adequate are~ on the site for a septic drainfield and alter-
nate. The ~plan w~ll meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
~Staff recommends approval with the following Conditions: . .
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A building permit-will be issued when the following conditions ~ave
been _met:
a. Provide additianal landscaping around the building and note that
it will be maintained.~in a healthy condition, to be replaced if
it should die;
b.~ Virginia Department of~ Highways & Transportation appr°valof t~e
commercial entrance;
c. Septi~c permit;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
- ~ e., -Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
f. Fire 'Offi,cial approval oD~two means of egress from ~the basement,
including walkways; and~app~oval of relocation of handicap parking
spaces to the rear of the site for first phase;
2. ACerti,ficateof'Occupancy~:wmill be-issued, when~he following condition
has been~met'
a. _Fire Official approval of dry hydrant.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 27, 1980 approved .this site plan
with the following additional two conditions:
1.. g. Move any parking spaces outside of the flood plain;
h.~ Place a security chain at the entrance excePt during church
events;
Mr.'Fisher noted recefpt cf the following lettcrs requesting this.,site plan .
appeal:
"May 28, 1980
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,Director, of Planning
Albemarle County Ptanning~Department
Dear Mr. Tucker: .....
I wish to appeal~the following action ~aken by the Albemarle County Planning
Commission at,their meeting~ of May 27, 198G:
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
!)
Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan: The~-appeal is requested because
af~ the intense use of the propertY which is so close, to the North. Fork
Rivanna Reservoir.
Very truly yours,
(signed) .Dr. Fi Anthony Iachetta, ~
Supervisor Charlottesville District"
"June 5, 1980
Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Re: Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan -Route 743
Dear Mr. Fisher':
As an adjacent neighbor to the proposed church site plan, I strongly object
to'the site as planned. According to my understanding of the building
ordinance around the Rivanna ReservOir, this church site plan is not in
compliance.
I would appreciate your assistance in preventing the proposed plan from
being approved.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Burton and Margaret D. Armstrong
Rural Route #1 Box 208
Earlysville, Virginia 22936"
Mr. Fisher asked how g~ood.plain regulations would affect the.parking~spaces shown.
Mr. Tucker said the flood plain being referred to. is the 100 year regional flood level at
an elevation of 394 feet. Mr. Fisher asked how that relates to the engineering studies
made for expansion of the capacity of the reservoir¥ Mr. Tucker said he thought the
vertical line would increase about two feet once the flashboards are installed, but that
Mr. Bailey was present and could further answer-those questions. Mr. Fisher asked if-~the
flood plain level would be higher or lower than shOWn on the site plan once the pool level
of the reservoir is increased by use of flashboards. -Mr. Bailey said he was of the
opinion that the use of flashboards would not affect the 100 year flood level. Mr. Fisher
then asked if the elevation of the water would change and intrude onrthe ~parking lot of
this church. Mr. Bailey said he felt it would not, that there is an interval of 12 feet
between the present pool level and the 100-year flood level; use Of flashboards would only
raise~the water level by about four feet.
Dr. Iachetta sa~,d the reason he called this up for appeal was because he felt this
use of the site is inconsistent, and felt it necessary to hear the-rationale that went
into its approval, and for'the Board to make its own assessment on whether or not this
plat should be approved. Dr. Iachetta Said specifically, vegetation will be cut on both
sides of the road which will be'detrimental to the reservoir; there will be substantial
clearing of the actual site - more than that for a single family home which would also be
detrimental; also highway department requirements to olear the right of way and add a
deceleration lane will add to the water runoff problem because of additional impervious
pavement as well as tree and vegetation removal.. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there will be any
sedimentation devices required on this site to comply with the runoff control ordinance.
Mr. Bailey said he had not gotten into that design, but estimated that the grassy swales
around the perimeter of the property could be designed to take care of that situation.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if such a swale would be located outside the 100 year flood
plain. Mr. Bailey said such a swale would have to be located on a rather level area of
the property and go all the way until it either reaches~a stream or-the reservoir itself.
Mr. Bailey said such a device would have to remove phosphates and sediments. Mr. Lindstrom
then aSked Mr. St. John if the Board had any baSis on which to deny this site plan. Mr.
St. John said he could see no reason for total'~.denial, that .if the Board ~denied this site
plan, they would have to inform the applicant·what changes would be necessary in order to
get the site plan approved. ~. St.. John continUed that under.the present zoning ordin-
ance, this use isa use by right. Mr. Lindstr~om asked the meaning of-a section of the
site plan ordinance which states "...not.withstanding the foregoing which shall not be
deemed to preclude the Commission~'from denyinE approval of a site plan believed to be
dangerous to public health or safety .... " Mr. St. John said that would take~·some evidentiary
understructure. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were proper evidentiary understructure,
could it be used for a basis of denial.~Mr. St. John said yes~ 'Mr. St. John noted that
the same statement is in the subdivision ordinance, and the Planning Commission has used
that section to deny some subdivisions.
Mr. Fisher said a letter of appeal was received from Mr. and Mrs. Armstrong, and he
asked if they were present to speak at this time. Mrs. virginia Hansen was present repre-
senting the Armstrong's~ ~Mrs~ Hansen said the Armstrong's live immediately adjacent to
this proposed site, and although they do not object to the use by the church, they do
strongly object to the intense use of a low lying small parcel of land. The Armstrong's
feel it will have a tremendous detrimertal effect on the reservoir as well as their
enjoyment of their home.
Mr. Fisher then deClared the discussion open for public comment. First to speak was
Mrs. Virginia Tegtmeyer, who stated she ].ives directly across from the proposed site.
Mrs. Tegtmeyer said she strongly objects to the use of this site by the church because Of
its non-residential use along the reservoir and over-usage of the area. Mrs. Tegtmeyer
said the extremely large structure, parking area and septic area will.create a great
environmental disturbance to the land. She noted that the site is on a peninsUla where
the building will average only 40 feet from the high water mark. Mrs. Tegtmeyer said that
since she has lived'on the reservoir, she has noticed that the water level-~in the spring
raises as much as l0 feet, which would mean that for the church site much of the parking
June 11, !980 (Regular Day Meeting)
area would be under water and po.tentially wash away causing much pollution to the re-
servoir. She noted that an agreement arrived mat during the Planning Commission meeting of
May 2?th, to move six parking spaces is not, adequate enough. Next she stated her concern
about the safety and, traffic problems which would be created. She ~noted -that ~this use of
the site would create additional traffic on the~road which already 'has sight'distance
problems, also parking~along this road would be impossible even though it-would be neces-
sary since the parking lot for the church is scheduled to hold 72 ~cars and the church
capacity is for 300 to 400 people. Mrs. Tegtmeyer said thirdly she ~was disturbed about
the plans to remove pine trees in front of'her home and. her neighbor'~s.home. She said
removal of these trees would destroy the natural screening of. her home. She said at the
time her home was constructed, it was required that the house be 200 feet from the water's
edge, and she questioned hOw the church ~could receive approval~tO construct lesS than 75
feet from the water's edge. Forth, Mrs. Tegtmeyer said such a us-e would ,change the entire
setting and rural character of the area from the present strictly residential use; she
added that this site would become a nuisance, attracting groups other than those connected
with the~.church, creating further pollution, disturbances and noise. She noted that the
suggestion of a chain across the entrance during hours of nonuse is. not ~adequate. Mrs.
Tegtmeyer then presented several photographs to the Board of Supervisors showing the
location of the church site compared to her hom~, and how, the' road improvements would
affect her home. Mr. Fisher said he thought there is a requirement of a 100 foot setback
for the building Mr. Tucker said the only setback requirement is for the septic system of
100 feet from the wat'er'~s edge~. Mr. Fisher said~ the exact requirement would have to be
checked since-there appears ~to be a difference of-opinion.
Mrs. Ellie Bishop spoke ~next, stating her home is direct'ly acr~oss~ Jfrom the proposed
site. She said she ~is opposed to the plans because of its potential for additional
pollution ta~ the reservoir, erosion problems~ on the church site ~as well as her property,
and additional' traffic 'and the, potential for vandalism ........
Mrs. Peggy King of the League of Women Voters was present and read the following
statement:~ · ~ .... . ~ ~
"As the~ League of Women Voters has stated repeated~ly-, we deploreany high-densi~ty
development in they',waterShed of 'the RiManna Reservoir.. ~This reservo~ir~ is now~
the major source-of Water for 40,000.people and~many of, the ~indu~trial¥ and
commercial ~ent~erprises which are an~ important part cml'~j the economy ,o£Jthe County~,~
and City. There is no adequate substitute-for-this water source,. Thus, the
League believes it is critically important ,that any proposal for development in
the waters, hed~ clearly ~demonstrate provi~sion for protection- of the. reservoir.~~_
In the case o£J the proposed site plan :,for the Monticello Wesl~yan'.~Chur~¢h, the
small size of ~the site directly adjacent ~to the reser~voir, the placement_~of, the
parking lot, and ~the large number of cars.whi'ch~may be expected to?use.that~~' ·
Parking lot pose. a serious ~problem.~ ~e~ would~'expect ~heavy metalaJ and~ other
hazardous wastes -from~ the parking 'lot to enter ~th.e~wa~er~ supply directly. ~
We~ have often urged that a bUffer zone of trees and vegetative cover be estab-
liShed around the banks 'of the reservoir. The proposed site plan not only does
not provide for any such buffer, but~ sinc'~e part, o,f' the parking tot is in~ the
flood plain, there appears, not even~.t.o be space 'allowed for any soil erosion
control device. In considering this site plan, it would ~also be~ well to keep in
mind that additional .land around the reservoir will ~have to be~acquired when
flash boards are added to increase the capacity of the~ reservoir."
Mr. Roy Patterson of CitiZens fOr~ Alb'emarle,J urged, the Board to .do~ whatever,-is neces-
sary to prevent this~ and any other development-from'-taking pla.ce along the~ banks of ,the
reservoir in order to protect the drinking water source for the enti~e population ,of~ the
City' of~ Charlottesville ,as well ~as portions of~Albemarle County..
Mr. Ed Bain~said~ he' was present on behalf of' himself as well aa the Teg~meyers.~ He
said the subject~ of pOllution~ of~ the reservoir~ has been. well eovered,~ but he wished to
address the problem' of cle~ring~~ the pine-trees from the frontJ of th.6 ~Tegtmeyer prop.erty.
He said placing dO.gwoOd~. trees on the opposite s&de of the road ~will~ not hei~p. Mr. Bain
first suggested the option of~ moving the en~t~rancem of~ the church, further to theL north. He
suggested ~this~woUld Save the trees and still allow sufficient. ,visibility.and sight~ dis-
tance, coming from Ear~tysVill,e toward the church to~ provide safe ingr~ess .... Mr~.~ Bain's
second~ option was to place highway department signs warning of a dangerous intersection
with either .ref.~lectors or ~f!as,hi'ng lightS; thirdly he sugges~ted the~appl~icant conld ~nstall
a left turn la~e which would be.. the sa~fest ~alternative ewen though costly ~t,o~ the applicant.
Mr. Morris Fos~ter said the appli,cant reSliZes ~h~ 'churc~h'w~!i~ha¥~e~ .~°n!y~ a~certain
number of parking spaces. Mr., Foster said the Highwa~ Dep~a~,~ tmen~.waa oansulted as ,far as
the best location for an entrance to the church property, which would ~.require the minimal
amount' of grading and disturbance of land. Mr. Fisher then asked Reverend Charles King
how the Church iatended ~to copJe ~ith the pro,blem of p~eopjle ~trying to gain access to the
reservoir ~hrough .chur~ch p~oper,ty. Reverend Ki~ng sa, id that .nei~ther m~he ~n~r~ hi~s church ~have
any experience of ,~this ty~pe, bUt the~ chur,c~h would~ certainly do anything required to
maintain a barrier to keep trespassers out. Reverend Kind continued by~stating.~that this
property w~as not,~ the ~first choice~ ~of-the congreg-~-iQn,~b~, sin~ce jthe fir~sj~t _t~O. pro~perty
preferences did mot ~go through, this location, has become the final, and unanimous choice of
the churCh Board as well as all .the membership.
Mr.?"~Harry Garth ~ss~Jid ~he ~c~Guld not understand .the ~Highway ~Depar~tmen~ recom~nendinE that
the entrance to th~ church be located whera Li~t is sited ~on, t4is plan. ,He sai, d it ~is o~nly
75 feet be~yond- a sharp cnrve .with poor vi~ibilLty, a.nd~ he..felt it very unsafe. Mr[~ Fisher
said the.,.Highway Department may not have recommended this lo,cation for the entrance, only
gave its. app~roval of the .lo. ca~t-io,nl chosen b~ t:he ~chu~Qh._ .......... ~ ~.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said he· discuss,ed this site plan with. Mr. ~Bryo~ COburn~-'and' that
even if the, entrance~ is mov~ed~ further ~to .the~ north as sugg,est, ed/Dy ~s~me~,~i~t wou~ld st%!l
require some removal of treesas Well'as tr~imming of some tr~eea~ further d~o~wn the road.
Mr. Roosevel,t Said he felt there~was sufficient land to~ attow'.~ for ~he constr~ction~of a
left turn ~lane~ which would not give .a~ great .de,al more?,sight~ ~dJ~a~tance, hu~ ,w~oul~d. al!ow for
June ll, 19-80 (Regular Day .Meeting)
those vehicles turning into the church'to pull.into a "protected area" while waiting to
turn. Mr. Roosevelt said the left turn lane has not been looked into, because the church
has indicated they do not want their entrance located at that end of the property. Mr,
Roosevelt said if the~church is ~illing to discuss .the possibility of moving the entrance,
he will be willing to investigate the feasibility of a left turn lane'~and how it~will
affect the treesc further ~o~n the road~. Mr~ Lindstrom asked if Mr. Roosevelt had any
accident statistics got this section o£ the road. Mr. ROosevelt said he did not have any,
with him, but ~hey could be~ obtained. Mr. Roosevelt.added that this section of road has
the potential to be dangerous because the spee~ lim~t~is~155 miles~'per hour and is on a
downhill stretch witha sharp curve at the bottom.
Dr. Iachetta. said he visited~Eeverend King to discuss this site plan~. Dr. Iachetta
said he told him that therem~was no legal way ~the Board could deny~this site for the church
(Mr. St. John added unless it is found to be a danger to the public health and safety).
Dr. Iachet~a said af~ter hearing the discussion today,'and after seeing the photographs, he
feels this is the wrong use in the wrong lacation. Dr. Iachetta said this site is inap-
propriate for a~ variet~ of reasons; waten,~ vegetation that must be~cut, the~parking lot
which will~becom~e a nui~ance~ Dr. Iachetta said this site is~much better suited for the
location~of a single~f~mily'residence~and not the~site for a church to accommodate ~300
people. ~ · .....
Mr.-.Lindstromasked what ,kind cT evidence would be necessary, in order ~to deny this
site plan based on a danger to public health or safety. Mr. St. John said an expert
opinion is not necessary, only evidence which Board members feel is convincing in showing
a danger to public health ~or safety is necessary-. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any figures were
available regarding the high ~ater ~evel .over the .last ten Years. Mr. Tucker and Mr ....
Bailey both said they did not, have exact ~figures on high water levels.. Mr. Bailey said if
the water had ever risen as much as ten feet as stated by Mrs. Tegtmeyer~, it would have
flooded the roads in that area, and would have certainly been noted.
Miss NaSh asked if the fact that the church would create many more problems to the
area then would a single family residence, would be sufficient for the Board to state that
use of this site~.by .the church is crsating a danger to public health and safety. Mr.
Fisher said the location of the building and septic system on the property meet required
setbacks, and that there s~em to be possible~remedies for the sight distance problems on
the road. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if it .were ~ossible that any runoff control devices
placed on this property could ever be inundated during a flooding situation, and if so,
would this not release greater than normal amounts of sedimentation and phosphates into
the reservoir. Mr. Bailey said 'he has no.t ~et~received any runoff contro~.information for
this site, and therefore could not answer Mr. Lindstrom's question accurately. Mr. Bailey
said first the location of the device must be decided upon and the type of device to be
used must ~be chosen. Mr. Fisher said it has been recommended that the first alternative
for increasing the water .supply from the South Fork ReServoir is by raising the present
water level of .the reservoir by approximately four feet by the use of flashboards, and
that this must be taken intG~'consideration at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said he is con-
cerned about the location of the septic field Which he feels is very close to the water
and the flood line, and is a concern for public health. Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion
stating he would like_to see additional input from ~the applicant regarding the location of
a runoff control deviD~ and its ~effectiveness considering the potential for flooding on
the property~.~ ~r. Linds~'rom said he.would also like information from the Health Depart-
ment regarding the location of the drainfield in this particula~area, as.~well as addi$ional
information about the road from the highway department, noting the 'necessary work to
correct ~the sight distance problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see this matter
deferred until this information can be obtained, because to make a decision to deny at
this time would be based on incomplete information obtained from County staff members.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bailey if he. could prepare a brief study of possible ways runoff
and drainage problems of~ this site could be controlled. Mr. Bailey said he did not feel
this was a good idea, because the applicant might attempt to use this report for his final
plan, and if for some reason it does not work properly, then the County would be responsible
Dr. Iachetta agreed"that it is the job of the County Engineer-only to evaluate plans of an
applicant, not to prepare those plans. Mr. Fisher said there is a motion on the floor to
defer action on this review, to request the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation .to pmovide alternatives that will minimize damage to existing vegetation; a
request for the Health department that an analysis be done on the soils, slopes; and storm
implications regarding the ~location of the drainfield at the site proposed; and that the
applicant proceed with the design plan for meeting the runoff control~ordinance.
Mr. Foster expressed concern that if the applicant goes through the expense and time
of having a tentative runoff control design worked out, the Board of Supervisors may still
deny the application on the basis that this use is a hazard to public health, safety and
welfare~ ,Mr. LindstrOm said if the Board could guarantee approval of this request prior
to receipt o-f this information, then he would have made a motion for approval with runoff
control designs as a condition of approval, However, Mr'~ Lindstrom said he is requesting
that this info~matiOn~be provided so the Board can d~cide if those runoff~ control measures
proposed by.the applicant will be adequate to prevent pollution of the reservoir, and
therefore cannot guarantee approval of the permit until after those designs have been
received and'evaluated~ ~Mr~ L~ndstr0m's motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley
said he would'.~'support'.the.motion, but felt if the applicant complies with the requirements
of the motion the request should be approved~ Mr. Roudabush said he would support the
motion, and although he is ~not comfortable with~what is proposed for this site, he will
support approval if all the requested information'is favorably presented. Dry' Iachetta
said he has little confidence in devices to protect the reservoir, and asked the Board if
they~witl feel comfortable that the reservoir is'being protected if the applicant presents
a plan which the County Engineer deems acceptable. Dr. Iachetta said he did not think the
Board will~ feel comfortable with any plan presented, and that making the applicant go
through the expense of drawing up such Plans Us nOt the answer to the'problem. Dr. Iachetta
said he hoped the moral obligations involved Would cause Reverend King and~his congregation
to withdraw their application. Mr. Henley said he wished to note that the trees spoken
about are located within the right-of-way, and might be cut down by the Highway Department
to improve sight distance disregarding~this application. Dr. Iachetta said the site
itsel'f will also be devegetated. Mr. Lindstrom said he has never seen~a situation such as
this where the runoff control devices could-possibly be-inundated in any storm more severe
than a 10 year storm. Dr.~Iachetta said he' felt the applicant should carefully review the
June 11, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
costs involved io preparing the~requested runoff ~ccntrol report. Roll was then called,
and the mot,ion ~Carr±ed bythe following~recorded:~Vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley., Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr~ Roudabush:,
NAYS: None.
-Agenda Item No. 7A. At l:10~P.M~., motion,~was~offe~ed by Dr. Iachetta~ seconded .by
Miss Nash, to.~adjourn into executive session for the-purpose o£'discussing legal~matters
and personnel. ROlt~Was called and the motion carried by the roi.lowing recorded:vote'
AYES: Messrs.~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta,~Lindstrom~and Miss Nash and~Mr~. Roudabush .....
NAYS: None.
At'~2:07 P.M~.~ the meeting reconvened. Mr. Henle~ did not return to the meeting, and
Mr. St~ 'John arrived at 2:10 P.M.
Agenda~Item No. 3d) 1980-81 Construction Allocation~ ~ Secondary System.~ Mr,. Dan~
Roosevelt said that ~although the. report' indi~cat~es that $1,255,000 is being allocated
toward road improvements, $313,~000 must'be used to'offset the deficit in last year's
budget.~ Mr. RooSevelt said copies of the budget have,~been submitted-tmo Richmond for 1980-
81, and he will forward copies to the Clerk for distribution to the Board of~SuperVisors.
Agenda I~em~mNo. 8~ Request for. Ordinance.: Discharge of~ Firearms in Rural Subdivisions.
Mr. St.~-John read his ~lett, er dated May 19, 1980, as follows:
"On May 14~.,~ 1,980,~this problem was ~di~scussed and the request~made for this
office to study possible remedies. You have pr,eviousl~y received a~ le~tter~from
us citing the,s$atutes which al,low-the Board ~f ~Super~isors to~ enact.ordinances
controlling or prohibiting discharge of firearms in populated areas, and the
ordinances we~already, have.
U-nl-es.s you wish~to make a dr~stic~chanE~e~in~,the&aw~ re~p,ecting hun~ingand~....
target pra, ctice (such as blanket p,rohibition, ~s in the City)~be, lieve ,th~
answer tO, this probtemis enforCement-of thepresent laws~': ~t is~already
illegal~ under the County'~Code to~diScha~ge~ a f~irearm'within~RS-t~.R-1, R,2,, or
R~3districts(~ectio~t3-9~)~';, to carry a~ loadedgun in ~ veh~-cle~(Sec~lon~
9.1); to 'hunt within fifty feet of a road .(Section 13-11);,or to shoot within
one hUndred yards of a road (Section i3~18)
Under the State Code the following are illegal:
'Shoot wit~hln T00~ yards of a r,oad
Own a maohine gun or sawed-off, shotgun .~
Carry a concealed weapon
IntentionaDly shoot .livestock
Shoot'a~a,~train or other car,rie~
Wou~d another, in~entionally or ,with mal~ice
Commit'a~felony with a firearm
~ RecklessIy~handie a firearm so aspic endanger
~ · ~ife', l&mb~ or p~.oper~y of~a~o~her
'To shoot at or,within an occupied building
.D&scharge~.a'~g~rearm in, a, pub&~ic: place
BOint o~~ b~an~i~s~ a: Tirearm at a. no'the~
~-'Hunt,,under the influence ~of~,,drugs or a'lcoh'ol~
18.2-279
18.2-2:80
18,2'28-1
18'~ ~2.- Z85
18.2-286
18 ~ 2,-:288 et seq.
18.2-308 et seq
18.2-1~
18 ~2,154
18.2-.5~4, ~-'41,
.~'18.2-53
In addition t'o the 'foregOing, there ,i;z t~he common law. nuisance p~oc:es's avai,lab,le
not Onl,~,dn cas'es,,-ofm.a:ctua.1 danger bUt ~where the noise factor'is objectionable.,
This remedy must be sought by the aggrieved citizen rather than the county, but
in the final analysis it is the aggrieved citizen who must take the initiative
in enforcing, any 'of' these, laW~, byascerta&ning,t~.1~en,tit~ oZ,o£fen~ers~and
swearing out warrants against them because~,we d,o. not~arrest:~without w~r~an.ts_
except for ~cr.imes ,~ccmmitted in their p~'e'senc'e. Thins wo'ul~d.still be ,tr~e iZ you
enacted ~ad,di~tional Ordinan~ces.
We do not feel it is appropriate for us to draft any proposed ordinance without
morespecific direction from the Board.,"
Dr. Iachett~a said' it was his understanding from the ].ett. er just presented, that the
County Code only covers residential areas-of the County, and suggested the Board consider
an amendment to' the-COd'e so ,the laws-wouldm"not~'onty :cover resident'iai distric, ts, ~but
residential arees in-'agricUltural dist~ricts~, suCh..as :P.~U..D.~'s and R.P.:N,',s. Dr. Iachetta
said he would like. to m'see the' ,Code amended ~s the County works o'n-~the new ~Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. St. John said if the County enacts a new ordinance regarding the discharge of a firearm
in certain residential areas, it is only a new offense, but the sheriff must go through
the same process with the new' ordinance as with the present ordi. nances; that is in order
to make an arrest',or issue a summons he must have a wi~tness to.~ the offense., Sheriff
George Bailey S~id there ~is'-nO 'violation'~.of the law i£ in aresidential area-~of ,an agricul-
tural district so~.eOne 'fires a~,rifle and-the bullet passes over someone else'-s property.
Mr. St. John added that it is very difficult to prove in court, that a bullet passed over
your property unless something on your property was actually struck by that bullet. Mr.
Fisher said this' has ~been a, 'con~in~ing problem?in the county :which ,seems to be growing.
Mr. Fisher then thanked.~the ,~County,,Attorney ~and the Sherif,f for their,work,-.and suggested
Board members enccurage residents to aid the:Sheriff,s department in. enforcing the p~resent
laws.
Agenda' It'em' No ~ 3E. Agreement,: Commonwealth-:Drive_. Mr;--Tu,cker~noied ~ha,t,, the
agreement to be discussed- has been reviewed- by 'the County 'Attorne.y,'s office.--, Mr, .Tucker
said the Virginia Department of Highways and. :, Transport~tion will not ,ac,cept_'ii~h~ 'r~ad
unless certain proffers or change in zoning densities are made by adjoining property
June 1!,_ 1980_ (~Regular Day Meeting)
owners ~to insure that traffic-volumes do not exceed the~ capacity of~ the~,r'oad~ being built
or that. agreement with the county is made to, effeo~tuat,e such traffic counts~ ~through zoning
changes. The latter option is being pursued by the adjoining property owners because of
the time consuming nature of~. zoning amendments through proffer. The adjoining property
owners are anxious to get this section of Commonwealth Drive into the State Highway System
at a category comparable to the development being proposed. Incidentally, should the
proposed zoning map be adopted as proposed for this area, the problem would be resolved,
since~densiti~es have been proposed whiCh would adhere to the traffic capacity of the road
being built.. Mr..Fisher ~asked h'o~w~any developer-can control the number_~ 0~~ vehicle trips
per day on a. road.~ Mr.~Tucker said ~the applioant~ is p. rop0sing~.to~control, the traffic
count through density and use of the property. The vehicle trips per day are based on the
Traffic Engineer!s Handbook which projects-traffic count~ for properties~based on the type
of use for that property.
Y~r, Bil~l~Perkins, representing Mr. S. W. Heis~chman/of Northwest Limited Partnership,
said this agreement has been in the works since 1977. Mr. Perkins said this agreement has
been worked on as a cooperative effort by representatives of Mr. Heischman, Dr. Hurt and
the County Attorney's office, and restrictions agreed to in this agreement would run with
the property unti~l~ ~such~~ tim~ as supe~seded~ by a~re~ision, of~ the County Z0ning~ Ordinan,ce.
Mr. Perkins.-noted that if for~ some reason~ this~r~ad is~. n~. a¢cepte~d ~nto ~the se~c~ndary
system by the Virginia Department of Highways~.~and .Transportation, this agreement becomes
void. Mr~,~ L..,indstrom ~asked what .the status of~ the~ propert~ would be? if'.the High~ay Depart-
ment does no~accept~ the road ~in~o the secondary sy~s..tem~,~ i~.~e. w°~uld~ an[Yll number _of vehi'~le
trips be allowed? Mr. Perkins said Mr. St. John would have to speak to that question,
Mr. Fisher asked about the paragraph on page two speaking to "a certificate of occupancy".
Mr~ Fisher asked if~his referred to a specific c~r_tifica~_e or~ in~ general to any certifi-
cate required during development of this road. Mr. Perkins said,~ i~t was referring dir~ectly
to the certificate of occupancy needed by Eldercare before this facility can open. Mr.
Perkins noted that t~he~ zoning, on the Northwest property will~ remain in a category com-
parable to~. B-1 and the property immediately~,south between the Nort~hwest property and Rio
Road will~ remain ~in a category comparabl.e~ to R-3 under the new.~zoning map.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said he agreed in principal with the. a~greement being .presented,
but requested that wording referring to the "Institute of Trsnsportation Engineers' Report
on Trip Generation, 2d,Ed., 1979", be replace~d by "the then current~ Institute of Trans-
portation Engineers? Report on Trip Generati.on"~i. Mr. Roosevelt felt if ~constr~uction of
this road does not take place~ ~.for s~evera~ years, the standards requi?ed in the 1979
edition-may ~change, benefiting either the property~ owner or the Highway Department. Mr.
Perkins said he f~el.t~ ~if the future use generates more traffic then~ allowed in-the 1979
edition, the propertY~ owner should be required to. c0me~ b~ck before the Board .0f Super-
visors, but if the use should generate less ~traffic, then there W0u~d be. no problem; ~he
therefore felt no reason to change the language of the' agreement as suggested by Mr.
Roosevelt ~
Mr. Fisher asked why this agreement is before the Board at this time, when ~he Board
is so .close to public hearing and possible adoption of a n~ew-zonin~g ~ord~inan~ce~,-.which would
possibly void the agreement..~ Mr. Perkins said ~the Elderc~ar~e ~prop~erty~is~ re~ady a.t this
time for occupancy, but no certificate ~Of~ ~0.ccup~ancy~ .can. be /issue~d ~until the~ road situation
is settled. Mr. Perkins sai,d this agreement is tO~expedit.e Complet~iono~ ~_the road, which
will ultimatelY ,allow ,the E!dercare facility~ ~to~ open. ~ Mr.~ ~isher a~sked Mr. St. John if
the County Attorney's office has reviewed the proposed agreement.. Mr. St. John said he
has reviewed the document, and~ feels the County should ~join ~n ~_thi~s, a~gree~ent. He added
that he felt it was a creative way to solve a pot~ntial_ly, dif:ficult ~s~tu~ation.~ Mr. St.
John then asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Highway~ Department would f~eel~ bound to this agreement
if the wording is not changed regarding the Traffic Engineering ~Hanmdb~ook. Mr. Roosevelt
said he felt the current manual at the time of development ~should be _used~ Mr. Perkins
said this creates a "running target" which he would prefer~not.to have, but~ added that he
has no choice but to accede to Mr. Roosevelt's demands. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush
to authorize the C~hai.rman ~of the Board of Supervisors to sign the following agreement with
the change in ~wording regarding the Ins~titute~ of ~Tr~ansportation Engineers' Repor~t on Trip
Generation: ~ ~ · ~- :' . . ' .........
THIS INSTRUMENT OF LAND RESTRICTION made. this 2nd day of June,
by and between NORTHWEST LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia. limited .partner-
ship, having S.. W. Heischman as its sole General Partner, herein called
"Northwest", and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, herein called "AIbemarle",
and CHARLES ~. HURT, herein called "Hurt";
WITNES SETH :
By actiono~f Albemarle_on ~Octob:2~ 6.,._1976, authority was granted.b~ ~a
Special:Use Permit~to proceed with~ construction 6f ~a
on Northwes:t.Br2ve ·subject to several oonditi0ns, among whiah was a ~9nd-
ition that Northwest Drive and CommonWealth Drive be built t0 State stanr
dards and &ccepted'minto the State Secondar~ Highway System as.~soon as ......
.~possible.
In 1979, as-a condition of obtaining site plan'app~oval From Albemar~e
for construction of a nursing home facility-on property fronting onNor~h~
west Drive, Northwest posted bond with Albemarle for construction of ~ommonT
wealth Drive and Northwest Drive for acceptance into the State Secondary
System, which~bond is'~now in default
.~Prior to andsince execution of theaforementioned bond and-under
advice from the Commonwealth of Virginia through its Resident Engineer, D.
S. Roosevelt,,there have'been protracted negotiations incident to what
State standards are applicable to the prcposed Commonwealth Drive and
Northwest Drive, It is now proposed that these roads shall be constructed
pursuant to plans prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, dated December
l, 1978, revised February-~7, 1980, and as amended by..the first paragraph of
a letter of D. S. Roosevelt to J Ashley Williams, dated April ~', 1980,
copies of all 'o'f which, arenattached'heret°'
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
It is anticipated:~ (a) that the aforementioned roads will be completed
in accordance.~with the aforementioned plans as~amended,. (b) that Northwest
will request acceptance of the said roads by the Highway Department, (.c)
that the Supervisors ofAlbemarle~will reqUeSt~the Highway Department.'to
accept the same into the State Secondary Highway System, (d) that the roads
so constructed will be accepted, and (e) that Albemarle will issue a per-
manent certificate of occupancy for the said nUrsinE home faoility upon- ~ ~
satisfactory completion of all other improvements required by the above
mentioned Special Use Permit and the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
applicable as of the date of issuance thereof.
Notwithstanding other requirements for issuance of a certificate of-
occUpancy~(temporarY~or permanent), Albemarle will be unable to issue: ~a)
a~temporary'certificate of occupancy formthesaid nursing home ~facility
until presentment~by Northwest of a new bond to assure construction of
Northwest Drive and Commonwealth Drive ~n'accordance with the aforemen ......
-tioned plans ~s amended and (b) a permanent certificate of occupancy'fOr
the said nursing home facility until acceptance into the~State Secondary
Highway System of Commonwealth Drive and Northwest Drive.
Hurt owns land to the southeast Of Commonwealth DriVe~which~has been
submitted to Albemarle dot subdivision approval as evidenced by plats
attached hereto as Exhibits 2, ~ and ~. This subdivision is subject to
several conditions, among which is the condition that CommonwealthDrive be
built to State standards and accepted into the State Secondary Highway
System as soon as pOssible. ~ ~
The preceding statements contained in this agreement incident to the .~
acceptance of Commonwealth Drive are~applicable to the said property of
Hurt .... -~
Northw~st~ notwithstanding its disagreement with~the position of~$he
Highway Department and in consideration of the certificate~of occupancy and~
assurances of acceptance by, the Highway Department of~Cemmonweatth Dr~Ve
and Northwest Drive upon the agreements contained herein, does hereby make
the fOllowingcovenants and agreements incident to the prOperty shown-on
the plat attached hereto as Exhibit l, which property is designated "North-
west", which covenants and agreements shall be binding upon NorthweSt and
all successors in title to the aforementioned property; shall be deemed to
run with the land; and shall be enforceable by Albemarle. ~
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
The parcel designated Northwest on the said plat shall be so developed
that 'the use the. reof will not generate more~ than 200 vehicle'--trips per day~
per acre under the provisions of the then' current~Institute of"~Transporta~
tion Engineers' Report on Trip Generation. ·
Hurt', nOtwithstanding his disagreement with the position of the Highway
Department and in consideration of the approval of the subdivision afore-
said and assurance of acceptance by the HighWay Department of Commonwealth
Drive upon the agreements contained herein, does hereby make the~fOtlowing
covenants and agreements incident to the property~ shown~ On the plats
attached he~etO'~aS~Exhibits 2, ~ and ~, which covenants and agreements
shall be binding upon Hurt and all successors in title to'the aforementioned
property; shall be deemed to run with the land; and shall be enforceable by
Atbemarle~ · ~ ..............
The p~0pertY shown on EXhibits 2,-~ and ~ Shail~be'"so 'd,'evelo~d.t~at'
the use thereof will not generate more than 220':~Y~eh~Cle trips ~er~d~ay "~nde?~
the provisions of the then current Institute of Transportation Engineers'
Report on Trip Gener~'tion. '
The covenants and agreements contained herain shall be. binding and in
fUll force and' eff~t until sue'h-'date as the property-in question' may be
rezoned by Albemarle to r~estrict the use thereof to a traffic generation
not in excess of that set forth in the covenants and agreements herein
contained. However, t'his aEreement~'~shall become"nu~ll and void in'the event
Albemarle shall not issue a permanent certificate o'f'-occupancy on ~the basis
that the Highway Department renegeS-on th'e aforementioned ass'urance: ~o'f
acceptance.
The motion wa~ 'secohded by Dr'. Ia~chetta 'and mcarri'ed by~ the fol'l~oWing 'recorded vote:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and MisS'~Nash and .Mr. Roudabush,
Agenda Item' No';~ BF."~'Other-'~i'ghway Matters: Mr. Fi~sher 'no~'ed-reoeipt of "Tentative
Allocations for Int~erstate, Primary and Urban Systems'----~979~'80 (RmeV.i~d)':~.andi'm1980-81"
has been received, which shows some additional funds for the Route 29 nOr.th area and is on
hand for Board members to review.
Agehda I6em NO~. ~' Budget ReqUast~- ViSitors Bureau, ..... MrY-Agnor"intrOd~ced 'Mr.
Charles Granquist, and Ms. Betty McLemore of the VisitorS-~'Bureau. -Mr-;.~Granquist reviewed
the history of the Visitors Bureau and operations of same from February I to June l, 1980.
He~ said~he~ total b~dget"requ~st~.., ..... ~ ~, ~ for: th~e~.. I980-'81"year iS $5'B~16'~:of whi'c'h$1~m.~'~29 is
bemngrequested from Albemarle County. M~','Fi~her asked WhY~th~s~WaS~befOre~the Board
today~ Mr. Age.or said that in the fiscal 'budget air~'ady-a~dopted by-the.Boar~' fo'r 1980-81,
an appropriation was made' in the amo~nt~bf $12,500;~$829 short~-of~this"~equested amount.
Mr. Agnor added that presently an audit of the Visitors Bureau is taking place, and
Albemarle County is anticipating a return of funds to the County from the past fiscal
year's appropriation. Mr. Agnor said there is no way of knowing the exact amount of that
June.ll,~1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
return. Mr. Agnor recommended, that the Board accept the amount of-~the.~proposed budget,
but withhold appropriation, or, funds ~ntil~.rec~ipt of the audit, Mo~tion:was.~o£feredby
Iachetta, seconded by Mr~.Eoudabush, tO..accept~he Proposed~budget:of $tB,329 andthe
programs represented. Roll was, then c~lledand the-motion carried by the following
recorded vote: · ....
AYES: Messrs. Fisher'TM iaCh~tta,~Lindstrom~and~Miss Nash and ~r~R~ud~bush~i.
NAYS: None. : . ........... . ~ ~ .... ~.~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.. ..... _.-, . ~ ~.~.~ ~.~
Agenda Item-Na. 6. Budget Request~ Commonwealth,s Attorney. Mr. Agnor said this
budget request is the result of.~the. Compensation,~Board approving.~o, ne ne~ po. sition for the
Commonwealth Attorney!.s office 2or an ass. istaDt,~~ ,effective July 1,~ :Mr...~Agnor ~$d 'this
position will be 100%.-~fpnded by~ the State, and will not requi~e any~ additional .expeflses
due to purchase o.? office equipment or:fUrniShings'. .... M~. Ag~O~ ~r~commend~d'~th~t th~
Revenue side of .the County budget be changed to reflect this increase. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta-:to' adopt, the following resolution: .... ~
BE IT RESOLVED by th~B~a~d of~' Supervisors of Albemarle COunty,
Virginia that $20~268.43_be, and the same hereby~is.~._.apPm0pri~ate~ ,from the-
General Fund and transferred, to the following codes: . _
2201-il01
2201-2001
2201-2002
2201-2005
2201-2006
22.01-20%1 _
FICA Wages ~ ·
FICA Cost
Retirement
Health Insurance
Life Insurance
Workman,s Compensation
Total Appropriation
$15,546.97
1,9~6~90
1,377.75
240.00
171.36
945. 5
$20,268.4'3
The State will reimburse the County $t9,082.98 and the County's share
of $1,185,~5 willbe taken from the Carryrover balance. (County's share is- ~
for health insurance and workman's~compensation which are no~ reimbursable)
The motion was Seconded'by Mr. Roudabush~and'~¢arried by ~h~if01t0wing recorded vote.
AYES: Messrs. Fisher,-~Iachetta, Lindstrom and Mis~ NaShl and Mr. Rgudabu~h.
NAYS: None. . :.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Agenda Item No. %. Resolution establishing an Office on Youth. Mr. Agnor said
during the budge~ process, ~amily Services, Inc. requested an appropriation of local funds
to create an Office on Youth. Mr. Agnor noted that funds in the amount of-$6,037.00 were
included in the budget and appropriation ordinanCej' The state legislabion~which provides
the funds from the state for this pr0gram~ requires that the fq~owing.~res0!ution be
ado.pted: _ ~ . ........ :.
WHEREAS~the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is
supportive of the establishment of an Office on Youth and Youth Citizens
Board that will.foster wholesome~youth development and the prevention of
juvenile delinquency; and .
WHEREAS the County is desirOus of establishing and sponsOring a Y0uth
Citizens Board which will serve as a governing board for an Office on Youth
to identify, develop andm. provide comprehensive integrated y.outh services
and a delihq~ency.pre~ention program, ~ .~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County will jointly appoint with the City Council Of Charlot-
tesville, a nine member citizens board to identify, plan and coordinate
Services for youth ~and to oversee the functions of the Office on Youth4
This board shall b&~composed as follows: .....
(a) One representative from the Board of Family ServiCes, Inc
(b) One representative from the Youth Board
(c) Two representatiVes from the Youth services Council. .. ~.~ ........
(d) Two citizens a~'-large from the City
(e) Two citizens at-large from the County
(f) One representative from Inf~ormation and Referral Service of United Way
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that.the present board of Family Services,
Inc., shall function as the Youth Citizens~BOard'until th~ time the~above
board is appointed by the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albe-
marle; and
BE IT ~FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle is committed to
Paying its local share for the first year of $6,037.00 for operation~ , of the
Office on-Youth.
Mr. Agnor noted that the resolution is similar to a resolution adopted by the Char-
lottesville City Council last week. Mr. Agnor added that the State grant for. this program
has not-yet been,approved,.but receipt of this resolution from both the City and the
Countyis. a raq~irementi~or~p0ssibie aPPrdvaml,~ ~ .
Mr. Fisher said the County's share will be strictly a cash grant, but that the City
of Charlottesville's contribution is half cash and half in-kind services. Mr'. Fisher said
although-the ~wording of the proposed resolUtiOn gives some inference to possible future
commitments ~of financial support, the County is Considering this resolution for this.~one
year only
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Cathy Bodkin.said~,~this Office on Youth~will helpreduce duplication of services.
MissrBodkin also noted Dhat the Family Services Board willinitially administer the Office
on Youth, but_will vacate that roll~s~quickly as at, Board for, the,O£fice, on Youth can be
appointed by the respective communities ........
Mr. Agnor added that since the Albemarle County Planning Staff is not equipped to
handle this type of community involvment, it was decided through mutual discussions
between the City of Charlottesville and the County, that Mr. Huga's office take on the
roll. ~Motion was offered by Mr, Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the resolution
as recommended by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recording
AYES: Messrs, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom~ and Miss Nash and Mr. ~Roudabush. ~ ·
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Mr..Fisher said he would like to see the progress of this program before the Board of
Supervisors makes any commitmnts to future years. Mr. Huga said the City will be handling
the financial'transactions involved with:.this program, .and that~,quarte~ly-reports will be
presented to the Board of Supervisors for their review~ ~Mr,-Agnor.said the job of h~ndling
the financial~resp0nsibilities was offered--to the County, but,h~ felt it/sh~uld~be the
responsibility of the City because the evaluation planning for the project will also be
the City's responsibility. -. -
Agenda Item No. 9. Request for Ordinance: Automatic Communication Devices. Mr. St.
John said his office has drafted an ordinance for control of automatic communication
devices, based on simil~? ordinances presentlY~Used~by Severa~l other count'i~es within the
State. --Sheriff George Bailey said he felt such am. ordinance was very much ~needed in
Albemarle County and agreed with the draft presented.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to set July 9, 1980 as
the date for publiC~ hea~ing. ~RoT1 was then C~lle.d and~he-moti-on barrie,d, by the-Following
recorded vote: ....
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, LindmstrOm and Miss Nssh 'and Mrs; Roud:abUs-h.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
~Agenda Item No. 10. Request for Noise Ordinance. SheriFf~ George .Bailey said he. felt
there was becominE a greater need for such an ordinance, especially since certain areas of
the County are becoming more urban. The Sheriff said noise co~plaints require that a
deputy visit the scene'to verify the complaint~ his office cannot-just rec~ommend that the
person who is disturbed by the noise obtain a warrant. ~ ....
Dr. Iache~tta~.asked if:"this~t~ype-o~ ordinance~Would help ¢ontrOT-'m0tor bi~keswith no
mufflers. She.rifF'Bait'ey sa~id ~if th~.y are on t~e ~highway, it i~s:~alr~ady ~a Violat~ion,~but
he died- not know how broad the ordinance could be made or whether or not-i2 couId..be
expanded, to include this type of noise on private property.
Mr. Fisher asked how the level of noise could be defined in an ordinance. Sheriff
Bailey said the department would have 'to purchase a noise meter and added~that~n a
similar ordinance adoPted b~ the City of Charlottesville, the 'noisemust exceed~a certain
number-of ~e¢'ibels. Mrs.' Fisher asked how. muc'h ~technioa~l-~tr~i,ning,'Wou~d .be~require~ mto~
have 'a-~dep-ut'yoPerat'e Sucha~decibel mete. r..-' Sheri~ff BaiteF S~id~'it,.~is~a, simple'PTece~of
equipment,-and could beTul~y eXPlai-n~d-easily ~wit~in a'day.~ Ur, I.a.chetta asked how:-t~is
proposed ordinance wil-l'aid in enforcement of-~the ~a~,~.s. The~-Sheriff. said use~of .a decibel
meter wouldhelp his department substantiateth'e existence of loud noises, and the ordinance
itself: would: make it~:easier to-answer compla,ints~'-fr,om c~'tiz.ens~-
Mr. Fisher suggested ordinances be gathered from surrounding communities to see how
their"ordinances are worded, and base:out'draft ordinance .on those.. Mr,.:~-St. John said he
would be glad to~'draft such an ordinance,~and would check to see if the problem of mufflers
etc., should also be included here~ Mr. Fi. sher said this would be placed back on the
agenda as soon as th~ draft is'ready.
· Agenda I~em'No. 1t~~ Request from Sheriff for. funds for two~additionaml~deputy,~positions.
Sheriff Bailey said three additional deputies were requested by him~and approved by ~his
Board for the 1980-81 budget,, This request was then forwarded to Richmond for review by
the State Compensation~Board~. Sheri2f.Bailey Said he has received word that~the-State
Compensation Board had not approved the three additional positions. Sheriff Bailey said
he spoke with the Director of Finance, Mr. Ray B. Jones, about a possibDe appeal of the
decision by the State. The Sheriff said the workload has increased greatly, not only in
answering crime and other emergency calls, but also in the area of serving court papers.
Mr. Jones said'the State Code mandates the sheriff's salaries, and a pay scale is set for
deDBties. Mr.. Jones noted that the Compensation Board statedthat,they have already
allocat-ed 2~% abovem:their allocated funds, and can approve no more positions for State
funding'. Mr'.~ Jones~said ~the~ Sheriff' a~ed' for-an estima,te to b~wor~ed.~.-ou~ for-the cost
of th~ ad~diti0na!~deputieStO b~ pai~d out. of~ local funds. Mr~.-Fisher said,some costs are
already in~h~'~udget, lc'Ov~ringthe exPenses,of~'a
JoneS'is~aId-'-fundi~E fbr.Lth~se additional d~Put~es WO.uldJbave to ~Come,Erom~the Ge~era~l Fund
Carry~oV~r~bal~a~n~ce.'~ ~r-. A~gnor'~said~he S~eriff. is~asking for'.au~thO:r~zation bo~ employ ~two
new deputizes as of July i~,~ 19~80, reoognizin~g tmhat.-no~stat~ 2eimbur.sement~ will be made.
Mr. Fisher' sai~ he 'wanted~some idea as" to, hoW: muoh ad:dltional local money wo,ul~ be r.e-
quired to fund~ th,se requested~ d~ep~ties ~ove-r.~and 'above-.the ~moun-t~:at2eady in :tHe b,udget.
Mr. Agnor figured the additional cost to the-Ccunty above the amount already in'-.the budget
would be $2B,7B7. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the request of the Sheriff because
he felt-the rap~id~roWtH of the County s'houid~also· r'e2t, ect.in the.,amount~:o~f nece~ssary,,law
enforcement.official~, M~: FisheP said h~ also' wouldsupport the request., for two addi-
tional depUbies to' be paid"from ~local funds.. Motion was th~en offered,b~y M~. Lindstrom,
June. ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting.)
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approva~the employment of two additional~deputies beginning
July~l, 1980, .and that an appropriation~request fo~ the additional~funds be brought back
to the Board of Supervisors.~after July ~l. Roll~was.~called and.the motion carried by the
following recorded vote: .......... ~ ~
AYES: Messrs, Fisher,~Iachetta, Lindstrom,~and Miss Nash and Mr,~ Roudabush.
NAYS: None ......
ABSENT: Mr,.. Henley. _- - -
Dr. 'iach~t~a'asked at~'wha~ p0in~ the community ~h0uld Start ~°~SidSring'a"~police
force, .Sheriff Bailey said.in 1971 he asked this question of the then County Executive,
Mr. Tom Batchelor,:~who Wasmof,the opinion that..the County population shou!d~exceed 50,000
people before a police force should be established. Sheriff Bailey said the population of
the County does now exceed that figure He also noted that the costs involved in operating
a police force would far exceed those encountered in operating the Sheriff's Department.
Agenda~ItemNo. 12.- Resolution - VOR Funds:.~-- Expansion._gf. ~Vy C~eek..Nabural Area.
Mr. Paul.SaUnier,-.was present representing-Mr.,Wi!l~am M~ CQl~the V~rg$~a S~a~e~ _ Director
of the.Nature:,Conservancy. Mr. Saunier~read_the..fo~low~g~tte~g~edbY~Mr- Cole:
"June ll, 1980 ......
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Re: 81.'~ acre'Ltract~adjacent to Ivy Creek Natural Area owned bmY~.'
james N.'~Fleming
Dear Members:
The Nature'ConSer~ancy i~'~l~ased to ~n~$rm you t'ha'~ it has ob~ainCd~n.~
extension of the-oPtion until October~ 31,'1980 for the 81.5 acres adjacent
to the Ivy Creek Natural Area owned by James N. Fleming. This involved a
more substantial consideration than the original sixty-day (60) option
which Mr. Fleming granted for a nominal amount.
The City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle should file their
joint application to the Virginia Commission on Outdoor Recreation for a
matching~f.e.deral grant i~mediately. As ~you will recall from~mY e.~ecutive
session meeting with you, I-had estimated that_baSed~on~.t~he ~Yrrent county
assessment as an accurate refl ~¢tion of what the property would app~i~e
for thec~unty,s share of
' the purchase p~ice'~ould be
The Nature Conservancy's interest, closing costs and overhead.
· A commitmen~ from the~County of ~lbemarle for this amount and a commitment
to pro~eed with the j.oint matching grant applicati.gn are~.St~.p~'that~s~0u~d~
be taken immediately ....
I lOok forward to working with~J~6n 't~iS Project~."
Mr. Agnor'sai~ he.would recommend the Board, approve this request. 'Mr. Agnor said the
opportunity~ to obtain such land for the ~My Creek Natural Area was rare. Mr. Agnor
recommended tlhat the County authorize .joint application with .the City of Charlottesville
for the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation funding, and that as the Board of Supervisors pro-
ceeds through the Capital BDdget work sessions and public hearing, that the $3?,750 be
incorporated into the Capital Budget which ~would not be. utilized unles~the grant is
received. Mr. Lindstro~said~such an acquisition Will b~,a~va~tag~o~s to the public for a
long time, and then offered motion to accept the CountY Executive's recommendation.~ The
motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Saunier said unless there is proof the money has been appropriated by the City
and County, the~ no action will be taken w~th r~gard ~o the~grant applica~.ion. Dr.
Iachetta asked~.if word. will be received regard~g~approva~ of the g~ant ~ppl~cati.on~in
sufficient time to exercise the option on the property.~ Mr..].SalUnier said h~did .not know,
but hoped that the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would place this application at the top of
the list and approve it since the property in question is essential for the protection of
the ivy Creek Natural Area already established.'~ .There~being no further ...... discussion, roll
was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, .Iachetta,. Lindstrom and Miss NaSh and Mr. Roudabush.~'
NAYS: None ............
ABSENT: Mr. Henley
Agend~ Item .N~..13. Work~Sessi~on: ~api~aI Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor said Mr,
Tucker would be making the. presentatiOn.m~0 t~. Boa~~ of~ S~pervis0rs because of changes in
the State Code. Mr. Agnor~said following the adoption of the Compreh~nsiv~ Pl~n'if 1977,
the preparation of the Capital ImProvements budget has been handled almost entirely by
staff Members from the Planning, Finance and County Executive officeS. Mr. Agnor said
this year, work has beene'done entirely by the Planning~Staff in aCcordance with the
section of the State Code which states this function is that of the Planning Commission.
Although the State Code also requires that the. financiali~aspects of the Uapital Improve-
ments budget be prepared bY ~he Planning commission, it was felt best to 'phase'those
responsibilities~in over ~a two~.year period,~ Mr. Agn0r finally noted that although he
would like to see this budget adopted by the Board some time in July, it~iS~not critical
and the. Board may therefore schedule additional work sessions if desired.
~,~ Robert Tucker said he and his staff have reviewed alI requests for compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. Following. pr~oject summary Sheets, Mr. Tucker noted that
items listed on the first-page were carried over from the PreVious year,~ a~d~were not
related to the Comprehensive Plan; those being ren0vatf6ns ~0~the L'ane~Huilding, ~the C-oUr~
Square Building and the Juvenile Court Building.
June ll, 19~0~(Regular Day Meeting)
The second summary sheet involved the Airport requests. Mr. Tucker said the ,five
requests involved were mainly safety requdrements made, by the Federal A¥iation Adminis-
tration. Mr. Tucker noted that costs for Airport projects are 90% ,'Federally funded, the
remaining 10% is split between the City of Charlottesville and the County,. '
Mr. Tucker said the third sun~.ary sheet represents education.~ .Mr. Tucker noted that
at its meeting of June ~, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission~ offered, the
following reco~nuendations:
t,~ While Meriwethe~r-Lewis~Elementary School, viewed in the context of a !'new"
school, do~es'not comply with locational .recommendations of~the Plan, the
Commission's opinion, given existing school district boundaries, is that re-
construction in its current location would not have an appreciably greater
nega~tive impact OmB development objectives~of the Plan,.than~would ~construction in
the Ivy~¥i~llage or ~other locati~on~ ..... -~
Mr. Tucker said Greenwood-Crozet Elementar-y has not yet been acted onlby the School
Board. He noted that the~dollar figure shown on the summary represents the~closing of
Greenwood Schoo~,and building an addition onto Crozet School to accommodate 500 students.
The request for ~an addition ~to-Broadus Wood Elementary School is fore, five additional~
classrooms and a physical education facility
Summary sheet four inv01ves~fire, rescue and~safety~.projects, ~which are carried over
from last year's Capital Improvement budget. Summary sheet five refers to Highway pro-
jects. Mr. Tuc~ke~s'aid She figures on Hydraulic Ro~d would ~hav~ tO~berevised since the
discussion on this matter earlier in today's meeting, Mr. Lin~strom~.said he would like to
see immediate consideration of themnext reGuest, Georgetown Road Pedestrian Path.~ Mr.
Lindstrom n~ted that tentative Plans havebeen~-drawn~by'the Engineering~Department .and
estimates made regarding costs. Mr, Lindstrom said Engineering hopes to have this path in
place by September whenschool reopens. D~. Iache~ta said he~wO~ld lik~e~the same im-
mediate considera~tion, fore,the culvert under ~Commonwealth Dri~e~.~~
Summary Sheet six is regarding libraries. Mr. Tucker said the Main Library has no
additional al~ocati~on needs. Mr.' Tucker said the P~lanning~ommiss~ion m~d~,~he following
comments regarding the Scottsville Library Addition:
2, While ~the~ Sc~ttSville~ Library'Addit~on,~ located in the Sco~tsville
pOD, is not located within a designated growth area and ther~e~fore does~ -
~not comply with the locational recommendations of the Plan, the
Commission's opinion is~$hat~this Proje~ct will, not ~have si,gnificant
adverse impact on development ob~jec~t~ves of~t~e~Plan;
Dr. Iachetta asked at which site the money allocated for the Scottsville Library
would be spent. Mr~. Tucker at first said-~it~would be at the Scottswil~te PO~1~. Miss ~ash
asked if this would be in addition to the Library l¢cated in downtown Scot~bsVil~e. Mr.
Tucker then checked and corrected himself by stating that the addition is recommended for
the existing Scottsville .DibrarY~located in dOwntOWn Scottsvi. l~.e.,~~ Mr~. Tucker~ next~ said
the Northside Br~nch Library is slated for the future service to the Rou~e 29 North and
Hollymead area. Mr~ Tucker said Planning has been Working closely with Mr. ~Christoph~er
Devan of the Library in attempting to locate an appropriate site for this future-£aciIity.
Mr. Fisher asked if the site shouldn't be purchased at least two years in advance of when
occupancy is desir~d~ to~--all0w time for~planning the'structure~,-~etc~ Mr~,'.Tu~eker said he
hoped to have mor~ inf~OrmatiOn on this library~sit~ at~the~time of~.mthe,?p~bl~c~hearing.
Dr. Iachetta said he was disappointed that ~no'rt~hside b~anch~librar~ is~o~far~in ~he
future.
Summary sheet seven contains miscellaneous items. First, Data Processing. Mr.
Tucker said thed~& pr~ocessi~ng~.fa~cili~y?~wit~ ben,located ~inm~'Lane, and that a recommendation
on the type of unit will be forthcoming. The next item is~the location Ofma library
within the Communi~t~ C~Olml~ge.~. ~ap,ital Improvement~ money al~t-oo~bed under ,mi~soel~aneo~s
repairs is for the~He~lth Department. ~enova~[on ,and roo'f repa~rs,~a~n~d rep~ai~s,~to~h-e Joint
Security~Complex RooD. Miscellaneous 'money~£or el~derly housing in Scottsville, requires
additional rev,i,ew~under Section 15.,t-~6 of the Code, when site-location-has been determined.
The next summary sheet refers to Parks and Recreation, Mr. Tucker said many of these
items are carried 'o~er-Trom last ~ear, ~an~d wil~l~ cancel, thems.elves~ out~at the end of,~this
year. The Hollymead and Crozet (Brownsville,)Li~tle~,League:F.i~e.ld Improvemen~s~and-the
remainder-of the~it~ems on this sheet will a~,l:be,,~u~der .n~ext ~'ear,s~budget.~ ~.~ Fisher
asked Mr.~ Agnor ~What were the long-range,~p~ans. For possible de~velop.ment of an madditional
County park facility.., Mr. Agnor said it is difficult te put a-price on an i,~temwhen there
is no site under c~onsideration. Mr. TUcker s~a~i,d be ,hopes ~o ,f:i~nish,.the~P~r, ks :and~R~Orea-
tion update,withi,n the next month or ,,so. Mr. Fisher-said tb,e ~C'api't~aD Improvements Budget
has not been up'dated ~for quite ,some time as ,have' other ,budget ~areas, and~:q:ues.tioned ~if
this should not ben-done. Mr. Agnor said it will ,be don,e at the~-bime-the ~ar, ks~,.and Recrea-
tion Plan updat-e is received
SummarySheet ~ine pert:ains,t'o Sol~d Waste,~ Mr. ~ucker said theremls no,-~dOl~ar
information available on the Resource~Recovery Station proposed for fUture development;
The Ivy'Landfill Access Road (Route 6~7) is scheduled for completion this fiscal year.
Summary Sheet~Ten regarding ~utilities, Mr;~:~T~cker sa~id:none~,of-the-three items listed
have been finalized, 'and are ca~ried OVmer fromm-the previ~ous fiscaD~,year,-~,.,~r.-m,Tucker ~said
they have been moved to t~e end :of the schedule. Mr.. FiSher asked if applications' were
still being sent for federal assistance on these projects. Mr. Agnor said y~es, especially
for the Scottsville Shopping Center extension of sewer and water service. Miss Nash asked
about the housing for the: elderly in ScottS-vil, le., Mr...Agnor said that would he,related to
the Shopping Center request', as any-home-for ~the elderly .wou~d beton the same water/sewer
Mr. Tucker said that completed the~list o~ projects fun~ed s2rictly.by Albem2rle
County. Mr~ Tucker said the remainder o~ the, project, s ~isted,are'~not County .funded
programs, such as~the Six-Year Highway Plan~rojects,~housing rehahilitatZon.:and self-help
(AHIP), utility improvements, Rivanna Water~mand Sewer Authority-.projects, Mr. Tucker said
June ll, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
one item titled Water, System Storage and Interconnec~ion deals with~thePantops area~, and
Ashcroft which is not,in the jurisdictional~.boundaries~-of the~Albemarle~County.Service
Authority. Mr. T~ck,e~r-said'. the ,Plann-ing sta~f~has completed ~'h~ir~'~wo'~k on ~he amendment
to the Comprehensive~Plan for the jurizdicticnaLma~eas, which has_ b~en forwarded~to the
Service Authority for their recommendation. Dr. Iachetta asked if the projected figures
shown are up to date. Mr. Tucker said they were reasonably recent~figures. 'Mr. Lindstrom
asked when the. report~from~the .State,Wate~ Control Board is expected to,be received~
regarding the Crozet Interceptor. Mr. Agnor said this month, but no exact date is known.
Mr. Fisher said there is, $5~,G00,000 innon-C~unty funded~projmects~ included in this
budget. Mr. Fisher said. a good deal of~the,,cost for sewer and Water p~ojects comes from
the fees~paid by,~custOmers~.~ ......................... - .........
Dr. Ctarenc~e McCture, Sup~te~dent~ ~.~i S.c.h~oi~ was. P~.es'ent~[ an~ Stated
that Mr.
Tucker had covered all points regarding school requests,, ex,eDt She~Federally funded
program for energy conservation. Dr. McClure said he thought this may have been left off
the list because~it wo:uld come under ~he heading O.~_renovation Mr_..Ra~:B.~ Jon~:s,~ said the
energy conservation program Dr. McClure is~ speaking of is being handled separately bY the_
Department of Finance. Dr. McClure then added that regarding Greenwood School, although a
decision is probably two years .away~, if t. he present .trend continues., t~ Greenwood School
will most likely be discontinued
- Mr, Ray~B. Jones. read his memorandum of June 10, 1980 as follows'
.- "I have reviewed the Five Year CaPital Improvement Program ~s received, from
the Plan2in.g Commission My review was~.~limited to Part I~Dr the portion
proposed to be. funded from local, f~nds. After:dis.cussion with the~C~nty
Executive, several changes were made-in Part I as follows:
1. The Vehicular~Maintenance Facility, in ,Item ,~ was rem0v~d frQm Educa?
tion and placed in Miscellaneous.under Item ~because it,s intended,.use~is~ ,
not limited to educational purposes.
2. The Hydrant Installation in Item ~ was transferred to Part II because
the County has provided monies to Albemarle County SerFice. Authority in the.
past several years to install hydrants on all existing lines. The addi-
tional hydrant requests shown will,require additional lines ,or oversizing
of existing lines
~. The S.cottsFille Elderly~..Hous~'~g'in ,!tem.~Was tra~err~.d to Part.II
since its funding should be from. a H~D Grant. ...... ·
~. All of Item .l~Uti~ities was removed, from Part I and placed~in~.Pa~t II .
because these projects appear to be responsibilities of the Albemarle
County Service Authority. '~
After makingthese chaDges, I have created a new schedule which is Att'a~'hmsnt A
of this memorandum~ The next ~ge of this m~o'r~n~um expla'~ns t~e content ~
of Attachment A. .It shows~the_project.~cost~, county shar~ and~funding ....
needs.
A second attaChment designated Attachment B is explained on page bhree.
the various sources~, and some_
Attachment~B,shows the ayailability Of funds~,
possible future sources that are not definite at'this tim.e..~. .
The~last page of this memo includes my summary, concerns and recommendations."
Mr. Jones said this proposed cap~$al impr0vements ~udge~' could, be brought~
back into. reaQh~,by simply .defer~ing certain~items. This wo,uld .eliminate ~the
need for a bond issue over the next five years. Mr. Jones said he ~as concerned
about increasing the County debt which .the pr~ogram as originally.shown does
project. Mr. Jon~s then asked that the Board consider deferring approximately
$8,000,000 of the .total_,f.or one year. b.ecaus,e l) a decision is needed regarding
the continuance of Federal Revenue Sharing, and 2) the stability of the economy.
BOard members then,~gencrally diSc,usse~d ~ethods of financ~ing thisproposed budget~, and
whether or ,not a bond issue should be considered~_ Mr. Fisher said Board members must
decide how the needs R~esented in this.~capital imprQvements budget are gQ~.ng ~o be _met,
whether they will be.willing,to r~qu.~t~ a m~ondissue for $6,000,000 or if. not how the
budget funding will b~ met. Mr. Fisher .suggested c0ns~derabio~ of placing ~ore funds in.
the current revenues, and study which ite~ms.co~ldpossibly be de.ferred~ Dr. Iachetta
asked ifthe figures presented in the rePort reflect inflation. Dr. McClure and Mr.
Tucker both indicated that the figures presented in the report did in fact.reflect inl
flationary figures., Nr.~Fisher requested Mr~ Agnor to review the proposed budget', and
make a formal recommendation to the Board. Mr. Agnor said the results may not be any
different then those presented today, but he felt the staff would like the additional time
to make a more indepth review. Mr. Ag~or added that he could report back to the Board of
Supervisors with possible revisions at the July 9th meeting.
At 5:20 P.M,, Mr.. Fisher declared a .bri~rece~ss. The meeting re.convened at ~5:B0
P.M. Mr. Fisher note~d that it was obvious the meeting's~agenda could., not be.~finished
today, and that ~he would li~e to discuss only:~a £e~ m0~e items before adjourning.
NotDocketed: Memorandum Georgetown Ho, ad.Walkway. Mr. J.~Ha~vey Bailey .summarized
his memOrandum, which contained a description of the walkway design, an estimated cost of
construction, and descriptions and estimate purchase costs of right-of-way required to
construct the desired walkway. Mr.. Agnor noted that in August, 1979 the Board of Super-
visors allocated ~2?,.50d~in the ,Capital Budget. and in February, 1980 authorization was
given to hire a surveyor ~whereby the estimate ~as increased .to $~,000. Mr. Agnar noted
that the~.Capital Budget request just presented quotes a price of $59,000~to ~$6~000
depending~on the type of surface-~nsed.~ Mr, Agnor said Mr..Lindstr0m .has 0~fered.to
contaot the property owners ~.nvolved to discuSS obtaining easements necessary for right-
June lt~ 1980 (RegUlar Day Meeting)
of-way for the walkway, but wished to obtain a more firm commitment from the Board regarding
funding of the project at the new'estimated cost.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion approving the concept of the project as proposed by Mr.
Bailey in his memorandum, and authorizing~the projected increase, and go to bid on this
project. Mr. Agnor added that it would have to come back to the Board for final approval.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried~by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda~Item-No. 15. Discussion: Issuance of County Stickers with Payment~of Personal
Property TaxeS. Mr'. F~anc~s~pring~r of the Scotts¥ille District was present who suggested
eliminating~the present automobile Windshield sticker tax and~sticker by adding the re-
venue received ~o the personal property tax form~ Mr. Sp~ingerSaid this ~awkward pro-
cedure is both expensive for the Count~ to administer and inconvenient.for ~he taxpayer.
Mr. Ray-Jones Said What Mr. Springer has-suggested is di£feren£ than what he wrote about
in his memorandum, and that he would research Mr. Springer's suggestion further.
Agenda Item No. 18b)
Jones' memorandum of June ~, 1980 as follows:
Appropriation:
Lane Project. Mr. Agnor summarized Mr. Ray B.
In August 1978, a special appropriation was made in the amount of $~,200~000
for AdministratiOn and Court Buildings (Code ~?-18A~4) to' renovate the~Lane
Building into a County Administration Building. As of June l, 1980, expen-
ditures have been made totaling 9953~2B8'.28. These expenditures included
payments to architects for plans and specifications, payments to R.E. Lee
for roof repairs plus the first payment to Ale'kna Construction on-Phase i
remodeling in the amount of $271,06~.~5.
The second payment request for Alekna has been received in the amount of
9205,2?6.95 and will be made. This will virtually wipe out the unexpended
balance of the original 91~2 million appropriation. AS you know, the
con~ract' awarded on February 29, 1980 to ~lekna Construction Company, Inc~
was 9~,~61,600.00. The attached is a schedule ~of total costs to complete
the project which was prepared after review with the architects.
From Federal Revenue Sharing Fund to Code ~7-18A.2
From General Fund to Code 19.19-!8A.5
Total
688,85o
3~740~970
It is necessary to split this appropriation due to the future uncertainity
of Revenue Sharing payments which cut-off under the current law in September.
If~the Revenue Sharing payments are continued beyond September, the proceeds
will be handled as they were in the current operating budget. Therefore,
the request is to include the current unallocated balance of Federal Revenue
Sharing and the remaining amount ($3,7~0,970) be appropriated from the
General Fund. This actiOn should complete Phase I Funding.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush and seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
that~'$~,~29,820 be, and the same hereby is appropriated as follows:
From Revenue Sharing Fund to Code 47-18A.4
From General Fund to Code 19.19-18A.5
$ 688,850
3~740~970
$4~429~B2D
This appropriation is made for the renovation of the Lane Building as a County
Office Building.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 18a) Appropriation: Scottsville School. Mr. Agnor referred to Mr.
Ray B, Jones' memorandum dated June ~, 1980 as follows:
Upon your approval of the Scottsville Elementary School construction
contract last August, only 9690,000 (local funds share) of the $1,690,000
project was appropriated because the $1,000,000 Literary Fund money re-
ceived by "draw-down" on a construction progress and payment report. In
other words, you have to spend the local money first or use temporary
borrowed money. The first draw-down has been made as the project is well
on its way to completion. Therefore, it is proper to complete the total
appropriation at this time.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisor of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,000,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
grom the School Construction Fund and transferred to Code 19.12,
Scottsville Elementary School.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
June~lt, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
NAYS:
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
AgendaItemi-Mo., 27. Adjo~rn;',~ Mr,.,-Fisher]noted th.&~,~.~he.re.~e~e/:s~ill.a co~nsiderable ·
number of~items scheduled for discussion at toda~,s meeting which the~Board does not. have
time to hear., and suggested deferr&.ng those.~i~emSlto a ~future ~date. Mr. Fisher~ suggested
that since the Board would be meeting on June 18 at 2:00 P.M. possibly this meeting could
be adjourned to l:00 P..M. on that date to complete this,~agenda. Board members were in
agreement with the June 18, 1980 at l:00 P.M. meeting time, and Mr. Fisher requested the
Clerk to be sure and notify Mr. Henley of this action .........
Not-Docketed. Commonwealth Drive. Dr. Iachetta asked if the figure shown in the
Capital Improvement Program'is~the amount required for the culvert work on Commonwealth
Drive..~ Mr., Agnor replied~t~as, but h,e_ W~S_~Qtm s~re ~f w~at mu~t ~edone next,. Dr. ~._
Iachetta said_in,speaking with Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department~of~High~ays
and Transportation.t~hat~the Highway Depar,tment ~ill be ready~o proceed,~with the work
after July l, 1980 .... Mr.~Agnor said st that time an appropriation woul~hav~O~be made in
the amount of $25,~70,~or~ payment-in fiscal year~,l~8~ .......... ~
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervis,o~s_~¢~ Albemarle C0unt~,
Virginia, that $27,370 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and code~ to t9.20C for .work on_a cUlvert under, Commonwealth
Drive. This appropriation to be ..effective for the~i98.~rSi ~F~,~cal,.~e.ar..
The motion W~S seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried~bY~the followinE~recorded.vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher iac~etta, Lindstrom ,and Miss Nash~,and 'M~. Eoudabu~b..._ _
NAYS: None. ~-
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 27.~ Adjourn: A~'5;56'P.M,, motion was offered by Dr. Iach~tta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn tQ~June 18,~1980 at I:G0mP~M.,~R0,11 was called and
the motion carried by the~foZlowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and ~iss Mash and Mr] ~0udab6~~h.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.