1980-10-08314
October 8, 1980 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 8, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvi
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton
R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:14 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Introduction of Extension Agent. Ms. Elizabeth Payne, Unit Supervisor
for the VPI-SU Extension Service introduced the Board to the new Extension Agent, Mr. Gary
Riviere. Mr. Fisher welcomed~Mr. Riviere to the County.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: January 14, 1980, February 6, 1980 (Night),
February 20, 1980, March 5, 1980 (Afternoon), March 5, 1980 (Night), March 19, 1980, March
21, 1980, March 24, 1980 and April 16, 1980 (Night).
January 14, 1980: Miss Nash reported no errors or corrections.
February 20, 1980: Mr. Lindstrom noted on page 348, the second paragraph, fifth line,
a new paragraph should begin with "Mr. Lindstrom felt since the. "
April 16, 1980 (Night): Mr. Fisher noted on page 479, the sixth line of the first
paragraph after the copy in material, the words "the zoning ordinance. . Section 2-1-25(8)
of the Zoning Ordinance." are repetitious and should be deleted.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes
of January 14, 1980, February 20, 1980 and April 16, 1980 (Night) with the above corrections.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann.
The minutes of February 6, 1980 (Night), March 5, 1980 (Afternoon and Night), Mar~h 19,
1980, March 21, 1980 and March 24, 1980 were deferred.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Status of Road in Mechunk Acres.
Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present and said he was contacted
by Mr. Mark Murray, property owner in Mechunk Acres, concerning the status of the roads in
Mechunk Acres. Mr. Murray was concerned about the road in Mechunk Acres being used as a
thoroughfare for Woodcreek Subdivision. Mr. Williams researched the matter and understood
that the road is dedicated to the public and the subdivision is platted with a fifty foot
right-of-way. Mr. Fisher asked if the site plan for Woodcreek Subdivision has been approved.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and said the subdivision has
been approved with a public road.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Murray is not present and felt he should have an opportunity to
speak. Therefore, he requested Mr. Murray be notified that this item will be on the Board's
agenda, November 12.
Agenda Item No. 4b. ZMA-80-18. Roy Wheeler Realty. (This petition was deferred from
October 1, 1980 in. order that the Highway Department could provide some information regarding
the site.)
Mr. Tucker then summarized the request and noted that the Planning Commission supported
the rezoning from A-1 to CO if certain uses allowed in the CO zone were excluded. Mr.
Fisher noted the proffer which was r~eceived on September 25, 1980 and set out in the October
1, 1980 minutes; said proffer excluded banks and savings and loan institutions from being
allowed on this site as well as the access to the site being restricted to Route 855.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He said since it is
unknown what will develop on the property, the traffic generation is difficult to determine.-
He did feel the Board should keep in mind that there is a rezoning request for land on the
other side of the by-pass which involves a much larger parcel and would send traffic underneatt
the bridge on Route 601. Mr. Roosevelt said the Route 250 ~pass ramp and Route 601 carry
large volumes of traffic but Route 855 does not and is not ~a major road.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the smaller parcel in this rez~n~ng ~eque~t~ould be i~volve~i
any future road improvements in the area. Mr. Roosevelt mim nov ~ee± vnis propervy wou±a ~e
needed for a future interchange because of the railroad running right along the property.
Therefore~ he did not see any need to protect the land for an increase in the interchange.
Discussion then followed on the right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt thought the right-of-way was
sixty feet and did not feel more than that would be needed.
315
e ular Da Meetin
Mr. Jason Eckford, representing the applicant, was present. He said the rezoning
requested is a reasonable use of the property and would produce less traffic and less people
than some other uses would. He noted there had not been any public opposition and the
request was unanimously supported by the Planning Commission based on the proffer. Mr.
Eckford then presented a history of the property to the Board. He did not feel the current
A-1 zoning was proper for the property because the property is not designed to raise livestock
or to gr~ crops. As for residential, he did not feel anyone would want to have a house
this close to the road. He then noted the question Miss Nash asked at the October 1, 1980
meeting about the visibility of the property and he felt Mr. Roosevelt would attest to this
that there is no real concern about visibility.
Mr. Eckford said the septic system has also caused some concern but the applicant has
addressed the general aspect of that matter. The Health Department has examined the property
and does not feel there is any problem With~the concept of having the system located on the
northern part of Parcel A to serve both parcels. Mr. Eckford said use of both parcels is of
absolute importance to the applicant.
Mr. Lindstrom said two lthings which had caused him concern about this request was the
reasonable use of the property and the patterns of generated traffic since a major concern
of the Board has been impact on Old Ivy Road. He personally visited the property and after
doing so, did not feel the request was unreasonable. Mr. Lindstrom said the only two uses
remaining in the Commercial Office designation which caused him concern were the day care or
nurseries or a church because of the significant amount of traffic'that could be generated
from those. He also had reservations about the size of the parcel in the corner but having
viewed the property and with the right-of-way situation which exists around the parcel, he
felt such could be utilized in a limited fashion. The only other concern he had was the
concept of having all the sewage septic fields on the one parcel and unless both parcels are
under unified ownership and tied together by a site plan, he could not support that approach.
In conclusion, Mr. Lindstrom said the parcels were too small for any other uses and felt by
having the access limited to Route 855 there would not be a new traffic pattern created.
Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom felt his concerns had been resolved.
Mr. Fisher said his concern was the request before the Board last year for commercial
rezoning on the Route 250 by-pass at the entrance of Old Ivy Road. Dr. Iachetta felt that
request had more residential uses and student housing and the problem was the underpass at
Old Ivy Road on the eastern end. Mr. Lindstrom felt one distinction of this request is that
the property is completely cut off from other surrounding properties by roads on all four ·
sides which creates an unusual circumstance. He did not feel any improvements would be done
to the parcels here and the proposed zoning is the most reasonable. Mr. Lindstrom said the
isolated nature of the parcels is a ~enefit and such would buffer the use from whatever may
be developed across the road and would not impact any other parcels.
Discussion then followed on the leechfield. Dr. Iachetta felt that aspect would be
taken care of when the site plan is submitted. However, he was concerned and felt some type
of arrangement to allow the user of the smaller parcel access to the other parcel should be
made. He then asked if the only thing required was the appropriate easements to assure the
use of the leechfield area for the smaller parcel. Mr. St. John said there was no problem
with the location of the facility. Dr. Iachetta said with that assurance, he would offer
motion to approve ZMA-80-18 with the proffer submitted on September 25, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and noted his reservation of opinion abo~t the septic field situation.
Mr. Fisher said approval of this request is difficult for him due to the access problems,
the small size lots and the comprehensive plan recommendation but he would support the
motion with grave reservationS because primarily the lots have been cut and severed by the
by-pass ramp which is no fault of the present property owners. He also noted that support
of this request does not indicate support of any commercial north or west of the site nor
any other properties on Old Ivy Road to the east of the by-pass-because he did not feel any
additional traffic on that road could be allowed without major improvements to the underpass.
He then requested that his comments go on record since he felt this wasa debatable matter
but he would support this request. Mr. Fisher also suggested that the language in the
proffer clarify that the access would be restricted to Route 855 for both parcels A and B.
Mr. Eckford accepted that clarification. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Lindstrom also accepted this
as an amendment to the motion. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of Carrsbroo
~Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 1980)
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Joseph Wright, owner of lot 18 in Carrsbrook, needs to acquire
additional land for a septic field. Mr. Wright's neighbor, Mr. Dudley Rochester owner of
lot 14, has agreed to the exchange of land. This exchange changes the subdivision plat and
requires Board action. Dr. Iachetta said he has viewed the property with the owners and
feels the request is proper.
The public .hearing was then opened. Mr. Larry McElwain, representing Mr. Joseph Wright,
was present and requested approval. He said there is a drainage area which runs north and
south of the property which is more contiguous w~th the resubdivision.
With no one else to speak for or agains~ the ordinance, the public hearing was closed.
Dr. Iachetta said the problem is the existing leechfield which is malfunctioning and
there is no good location left on Lot 18 for replacement. The eXchange has been negotiated
with Mr. Wright in order to allow a much superior leechfield and .room for future expansion
if such needs to be enlarged, Dr. I~achetta did not feel any violence was being represented
to the subdivision area with this exchange. Mr. Fisher said the exchange of property is
between two adjacent owners and no new buildings or parcels are being created. Motion was
then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinance:
October 8, 198~0 (Regular Day Meeting)
316
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTION OF
"CARRSBROOK" SHOWN ON RECORDED PLAT AS LOT 18;
THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 363, PAGE 318
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County, Virginia,
has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Carrsbrook, the original plat of which is
recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia
in Deed Book 363 at page 318; and '
WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 18 shown on the said plat now desires to vacate the
original plat so as to resubdivide the said lot; and
WHEREAS, the said owner has petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is inconsistent with the proposed
resubdivision;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, as follows:
Section 1. That the subdivision of that portion of Carrsbrook shown on a plat
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 363, at page 318 be, and it hereby is, vacated insofar as the same shall be
inconsistent with the resubdivision of Lot 18 as shown on a plat of William Morris Foster
C.L.S., dated August 7, 1980, which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance.
Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way
vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded on the
aforementioned plat.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virgini& (1950), as amended,
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain
legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED",
and shall also make reference to the same on the same to the volume and page in which the
instrument of vacation is recorded.
Section 4. Such vacation of the aforesaid plat shall be effective upon the
recordation of a plat of resubdivision as approved in accordance with the Albemarle
County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Ordinance to vacate a plat of a portion of Ivy
Farms Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October t, 1980)
Mr. Agnor said this is a recorded subdivision plat from which one lot, Lot 20 comprised
of 18.8 acres, has been approved by the Planning Commission for a resubdivision into three
lots. In order to change the plat on the records, a public hearing is required.
Mr. Fisher asked the status of Stillhouse Road. Mr. Agnor said it is a public road as
of October 1. Mr. Fisher asked how many property owners have access to Lot 20B. Mr. Allan
Brill, the owner, was present and said three have ingress. Mr. Lindstrom asked if notice of
this public hearing was sent to the adjacent property owners. The Clerk said yes.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Allan Brill who requested this vacation said
the property is large and the request is an attempt to divide such in a manner that will be
in keeping with the original intent of the subdivision. He then pointed out the topography
of the land and noted that none of the housing sites will be visible from the other parcels
due to the topography.
With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was
closed.
Since notice had been sent to the adjacent property owners about this vacation and the
request is in accordance with the size and nature of the other lots, Mr. Lindstrom offered
motion to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTION OF
"IVY FARM" SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS LOT 20;
THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE
CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 593, PAGE 572
WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County, Virginia,
has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Ivy Farm, the original plat of which is of
record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in Deed Book 593, page 572; and
WHEREAS, the owners of Lot 20 shown on the said plat now desire to vacate the
original Plat so as to resubdivide the said lot; and
WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is inconsistent with the proposed
resubdivision;
317
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, as follows:
Section 1. That the subdivision of that portion of Ivy Farm shown on a plat
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Book 593, page 572 be, and it hereby is, vacated insofar as the same shall be
inconsistent with the resubdivision of Lot 20 shown on the said plat.
Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section i of this ordinance shall in no
way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded
on the aforementioned plat.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the 0ode of Virginia (1950), as
amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write
in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word
"VACATED", and shall also make reference to the same on the same to the volume and
page in which the instrument of vacation is recorded.
Section 4. Such vacation of the aforesaid plat shall be effective upon the
recordation of a plat of resubdivision as approved in accordance with the Albemarle
County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Information Relative to ZMA-79~,Albemarle Land Corporation.
Mr. Fisher had requested this be iplaced on the agenda in order that the progress of the
activities for the certification of the dam in the Hollymead PUD could be followed. The
question still remains on the matter about whether or not the road across the dam can become
part of the state system.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing Albemarle Land Corporation, was present and noted that ~the
final hydrologic studies were taken to the Highway Department yesterday and Mr. Roosevelt
has indicated that review of the material would take about thirty days. Mr. Fisher asked if
this information was the only thing missing in order to make a recommendation. Mr. Roosevelt
said the data has been received but he is not prepared to respond to the material at this
time. However, he has discussed this problem with the State Drainage Engineer who has
indicated concern about the impoundment falling under the Federal Dam Safety regulations
which require that a dam be built in accordance with the Federal regulations. Also, indicatio~
have been made that the State will not accept any more roads over dams without this certificat~
due to recent legislation. The State Drainage Engineer suggested that Albemarle Land Corporat~
contact the State Water Control Board to discuss the responsibility for this certification.
The requirement is that any dam twenty-five feet or higher or backs up to a certain amount
of water, requires this certification. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no additional information
that the Highway Department needs to review but before an agreement is made to take the road
into the system, the certification will be required if same falls under the new legislation.
Mr. St. John reminded the Board of his advice that if the dam is proposed for dedication
that the County should never accept same. ·
Mr. Fisher said the plans for the Hollymead PUD were approved on the assumption that
there was to be a major north-south road in the community; such was approved eight years
ago. He felt there was some conflicting matters in this and suggested that Mr. Hill, Mr.
Roosevelt and Mr. St. John try to resolve what has to be done on the matter. He felt the
road had to be in the State System since it is in the middle of the largest community shown
in the Comprehensive Plan and this is the only north-south thoroughfare through the community.
Therefore, Mr. Fisher did not see any way for the community to develop without that road
being in the state system. Mr. Hill agreed and noted that the Corp of Engineers came out to
the property last spring and no word has been received from them since that time. Therefore,_
he assumed that the feeling was the law was not valid in this situation. Mr. Fisher suggested
confirmation that statement with them and something in writing should be obtained if the
Corp of Engineers does not want to have anything to do with the dam.
Mr. Fisher felt some progress is being made'and asked that the Highway Department make
some response on November 12, 1980, as to whether or not the submission of the recent data
to the Highway Department iS satisfactory and complete.
Agenda Item No. 4d. Request to vacate a portion of a plat of Hollymead.
Mr. Agnor said request has been received from Mr. Jim Hill, agent for Mr. C. W. Hurt,
to vacate a plat of a portion of "Hollymead" shown on a recorded plat as parcels A, B and C.
The intent of such request is so a zoning change can be implemented from multi-family to
single-family which has been approved by all governing bodies. Mr. Agnor said a public
hearing is needed on this matter and such is the purpose for it being on the agenda today.
DrJ Iachetta then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on November 12, 1980, the
vacation of a portion of a plat of Hollymead. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:· Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and~Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley. , , , , , , ,
on
on
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. James Hill was present and asked that he be allowed to go on record about this
matter. He has contacted the Attorney General's Office about the necessity of having to
vacate a plat every time a subdivision is changed. Information on this should be in the
County Attorney's office by Friday. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John his opinion of this
matter. Mr. ~St. John said the present understanding from the Attorney General's office is
that this procedure is necessary.
Agenda Item No. 4e. Continuation of Discussion on Subdivision Road Policy.
Mr. Fisher said due to the hour he did not feel enough time is available to discuss
this today. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, after discovering that the Board
was discussing private roads, requested the staff to become involved. A work session is
scheduled next week and perhaps the results will have some bearing on the discussion. Mr.
Fisher then asked that the Board be kept informed of the progress and in a timely fashion.
He then suggested the matter be rescheduled to a later date. The Board concurred.
Agenda Item No. 4f. Letter Accepting Roads in State Secondary System.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following two letters received from the State Department
of Highways and Transportation:
"September 8, 1980
As requested in your resolution dated April 9, 1980, the following addition to the
Secondary System of Albemarle ~0unty is h~reby approved, effective October 1, 1980.
ADDITION LENGTH
IVY FARM SUBDIVISION
Stillhouse Road - From Route 1015 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.48 Mi."
"September 19, 1980
As requested in your resolution dated April 9, 1980, the following addition to the
Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective October 1, 1980.
ADDITION LENGTH
BROADWAY ROAD SUBDIVISION
Broadway Road - From Franklin Street S.E. 0.28 Mi."
Agenda Item No. 4g. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt noted letter of October 7, 1980 to the Board concerning the commencement
of work on Commonwealth Drive, October 13 and the fact that that section of road will be
closed no longer than two weeks. Mr. Roosevelt said that fire and safety agencies have been
notified and signs have been posted On that section as well as advertisements in the newspapers
concerning same.
Agenda Item No. 7.
Road.
Request from Mr. Wilson D. Bryant to obtain access to Totier Creek
Mr. Agnor presented the following letter dated September 9, 1980, regarding this request:
"Gentlemen:
Wilson D. Bryant is the owner of Lot 24 on a plat of Valmont Estates located in the
Scottsville District of Albemarle County, Virginia, on the Totier Creek Road~
Ownership of Lot 24 is subject to an agreement dated March 8, 1976, between the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, Leonard Land and Livestock, Ltd., and
Chester F. Baker. In that agreement there is provided in part a restriction against
further subdivision of the lots in Valmont Estates.
Mr. Bryant has requested the Planning Commission to approve the subdivision of Lot 24
into Lots 24A and 24B as shown on the attached survey. (Copy on file in the Clerk's
Office) These lots will share a joint entrance way and both will have access to Totier
Creek Road by this joint entrance way.
On August 26, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Comission deferred the subdivision
request until the March 8, 1976, contract has been renegotiated and a copy of the letter
of Idette C. Kimsey setting forth such action is enclosed.
On behalf of Mr. Bryant, I hereby r~quest that the Board of Supervisors review the
March 8, 1976, contract and permit Mr. Bryant to divide Lot 24, as requested, into two
lots sharing one entrance way onto ~Totier Creek Road.
If the Board of Supervisors approves an additional lot fronting on Totier Creek Road, as
requested, then Mr. Bryant will be able to return to the Planning Commission and seek
approval of tJhis subdivision.
Thank you for your consideration of this petition.
Yours truly,
(SIGNED BY)
John A. Dezio"
October 8, 1980 (R~ular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher recalled the agreement of March 8, 1976, which outlined the rules to which
the County and the above named parties had agreed~ The County was to pay for the improvement
of the road all the way to the park, but the County did not intend that all of the property
along the road would be subdivided and become more intensive. The basic intent of the road
was to provide public access to the Totier Creek Park. Mr. Fisher said this seems to indicate
that the property owner has changed his mind and desires to create two lots where there was
one lot before. Mr. Agnor agreed with that interpretation. Mr. Agnor noted the following
two sections in the agreement which would be affected by this change:
1) In developing their lands as a 'subdivision known as Valmont Estate, said lands will
be encumbered with the following restrictions:
a) No lot having frontage on a cul-de-sac street will have direct access to the
Totier Creek entrance road.
b) Ail lots fronting on the Totier Creek entrance road and which do not have
cul-de-sac frontage shall be designed so as to have a common entrance with
similar contiguous lots to said road by virtue of common driveways along
common side lines of such lots.
Mr. Agnor said he understands that the roadway~lot 24 was to front on was the cul-de-sac
street which is being eliminated and lot 24 will have frontage on Totier Creek Road.
Discussion then followed on the discrepancy of the August 1976 plat which showed Lot 24
as having 2.006 acres and now the plat shows two, two-acre lots. Mr. Dale Bryant, owner of
Lot 24, was present and said the Highway Department has agreed that there is enough land for
a driveway in the middle of the four acres and there are four acres altogether. Mr. St.
John~ noted that in 1978 a plat was recorded in Deed Boak 644, page 226 showing lot "X" as
becoming a part of Lot 24. Dr. Iachetta asked what happened to Mundy Drive. Mr. Tucker
said that will be eliminated. Mr. Fisher asked what would happen to the prqperty in the
rear that was to be served by Mundy Drive. Mr. Bryant Said Valmont Farm h~s-access on Route
726 with over a mile of road frontage. Mr. Fisher asked if the owner of Valmont Farm has
been notified of the possible closing of Mundy Drive and the fact that they may not have
access to Totier Creek Road. Mr. Tucker said notification of the redivision was sent but he
was unsure if they were notified of this meeting today.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the fifty foot right-of-way shown for Mundy Drive was dedicated.
Mr. Tucker felt it was for the portion shown on the plat. Mr. St. John noted that the
request is for the Board to give up part of its contractural right. Mr. Fisher said the
request is to eliminate Mundy Drive, but it is shown on the plat. Mr. Bryant said the
Planning Commission asked the surveyor to show Mundy Drive on the plat. Dr. Iachetta asked
why the four acre parcel could not be divided in a different way with an entrance off of
Mundy Drive. Mr. Tucker said such was the original, recommendation but topography does not
allow that. Mr. St. John another access is not being added to Totier Creek Road if Mundy
Drive is closed. Mr. Fisher was concerned and desired to see the plat and also asked if
Mundy Drive was part of the plat approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said the
Planning Commission deferred action on the matter until the contractural agreement has been
resolved on whether access will be given on Totier Creek Road.
Mr. Fisher said this is not a simple matter and he felt the question of whether or not
a new lot is being created on the road is a valid one, the question of whether or not Mundy
Drive is going to be closed if this is approved is a valid one and what the access will be
for the lots havirgaccess on Mundy Drive, is a valid one. He felt until those concerns are
re~solved the Board does not have anything to act on. Miss Nash then offered motion to defer
this matter until more information is available from the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher
said if Mundy Drive can be eliminated and the platted lots have adequate access, he would
not object tut until the final intent of this redivision is clarified and until which lots
have access where is clarified, he did not feel the Board should act. Dr. Iachetta felt the
matter of what happens to lot 19 in terms of its access should also be clarified. Mr.
Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Zachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Library Board.
Mrs. Margaret Me!cher, President of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board of
Trustees, was present with a report on what has occurred since the fire at the Scottsville
Library. She felt the operation was going smoothly and noted the strong sentiment of the
public for the Library to be rebuilt on the current site.
Mr. Christopher Devan, Director of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, was present.
He noted that according to projected census figures, the estimated population of the area
around Scottsville will be 7,000, which is 2,000 over the current figure. Therefore, a
building of 3,000 to 3,500 square feet plus 500 square feet for the activity/meeting room is
desired. He noted that the previous building had 1,440 square feet and was overcrowded.
Mr. Devan noted that the Virginia State Library has recently come up with an average cost of
$45.00 a square foot for buildings and that brings the total replacement cost to $200,000.
Mrs. Melcher noted that the only library in the region which has adequate space is in LOuisa
County.
Mr. Fisher said there are some complications in the matter because he, Mr. Agnor, Mr.
St. John and Mr. McCann have particiated in meetings with the School Board on other school
properties and this matter has been briefly discussed. The~School Board is uncertain of
what they want to do. The complication is that if the insurance money is used to rebuild
the building, it is unclear whether the money would have to be used to rebuild exactly what
is there or a replacement. However, if there is a new building, bids, drawings, etc., would
have to be done. Therefore, the time element is on the decision of rebuilding the building
exactly as it was or a different building. Dr. Iachetta felt it would be a serious mistake
to rebuild the exact same building if it is known additional space is necessary. Mr. Fisher
said although there is a lot of public support to rebuild on the same site, that was with
the assumption that at least the exterior would look like what was there before and be of
rebuild another building either differenl
the same quality. How~¥er~ if aJdemi$ion i~ade to
in design or quality, ~ne suppor~ o~ vne pu~±mc may change.
October 8; 1980 (Regular Day.Meeting)
~_ Mr. McC.ann sai~d _~kmo. t. he~r_~a~-brougn~-o~ at t~e,~n,~ing~ T=h~ ~e insurance .company~
~ willin~~~~i.~i~n~ and Pay for it~~ ~ -~' ' .. ...... ' . , ~=~=e~_ ~
Mrs. Melcher then noted that the Regional Library on East Market Street will ~e opening
on December 8, 1980. (Mr. McCann left the room at 11:28 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau: Fiscal Year Report.
Mr. Mike Ludgate, Chairman of the Visitors Bureau, was present and presented the fiscal
year report for the Thomas Jefferson Visitor's Bureau, which is a requirement of the agreement
between the City, County and the Chamber of Commerce. (Mr. McCann returned to the meeting
at 11:30 A.M.) Mr. Ludgate summarized the upcoming events that the bureau will participate
in particularly the American Bus Association convention to be held in Baltimore in December.
This convention will give an opportunity to do some selling of Albemarle County. He also
noted a number of packages for advertising are' being developed.
Mrs. Betty McLemore, Director of the ~isitor's Bureau, was present and felt the Manage-
ment and Policy Committees have worked out very well and the Virginia Bicentennial Commission
has been extremely cooperative.
Mr. Fisher then extended his appreciation for the Visitors Bureau's help in locating
accommodations for the visit of the Italians on October 9 and 10, 1980 from Poggio A Caiano
and Prato, Italy.
Agenda Item No. 25. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail were presented for the month of September,
1980. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the reports were approved as
presented. Roll w~s called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item 27. Statements of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of
the Regional Jail for the month of Setpember, 1980, along with summary statement of prisoner
days, and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. On motion by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as presented. Roll was
called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta., Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 28. The report of the Department Of Social Services for the months of
July and August, 1980, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section
63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 29. The report of the County Executive for the month of August, 1980,
was presented as information.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of August, 1980,
were ergo presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Rental Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$
620,120.96
621,812.42
~09,581.49
4,434.17
77,723.22
287.86
427,530.84
214,373.03
3O,675.7O
160,009.13
$2,467,567.2~
Agenda Item No. 30. Mr. Agnor noted for information the receipt of the audit for the
County Clerk and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the calendar years 1978 and 1979 and for
the General District Court for the Fiscal Years ending June 30, 1978, June 30, 1979 and June
30, 1980.
Agenda Item No. 24a. Appointments: Animal Wardens.
Mr. Agnor noted that action has never been taken by the Board to appoint the new Dog
Warden and the new Deputy Dog Warden as required by Virginia Code Section 29-213.8. Mr.
McCann then offered motion to appoint Mr. Herman Dorrier as Dog Warden and Mr. Hastings Hall
as Deputy Dog Warden; said appointment effective immediately and no term of office specified.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
3'21
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 24b. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Mr. Donn
Bent to the Advisory Council on Aging with said term to expire on June 1, 1982. Roll was
called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24c. Appointment: BOCA Code Board of Appeals.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mr. James
W. Gercke, to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals with said term to expire on August 21, 1985.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24d. Appointment: Community Action Agency. Mr. Fisher asked if
anyone on the Board was willing to serve on this agency. Miss Nash was willing if she could
resign from the Visitors Bureau. Mr. Agnor said in earlier years an appointee has been
selected from the Social Services staff and a name will be submitted later in the meeting
from the Director, Ms. Karen Morris. The appointment was deferred to later in the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 24e.
made.
Appointment:
Agenda Item No. 24f. Appointment:
Board). No appointments were made.
Youth Services Citizen Board. No appointments were
Community Services Board (formerly Mental Health
Agenda Item No. 24g. Appointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Mr. Walter J. Hurd to the Jefferson
Area Board on Aging with said term to expire on October 20, 1982. Roll was called on the
foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
At 12:00 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:34 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. AHIP: Quarterly Report.
Miss Ann Paul, Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present and
noted that seven major rehabilitations, six minor rehabilitations, ten repairs, four HUD
indirect jobs, and two new constructions have almost been completed. She then introduced
Ms. Jean Burns, VISTA volunteer, who is a full-time coordinator.
Mr. Gary 01ivera then Presented a slide presentation of the projects during the second
quarter.
Mr. Fisher then asked if there is any type of follow up maintenance years after projects
have been completed. Ms. Paul said that AHIP's assistant agency, Charlottesville Housing
Improvement Program, has been in operation for six years and is now at the point of being
able to examine past Projects. She felt AHIP is now at the stage where they can examine
past projects. Ms. Paul noted that a home improvements manual was prepared last year for
families to use in maintaining their homes.
Miss Nash then expressed her concern about heirs of elderly families receiving a brand
new house. Ms. Paul said the heirs will' receive the benefits but her office has been examinin
the matter. One thing that AHIP has examined and hopes to institute is with HUD Community
Development funding for a deferred loan system and Charlottesville Housing Foundation is
looking toward a low interest loan program for a means to recoup money. Mr. Fisher noted a
procedure in some parts of the country is to make a lien against the property so that at the
time of a propertY transfer, such would be repaid. He felt that with public fUnds being
used there should be some repayment to public areas again. Mr. Fisher then extended appreciat
to Ms.'Paul for her presentation.
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Regulate the Purchase and Sale of
Gold, Silver, Platinum and Gems in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 24 and October 1, 1980.) (This ordinance will be referred to as Ordinance #1 in
the discussion which follows.)
Mr. Fisher said a request for a silver and gold ordinance was presented at the September
10, 1980 meeting by law enforcement officials of the County. He then asked Mr St. John~to
summarize the matter.
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
222
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: An Ordinance Regulating Purchasers of Precious Metals.
(This ordinance will be referred to as Ordinance #2 in the discussion which follows.)
Mr. St. John said the advertised ordinance (Ordinance #1) should be combined with
agenda item #18 which is a discussion on an ordinance regulating purchasers of precious
metals (Ordinance #2). The law enforcement officials would prefer ordinance #2 to the one
which was advertised (#1). The difference between the two ordinances is that the one advertis
(#1) covers only itinerant dealers and the second drafted ordinance (#2) applies to all
dealers in precious metals. Mr. St. John said ordinance #2 is the one he would recommend be
adopted. He then summarized ordinance #2 which deals with purchasers of precious metals and
again noted the difference being regulation of all purchases of precious metals.
Mr. Fisher noted Section 17.1-8 in ordinance #2 states that a purchase cannot be made
from someone under eighteen~years of age unless there is a written notice from the owner.
Mr. St. John said precious metals cannot be bought from anyone under eighteen and a provision
is in ordinance #2 which states that purchase cannot be made from anyone other than the
owner himself unless the owner's Hgent has the written authority to sell the item. Mr. St.
John said ordinance #2 can be enacted on an amergency basis because law enforcement officials
believe there is an emergency. Mr. McCann asked how the owner would be determined. Mr. St.
John noted Section 17.1-6 in Ordinance #2 deals with identification which is the name,
address and age of the seller along with a picture of that described person.
Mr. Fisher then questioned if pewter was included as a precious metal. Mr. St. John
said the Attorney General's model ordinance did not include pewter. Dr. Iachetta felt
platinum should be included but was unsure of pewter.
The public hearing on Ordinance #1 Was opened at this t~me. Sheriff George Bailey said
an ordinance is desperately needed and noted several crimes in the area recently. He urged
the adoption of an ordinance. Mr. McCann agreed that there is an emergency but questioned
if items stolen are being sold to local merchants or to dealers passing through the area.
Sheriff Bailey said both. Mr. McCann then asked if stolen items are being sold to local
jewelry stores. Sheriff Bailey said yes and some local merchants cooperate and some do not.
Mr. McCann was concerned that the advertised ordinance (#!) was believed to be sufficien~
to cover the problem and now there is a new ordinance (#2). He did not feel that ordinance
#2 should be acted on at this time. The section about the dealer's bond concerned him
because there are long time reliable merchants in the City and County that would be penalized
as a result of this ordinance and Mr. McCann preferred to have the reaction of the local
merchants before any action is taken on ordinance #2.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney spoke next and said he could understand
Mr. McCann's concern and agreed that action should only be taken on the advertised ordinance
(#1). He did agreed that an ordinance should apply to all dealers but did not feel it
harmful if ordinance #1 is adopted and ordinance #2 is adopted at a later date.
Dr. Iachetta could not understand why a dealer had to get a business license in the
County and then have to get another permit as indicated in ordinance #2. Mr. St. John said
the purpose of the permit is to cover the cost of administering the ordinance. He felt that
ordinance #2 is being misinterpreted. He is recommending that ordinance #2 be enacted on an
emergency basis with same being reenacted in sixty days. There is a valid argument that can
be made that the advertised ordinance (#1) will be very difficult to enforce sinCe it does
discriminate against itinerant merchants. The second factor is that the merchant can set up
operation today and say he is not an itinerant. In conclusian, Mr. St. John stated that he
did not feel ordinance #1 will be effective.
Speaking next was Mr. Tom Wood, resident of the County and operator under the alias of
the. "Inflation Doctor". Mr. Wood says he buys and sells silver, gold, antiques, baseball
cards, etc. He agreed that an emergency exists and an ordinance is needed. However, he
does have some concerns. Mr. Wood said the $5,000 bond required in ordinance #2 will cost
him $500.00 and that concerned him. He did agree that there is a need to obtain positive
identification and minors should be prohibited from selling. The requirement of retaining
precious metals or gems purchased for a minimum of five Calendar days from the time of
filing the bill of sale with the Sheriff would mean a loss to him. Mr. Wood was also concern~
about the requirement that bills of sale must be delivered daily to the Sheriff's Office by
6:00 P.M. and he does not close until that time. He did agree that any ordinance should
apply to all dealers, not just transient dealers. He did not feel pewter should be included
because there is no Silver or gold in pewter. He felt with the positive identification
required, reporting to the Sheriff and not buying from anyone under eighteen should take
care of the crimes. Mr. Wood said there is an existing law which states that if he buys bad
merchandise knowing it is stolen, he would go to jail and if merchandise later proves to be
stolen he has to replace it in-kind. Therefore, he did not see the benefit of holding
merchandise for five calendar days. In conclusion, Mr. Wood generally supported ordinance
#2 except for the above mentioned concerns.
Speaking next was Mr. Bernie Bales, purchaser of antiques for eleven years. He said
that he does not advertise and does not have a shop but buys from people in their homes. He
purchased a license from the City in the amount of $106.00 a month ago and was concerned
about the requirement in ordinance #2 for a bond and permit. He only buys from people
referred to him. He did not feel he could go into a person's home and ask the questions
required in the ordinance such as age. Mr. Bales also stated that he could not keep the
merchandise for five days due to his limited capital because merchandise held for five days
would be a loss if the market drops in that period of time. In conclusion, Mr. Bales felt
ordinance #2 Will hurt the local merchants and help crooks. He felt eliminating dealers who
are not residents in the area particularly those dealing in motels would solve the crime
problem.
Mr. Bud Parsons, private collector and resident of the area for three years, spoke
next. He asked if he, a private coin collector, would have to post a bond and obtain a
license since he does not sell items, only trades.
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, felt determining whether a person is an itinerant
vendor would be a problem. He also noted that the word "license" should be changed to
"permit" wherever it appears in the ordinance. Mr. Jones said that the finance department
is not involved in this procedure. Mr. St. John said it could be but there is no revenue
from the permit. Mr. Fisher then asked if a real estate bond would satisfy the bond req~
Mr. St. John said yes, provided the real estate is in the county.
With no further public comments for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was
closed.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the ordinance pertained to private coin collectors. Mr. St. JOhn
said the definition of dealer does not include retail merchants located in the county nor
purchases directly from their manufacturers or wholesalers but the transactions of a private
coin collector would be covered by ordinance #2.
Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of the bond. Mr. St. John said a thief cannot pass title
to stolen goods. Furthermore, the buyer of stolen goods, even an innocent buyer who sells
those goods, cannot give them back to the rightful owner. A judgment cannot be obtained
against anyone who is in the business and has no assets other than a hotel room, because it
is worthless. Therefore, the bond is very valuable in order that the person receiving
stolen goods is liable to the rightful owner. Sheriff Bailey said if a dealer is not under
bond he can be gone to another area by the time a suit is filed. Therefore, he agreed that
a bond is important.
Mr. Lindstrom was also reluctant to.adopt an ordinance different from the one advertised.
Mr. Fisher said he wanted to support the Sheriff and since there is a problem, a response
should be made in a reasonable way. He felt ordinance #2 could and should be adopted with
the change suggested of eliminating pewter and changing "license" to "permit". Dr. Iachetta
felt a danger is that there will be so many rules that a person will not be able to do
anything. He was also concerned that coin collectors who only trade would have to go through
all the required paperwork. Mr. St. John said there is no way to exempt that operation.
Dr. Iachetta felt coins are a separate thing from the other merchandise. Mr. St. John said
the Sheriff has said that coins are also a problem.
Mr. McCann asked how the Board got so far away from what the Attorney General's office
originally asked for. Mr. St. John said the ordinance from the Attorney General was drafted
on an emergency basis and sent to all localities in the state. The Attorney General's
Office has been consulted on this matter and stated that they are not wedded to what was
sent to the localities but just wanted localities to have a model ordinance. He and the
local law enforcement officials feel that ordinance #2 is the bette~ ordinance. Mr. McCann
felt the problem is transient dealers and did not feel that local dealers should be included.
He did not disagree with the ordinance advertised (#!), but did not feel action should be
taken on the new ordinance (#2) today. Mr. McCann then offered motion to adopt an ordinance
to regulate the purchase and sale of gold, silver, platinum and gems in Albemarle County, as
advertised. There was no second and the motion died.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the requirement of the bond and the holding time of merchandise was
necessary. As for concerns about the daily bill of sales being turned in to the Sheriff's
Office by .6:00 P.M., he felt that requirement could be changed for those in operation past
6:00 P.M. He suggested the alternative of either presenting the bill of sale within one
hour of closing time or by 7:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher noted that ordinance #2 states that a
report be made within twenty-four hours of sale,
Mr. McCann restated his concern about the adoption of ordinance #2 and felt too much
paperwork is involved and crooks will operate regardless of an ordinance.
Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt an ordinance regulating purchasers of precious
metals on an emergency basis effective this date with the above corrections which are etiminat~
pewter in the first paragraph and changing the word "license" to "permit". Mr. Lindstrom
suggested five working days be given instead of the ordinance being effective today so that
dealers can meet all the requirements. He suggested the ordinance not be effective until
October 15, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom then seconded the motion with the above suggestion. Mr.
St. John also suggested the addition of the following "The Board of Supervisors finds an
emerge~y exists and accordingly this ordinance takes effect on October 15, 1980, and shall
remain in effect for sixty days from October 8, 1980, unless sooner repealed, or reenacted
after public notice and hearing." Miss Nash accepted the amendments to her motion. Mr.
Fisher noted the blank for the date in Section 17.1-2. Mr. St. John said the blank should
be filled in with the date of October 15, 1980.
Dr. Iachetta then asked how long it would take before the ordinance could be adopted
permanently. Mr. St. John said the ordinance would have to be advertised for two weeks and
then the emergency ordinance would have to be reenacted in sixty days. Dr. Iachetta was
uncomfortable with that because of waiting a week to enact the ordinance anyway. He did not
feel the ordinance was being adopted as an emergency in the way he envisions an emergency.
He felt there would be violations in terms of the values involved particularly the cost to
the public for the administration of the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta felt acting hastily in an
area such as this, which is complicated from a law enforcement point of view anyway would be
a mistake. Therefore, Dr. Iachetta said he would support the motion if the ordinance could
be readopted in three weeks but did not want to wait sixty days. Mr. Lindstrom asked what
the City has done about a similar ordinance. Mr. St. John said the first reading has been
taken and the second and final action will be taken at the next Council meeting. Dr. Iachetta
then asked Miss Nash if she would consider compromising by enacting ordinance #1 today with
an advertisement concurrently to consider ordinance #2 as an amendment. Miss Nash said no,
because she felt the 15th was even too long. Dr. Iachetta felt ordinance #1 would take care
of the out of town dealers. Mr. Fisher said he was convinced that the legal aspects will
apply to all people and did not see how a distinction could be made as to who is an itinerant
dealer. Mr. McCann preferred to wait until an emergency exists because he did nov like to
have something brought to him for action at the last minute and he did not see this matter
as an emergency. He preferred a delay and an advertisement of ordinance #2 to receive the
feelings of others. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher~ Iach~_tta~ Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. McCann .......
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
October 8, 1980 (ReguLar Day Meeting)
324
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, 1975,
AS AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTIONS 17.1-1 THROUGH 17.1-14
RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle:
(1) That the Code of the County of Albemarle, 1975, as amended, is amended by
adding the following sections:
CHAPTER 17.1
DEALERS IN PRECIOUS METALS
Sec. 17.1-1 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings
ascribed to them by this section:
(a) "Dealer" shall mean any person, firm, partnership, or corporation engaged
at any location in the county in the business of purchasing precious metals or gems or
making loans for which precious metals or gems are received and held as security,
provided, however, that retail merchants personally located within the county shall be
exempt insofar as they make purchases directly from manufacturers or wholesalers of
precious metals or gems for their inventories. "Dealer" shall include merchants whose
business is itinerant in the county. As used herein, "dealer" includes employers and
principals on whose behalf the purchase or loan was made and all employees and agents
who personally make such purchases and loans. When any act is required of a corporation,
it shall be performed by its president.
(b) "Precious Metals" shall mean any item containing as part of its composition
in any degree, gold, silver, or platinum.
(c) "Gems" shall mean any item containing or having any precious or semi-precious
stones customarily used in jewelry or ornamentation.
Sec. 17.1-2 Permit required.
Beginning on October 15, 1980, no dealer shall purchase precious metals or gems or
make loans for which precious metals or gems are received and held as security without
first obtaining a permit from the sheriff of the county as provided herein and without
complying with all o~her provisions of this chapter. Possession of a permit issued in
another locality shall not relieve a dealer of the obligation to obtain a permit from the
sheriff of the county.
Sec. 17.1-3 Method of obtaining permit.
The permit required herein shall be issued by the sheriff or his designee upon
payment of a $25 application fee and satisfaction of the requirements herein. The
application fee shall not be imposed on subsequent applications so long as the business
has been operated continuously without interruption since the issuance of the previous
permit. The applicant shall be issued a permit if he satisfies the sheriff of his good
character and he has not been convicted within the past seven (7) years of a felony or
a crime of moral turpitude. Information required on the application shall include the
applicant's full name, aliases, address, age, sex, and fingerprints, and the name, addres
and telephone number of the applicant's employer, if any, and the location of the place
of business of the dealer. No permit shall be valid for more than six (6) months from
the date of issuance but may be renewed in the same manner as the initial permit is
obtained. If the dealer does not operate continuously from the date of obtaining his
permit,~ then he shall notify the sheriff of any ceasing or renewing of business or
change in location. Failure to operate on weekends or holidays shall not be construed
as a ceasing or disruption.
Sec. 17.1-4 Permit non-transferable and to be displayed.
The permit issued hereunder shall be a personal privilege and shall not be trans+..
ferable, nor shall there be any abatement of the fee for such permit by reason of the
fact that the dealer shall have exercised the privilege for any period of time less
than for which it was granted. The permit shall at all times be displayed prominently
by the dealer on his business premises.
Sec. 17.1-5 False statements.
Any false statement made on the application form voids the permit ab initio.
Sec. 17.1-6 Information from sellers.
Dealers shall ascertain the name, address, and age of sellers of precious metals
or gems and shall require the seller to verify same by some form of identification
issued by a governmental agency, which identification must show as a part of it the
picture of the'person so identified.
Sec. 17.1-7 Records, copies of bills of sale required.
Every dealer shall maintain adequate records to refl~ect the following information
which shall appear on bills of sale, the form of which shall be provided by the sheriff,
one copy of which is to be retained by the dealer, one copy to be delivered during
regular county work hours to the Sheriff at his office within twenty-four (24) hours
of the sale, and one copy to be delivered to the seller of such precious metals or gems.
If the purchase or loan occurs during a weekend, then the delivery to the sheriff
shall be made no later than 10 A.M. of the next regular county work day. The required
information is as follows:
(1) The name of the dealer and his employer or principal, if any.
3?5
Oct~ber~lar Da~ Meeting)
(2) A complete description of each item purchased, including weight of the precious
metals or gems purchased by the dealer, such description to include all names,
initials, serial numbers, or other identifying marks or monograms appearing
on the item in question.
(3) The name, address, and age of the seller.
Sec. 17.1-8 Prohibited purchases.
No dealer shall purchase or make a loan of precious metals or gems from any seller
who is under the age of eighteen (18). No dealer shall purchase or make a loan of
precious metals or gems from anyone whom the dealer believes or has reason to believe
is not the owner of such precious metals or gems.
Sec. 17.1-9. Dealer to retain purchases.
The dealer shall retain all precious metals or gems purchased for a minimum Of
five (5) calendar days from the time of filing the bill of sale of their purchase with
the sheriff. During such period of time no change shall be made to any item containing
precious metals or gems.
Sec. 17.1-10 Dealer's bond.
Prior to receiving his application, every dealer shall enter a bond or provide
surety to be payable to the county in the penal sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000)
and conditioned upon due observance of the terms of this chapter.
Sec. 17.1-11 Availability of bond proceeds.
Any person aggrieved by the dealer's violation of the provisions of this ordinance
who shall recover a final judgment against him therefor may maintain an action in his own
name upon the bond or surety.
Sec. 17.~-12 Penalty.
Violation of any provisions of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and,~ upon
conviction therefor, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,O00), or a jail term of not more than twelve (12) months, or both.
Sec. 17.1-13 Severability.
If any section of this ordinance or portion thereof is declared invalid or
unconstitutional by a court, it shall be regarded as severed and the remaining sections
and portions shall continue in full force and effect. (Not to be codified.)
Sec. 17.1-14 Effective date.
The Boa-rd of Supervisors finds an emergency exists and accordingly this ordinance
takes effect on October 15, 1980 and shall remain in effect for sixty (60) days from
October 8, 1980 unless sooner repealed, or reenacted after public notice and hearing.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the ordinance just adopted regulatin
purchasers of precious metals for public hearing on October 27, 1980 at 3:00 P.M. in the
Board Room of the County Office Building. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: .Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 3:42 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:56 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: An ordinance to increase interest on unpaid
taxes. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October I, 1980)
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present and said that the purPose of the ordinanc~
is to bring County Code Section 8-1.4 into compliance with Virginia State Code Section 58-847
which was amended by the 1980 Session of the General Assembly. This amendment would provide
a ten percent interest on delinquent property taxes. The County Code currently provides an
eight percent interest. He also noted that the interest would commence on the first day of
the month following the month in which such taxes are due.
The public hearing was opened.
the public hearing was closed.
With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the followin
ordinance. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
October 8~ 1980 (Re,_g~lar Da_21_Meeti~)
326
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 8-1.4(a)
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE TO INCREASE INTEREST ON UNPAID TAXES
TO TEN PERCENT PER ANNUM COMMENCING ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE MONTH
FOLLOWING THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH TAXES ARE DUE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
Section 8-1.4(a) of the Albemarle County Code is amended and reenacted to provide
for interest on delinquent taxes at a rate of ten percent per annum, commencing
on the first day of the month following the month in which such taxes are due:
Sec. 8-1.4. Penalty; interest date and manner of payment.
(a) Taxes due and owing to the county for real estate, tangible personal
property, and machinerY and tools shall be due and payable in one installment
on or before the fifth day of December of the year such taxes are assessed; and
on all such taxes remaining unpaid after that date there shall be added (i) a
penalty equal to ten percentum of the amount of tax. past due and (ii) interest
thereon at the rate of ten percentum per annum commencing the following first
day of the month following the month in which such taxes are due, and continuing
until paid.
Agenda Item No. 13. Quarterly Housing Report.
Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator, was present and summarized his report of October
8, 1980 on the activities in the Housing Office. Mr. Otis said the Section 8 Rental Assistanc~
Program will have 162 families under lease as of October 15. He noted that the program has
provided great assistance to low and moderate.income families. The County has been awarded
forty-four units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation funding which involves the upgrading
of privately owned rental property through a combination of below market rate loans and a
guarantee of tenant occupancy at a rental rate determined to amortize the rehabilitation
loan. The actual implementation of this program is scheduled for the early part of 1981.
(Mr. Agnor notified the Board of this grant at the September 10, 1980 meeting.)
Mr. Otis said "The Meadows" in Crozet has been occupied for over a year and is operating
smoothly. The "Southside Health Center, Inc." is near completion. As part of the site plan
approval for this project, the Planning Commission has required that an easement be recorded
for a joint driveway and for access to a water well located on the county's property and
used by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Scott, adjacent property owners. Mr. Otis noted that the easement
must be executed by Mr. Fisher and will be presented later in the meeting.
Mr. Otis then noted that the Housing Office in conjunction with Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program applied for funding in May of 1978 for two programs; the acquisition and
development of two or three parcels of land for mini-subdivisions, and the installation of
wells, septic systems or plumbing to bring the homes of eligible families up to minimum
standards. AHIP signed a self-help grant agreement with Farmers Home Administration on July
1980, and there are three houses under roof and a fourth house to be completed this date.
. Otis said the grant for the installation of wells, etc., is also underway. The County
is also exploring the possibility of applying for HUD funding to acquire land and pay
development costs for a "Meadows" type complex in the Scottsville area. In summary, Mr.
Otis said that Section 8 continues to be the mainstay of the Housing Office.
Mr. Fisher extended the Board's appreciation for the work done by the Housing Office.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request to sign deed of easement for Esmont Health Center.
In accordance with the Planning Commission's requirement on the Southside Health
Center, Inc., site plan, that an easement be recorded for a joint driveway and access to a
water well located on the County's property and used by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Scott, adjacent
property owners, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize
the Chairman to sign the following easement. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 13th day of August, 1980, by and between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, party of the first part, WALTER SCOTT and SARAH E. SCOTT,
husband and wife, parties of the second part, Leonard V. Shelton, Trustee, party of the
third part, and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, Noteholder,
party of the fourth part;
W I TNE S S E TH:
WHEREAS, the party of the first part is the owner of all that certain lot or parcel
of land containing 2.1 acres, more or less, with improvements thereon, situated in Albema
County, Virginia, in the Scottsville Magisterial District, fronting on the west side
of State Highway 627, South of Porter, being designated as Lot 2 on a plat of "A
Division of E. M. Feggans Property" made by Huffman-Foster and Associates, dated May 6,
~97R~[6~ r~c~d in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia, in Deed Book 473, page 289 (herainafter referred to as the "May 6, 1970
Plat"), and being the same property conveyed to the party of the first part by deed
of Robert H. Thompson and Bobbie J. Thompson, dated November 2, 1979, and recorded
in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 686, page 727 (hereinafter referred to
as "Lot 2"); and
327
OctobEr 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
WHEREAS, the parties of the second part are the owners of all that certain lot
or parcel of land containing 2.0 acres, more or less, with improvements thereon,
situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, in the Scottsville Magisterial District,
fronting on the west side of State Secondary Highway 627, south of Porter, being
designated as Lot 1 on the May 6, 1970 Plat, being the same property conveyed to the
parties of the ~second part by deed of Englar M. Feggans and Lula B. Feggans, dated
June 8, 1970, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book 47.3, page
287 (hereinafter referred to as "Lot 1"); and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part and the parties of the second part want to
convey to the other a joint driveway easement; and
WHEREAS, the party of the first part wants to convey to the parties of the
second part a right-of-way and waterline easement for use of a well on Lot 2 by the
parties of the second part, which easements are shown on a plat of the office of the
County Engineer, Albemarle County, Virginia, dated July 18, 1980, entitled "Esmont
Health Care -- Easements" (hereinafter referred to as the ',Plat"), a copy of which
is attached hereto (Copy on file in Clerk's Office) and is to be recorded with this
deed;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of $1.00 an~ the premises and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged,
the part of the part of the first part and the parties of the second part hereby
GRANT and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the other a fifty foot (50')
joint driveway easement for use by the party of the first part and the partias of
the second part as a joint driveway for Lots 1 and 2, as shown on the Plat. Reference
is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimensions of the joint driveway
easement as it crosses the property of the party of the firSt part and the parties
of the second part.
As a part of this joint driveway easement, the party of the first part shall
have the right to enter upon the property of the parties of the second part for the
purpos~ of constructing, maintaining, and repairing a driveway. The party of the
first part shall be responsible for the cost of constructing, maintaining, and
repairing a driveway.
The joint driveway easement herein conveyed shall exist for so long as Lot 2 is
used by the party of the first part for public purposes. At such time as Lot 2 is
no' longer used by the party of the first part for public purposes, the joint driveway
easement shall terminate.
Further, for and in consideration of $1.00 and the premises and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt of all of which is herebY~acknowledged, the
Party of the first part GRANTS the parties of the second part a right-of-way and
easement ten feet (10') in width to use, maintain, repair, and replace a well and
water transmission line on Lot 2 as a source of potable water for Lot 1. Reference
is made to the Plat for the exact location and dimensions qf the easement on Lot 2.
As a part of the easement, the parties of the second part shall have the right to
enter upon the property of the part of the first part for the purpos~ of maintaining,
repairing, and replacing the well pump, waterline, and appurtenances thereto.
Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within this easement, the parties of the
second part agree to backfill such excavation ina proper and workmanlike manner so
as to restore the surface condition as nearly as practicable to the same condition
existing prior to such excavation. The parties of the second part shall be responsible
for the cost of using, maintaining, repairing, .and replacing the well, well pump,
waterline, and appurtenances thereto within the easement herein granted. The party
of the first part shall have no responsibility or obligation to the parties of the
second part, their heirs or assigns, in the event that the well should go dry or no
longer be an adequate source of potable water.
The easement herein conveyed shall exist for so long as the well and pipes and
appurtenances for the transmission of water therefrom shall be needed by the parties
of the second part as a source of water for Lot 1. At such time as the well and
pipes and appurtenances for the transmission of water are no longer used as a source
of potable water for Lot 1, this easement shall terminate. At tha time of termination,
the parties of the second part shall have the right to remove the well pump and
appurtenances to the well which may be within the easement herein conveyed.
By dee.d of trust dated May 20, 1971, recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office
in Deed Book 487, page 563, the above-described property was conveyed to Leonard V.
Shelton, Trustee, to secure an obligation of the parties of the second part payable
to the United States of America, Farmers Home Administation. Upon authority of the
United States of America, Farms Home Administration, as evidenced by its joining
herein, Leonard ¥. Shelton, Trustee, daes hereby GRANT and RELEASE the above-described
easements free and clear from the lien of the deed of trust dated May 20, 1971, of
record in Deed Book 487, page 563, but in all other respects such deed of trust
shall remain in full force and effect.
Agenda Item No. 15~'
Renovation.
Request for~authority to execute agreement for Phase II of Lane
Mr. Agnor said the execution of the agreement for Phase II of the Lane Renovation was
not requested until this time for two reasons; 1) in order to get six months of construction
underway on the first phase, and 2) to finish the capital improvements program in order to
secure the allocation of money for the architect. Mr. Agnor said Phase II is for the gym
and the completion of the parking lot. The request is for the County Executive to be
authorized to execute the agreement. Mr. Fisher asked the cost. Mr. Agnor said the cost
in the agreement is on a scale that is used by the State of Virginia and other localities.
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
The estimate is close to one million dollars and, the architect's fees will be 8.54%. He
noted that this agreement covers the schematic design which will come back for Board approval
as well as the design of the construction documents. The bidding and the construction
phase will then follow, but not until another appropriation has been made. The only funds
available at this time are for the schematic designs~ Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement
for Phase II of the Lane Renovations with Stainback and Scribner. Roll was called on the
foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS- None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 16. Request from the Industrial Development Authority.
Mr. Donald A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was-present
and requested the Board to increase the number of bond issues for the authority from five
to eight or more. He noted activity in the area has shown an increase of interest in the
use of the bonds. Currently there are two proposals under consideration, both of which
appear desirable and viable. Mr. Holden thought it preferable to increase the number of
bond issues before requests are submitted to the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Industrial Development Authority has gone beyond its original
scope and purpose. The purpose of the Authority was to provide financing for industrial
operations which would directly benefit from the lower rates and in some way pass that
reduction in interest rates to the public. He did not feel the local government should be
involved in this and would not support an increase in the number of bond issues. However,
if the Board desires a public hearing on the request, he would not object. Miss Nash felt
it would ~e beneficial to have a public hearing to receive public opinions. Mr. Fisher
said setting a public hearing involves advertising and he felt when the fifth bond issue
has been approved, then an amendment of the ordinance could be considered. In conclusion,
he did not support going to public hearing on the request. Mr. McCann agreed and had
difficulty with the government becoming involved with private industries. He would prefer
to approve an increase when an application has been submitted. Dr. Iachetta agreed.
The consensus of the Board was to defer an increase in the number of bond issues until
all the issues have bean used and an application is presented for Industrial Development
Authority bonding.
Agenda Item No. 17. community Diversion Incentive Act.
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Commonwealth's Attorney, was present and said he had been to the
City, Louisa, Fluvanna and Greene Counties concerning their participation in the Community
Diversion Incentive Program. Ail of the localities contacted have agreed to participate.
The reason he is before the Board today is because the County approved the program on~
September 10, 1980, contingent upon City Council appropriating the necessary funds for the
employment of someone to draw up the application. However, the City has decided not to
appropriate funds but to use their own planner to draw up the application. Mr. Dorrier.
said his concern is tha~ there is no one particular person in charge of drawing up an
application. Therefore, his request is for the Board to either appoint a person to draw
the application or .provide funds for the employment of Mr. Stephen Blair, Criminal Justice
Planner for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission to draw up the application.
Mr. Fisher asked if the City is going to make a joint application' Mr. Dorrier said
he understands such is the intent and all the localities have agreed to submit the application
jointly but the problem is that no one locality has agreed to draw up the application. Mr.
Fisher was concerned that if the City draws their own application, there will be two applicatio
instead of a joint application. Mr. Dorrier said there will only be one application and
the City has agreed to work with the County on the process but there are outlying counties
that need to be coordinated as well.
Dr. Iachetta said he was present at the Planning District Commission when this was
discussed. Basically all the localities are interested, but oniy Albemarle is willing to
appropriate the funds required to hire someone to represent all the jurisdictions and the
City is willing to provide a staff member but not the funds.
Mr. Agnor said he has discussed this matter with the City Manager and the City Planner.
The City is willing to submit the application on behalf of the City and County but did not
understand that this was to be a planning district project. Mr. Setyendra Huja, Director
of Planning and Community Development for the City, has started the process on behalf of
the City and County. However, Mr. Huja has stated that he would not object to someone else
submitting the application if so desired. Mr. Dorrier said the idea has been and the
Criminal Justice Advisory Committee of the Planning District Commission endorses the concept
of the application being filed jointly through the Planning District. Mr. Fisher said he
was in favor of the request if there will only be one application. Mr. McCann asked if the
funds the County has committed could be combined with the City and the two people work
together. Mr Agnor said there is no one person in the County that can do this. He also
noted that Mr. Huja is willing to submit the application for all the localities, but is
waiting for an answer from the Board. Dr. Iachetta felt that Mr. Stephen Blair has had two
years of experience in working on these matters and felt it would be worthwhile to have him
work on this application in conjunction with Mr. Huga. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the~following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle~County, Virginia, that
$750.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and coded to
l101-3099.01--Miscellaneous Contracted Services--CDIA. This appropriation is to
employ Mr. Stephen Blair to work with the City on developing an application
for the Community Diversion Incentive Act for Albemarle County.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
329
October 8 1980 (Re ular Day_Meetin )
Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion of number of magisterial districts for redistricting.
'Mr'] Fisher said a decision needs to be made on the number of magisterial districts in
the County for preparation of the 1981 work for rediStricting of the County. He noted that
the Board has the responsibility to make a decision of leaving the district as they exist
or changing same.
The general consensus of the Board was to leave the number of magisterial districts as
currently exist. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.. Lindstrom, to retain
the six magisterial districts as they exist. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Revision of SPCA Contract.
Mr. Agnor noted letter from Mr. Lloyd Smith, representative of the SPCA, requesting an
adjustment in the rates. He then reviewed the following memorandum from him dated October
3, 1980:
"The attached letter from Lloyd Smith (copy on file in the Clerk's Office) on behalf of
the SPCA requests the following adjustment in rates:
Present Rate
Proposed Rate
Stray Dogs
$1.50 per day,
maximum 5 days
$2.00 per day,
maximum 5 days
Cremation
$1.00 per dog
$5.00 per dog
The staff reviewed exhibits related to the costs of operating the shelter, and concluded
the requested rates are reasonable. The present rates have been in effect since June
1977. The annual costs to the County for the SPCA contract ranges from $3000 to
$3500, mostly for daily care. The proposed rate increases will add an estimated $1000
to the annual cost.
Approval of the requested amendment to the contract is recommended."
Mr. Fisher then noted that the local SPCA is a model around the state and commended
Ms. Sally Mead for her work at the SPCA. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the amendment of the existing SPCA contract with the above
noted adjustments in rates. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and. same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher., Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 21. Request from Dennis Marcello. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Marcello was
notified that his 'request was to be on the agenda and he is not present. The matter was
deferred to an unspecified date.
Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion of employment of nuclear consultant.
Mr. Agnor said when the Radioactive Wastes Ordinance was adopted in September, he was
instructed to inform the City of the adoption and to indicate to them the County's interest
in their concept of having an outside consultant to further examine the ordinance. The
City has reached a decision on a consultant and has suggested the cost for the hiring of
the consultant be shared on a fifty-fifty basis; however, the total cost is unknown at this
time but should be in the range of $600.00 to $1,000.00.
Mr. Fisher Said the City is inclined to proceed with the matter with or without the
County's support. He felt enough citizens have raised concerns about the nuclear waste
incinerator to support this request. He did not feel the Board was in a position to
decide whether the reports from the University and others are true or not. Even though he
expected the answer from the consultant will be similar to that of the scientists from the
University, he still felt the procedures should be examined by someone knowledgeable in the
field of nuclear wastes. Once the recommendation is received, then a decision could be
made on the necessity of the ordinance.
Dr. Iachetta did not object to seeking additional information but felt the Board was
"kidding itself" if they felt this person would divert the state people from what they
intend to do. He felt the issue should be addressed with representatives of state agencies
because the problem of disposing of radioactive wastes has been ignored by them. Mr.
McCann agreed. Miss Nash then offered motion to employ a nuclear consultant in conjunction
with the City. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor said he would draft a letter of
agreement with the consultant and have the Board review same before execution. Roll was
called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
330
Agenda Item No. 23a. Appropriation: Fuel Assistance Program.
Mr. Agnor said Ms. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, requests an appropriation
based on last year's allocation for the Fuel Assistance Program since final action has not
been taken by Congress and the State has not yet been advised of its allocation for the
program. The program is to begin in about sixty days and it is necesary for Ms. Morris to
have the appropriation in order that she can acquire the space for the operation and employ
the necessary staff to operate same. The administrative costs of this program are $32,396,
and the amount requested for fuel assistance payments is $50,000. Ms. Morris has indicated
that the payments may be made directly from Richmond and if that is the case only enough
~oney to issue emergency and special situation checks will be needed. If this is not the
case, this requested appropriation will be enough to cover the initial period until.there
is an actual allocation. Ms. Morris also noted that ail funds expended for this program
will be reimbursed from the State. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
~r. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$82,396 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund, transferred to the
Social Services budget, and coded as follows for the Fuel Assistance Program:
5301-1001.02 Salaries and Wages - FA $24,296
5301-2001.02 FICA - FA 3,000
5301-5504.02 Travel - FA 600
5301-5201.02 Postage - FA 750
5301-5203.02 Telecommunications - FA 600
5301-5401.02 Supplies - FA 250
5301-8001.02 Equipment Rental - FA 300
5301-8002.02 Office Rental - FA 2,600
5302-5715 Fuel Assistance Payments 50,000
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the revenue side of the budget be adjusted to offset
the above appropriations as follows:
Code 12401-021 Fuel Assistance and Administration
Code 15201.010 Carry-Over Balance
$75,917
6,479
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
LYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~_ ~ ~ ~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 23b. Appropriation: Jefferson Country~ Fire Fighter's Association.
Mr. Agnor said in the current budget there is a $t0'000 appropriation for fold-a-tanks
for the Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association. Bids have been taken and the lowest
bid is $12,505.00 which is $2,505.00 over that appropriation. The Association was asked if
one tank could be deleted and the $10,000 would then be sufficient. However, the Association
had difficulty in deciding which fire company would operate without the tank. Therefore,
a letter dated September 22, 1980, was received from Mr. Ted Armentrout, President of the
Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association, requesting that the Board appropriate the
$2,505.00/necessary for the fold-a-tanks. Mr. Agnor said he supports the request. Motion
was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$2,505.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded
to 3202-7001, Jefferson Country Fire Fighter's Association for the purchase of
fold-a-tanks.
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
lYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 23c.
Program.
Appropriation:
Education-Learning Disability and Handicapped
Mr. Agnor said the School Board has approved two education programs to be operated by
the County School System for the handicapped and learning disability children. The programs
will be funded on a reimbursable basis in conjunction with the University of Virginia and
the State. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$71~692.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the School Fund and coded as
follows for the Learning Disability and Handicapped Program:
17VB2-134al Teacher Personnel $43,555
17VB2-109b Aides 9,122
17VB2-136 Transportation of Students 5,000
17VB2-295 Fringe Benefits 14,015
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the revenue side of the budget be adjusted to offset
the above appropriations as follows:
22402-100 Learning Disability & Handicapped - UVA
22402-105 Learning Disability & Handicapped - State
$53,992
17,700
33:L
October 8, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by~.the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 31.
Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the following joint resolution was received today from Mr. Eugene
German, Parks and Recreation Director of the City of Charlottesville, concerning the expansion
of the Ivy Creek Natural Area. Mr. Agnor said this resolution is necessary for the filing
of an application for the acquisition of approximately 16.5 acres of land adjacent to the
Ivy Creek Natural Area. The same resolution is being submitted to the City Council for its
approval. Mr. Agnor recommended approval of same. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following.resolution. Roll was called on the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
JOINT RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF THE
IVY CREEK NATURAL AREA AND APPLICATION FOR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
WHEREAS, the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation provides funds to
assist political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia in acquiring and
developing open space and park lands; and
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need within the Charlottesville-Albemarle Community
to preserve open space lands for present and future recreational use; and
WHEREAS, the property adjoining the proposed expansion of the Ivy Creek
Natural Area, containing approximately 16.5 acres, is deemed to be of high priority
for acquisition and preservation as open space land; and
WHEREAS, in order to attain funding assistance for this project it is required
that each political subdivision provide a proportionate share of the cost thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed project would be funded i~n the ratio of fifty percent
from the Virginia Commission of ~Outdoor Recreation, 9.4 percent from the County of
Albemarle, and 9.4 percent from the City of Charlottesville, and 31.2 percent as a
gift of the owner;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle and the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the County
Executive and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to furnish such
information and materials as may be necessary to make application to the appropriate
State and Federal agencies for funding of the.acquisition of the aforesaid property;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and City Council give
their assurances that the funds required as the respective proportionate shares of
the County and City in the funding of such projects will be provided, up to a
maximum of $8,000 ~r6~a~ach jurisdiction; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED'that the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville
will abide by all applicable State and Federal regulations governing the expenditure
of such funds to be provided by the Virginia Commission of Outdoor Recreation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service
of the United States Department of the Interior and the Virginia Commission of
Outdoor Recreation are respectfully requested to assist in the prompt approval and
funding of the acquisition for the expansion .of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, in
order to provide the benefits of increased permanent open space in the vicinity of
the Rivanna Reservoir for the benefit of the citizens of the County of Albemarle
and the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Agnor then noted a public hearing in Leesburg, Virginia, on October 13, 1980 at
7:30 P.M., by the Joint Subcommittee studying Agricultural Land Preservation. The purpose
of the public hearing is to receive comments from the public and local government officials
on the need for farmland preservation and specific recommendations for accomplishing same.
Mr. Fisher urged anyone that could attend the public hearing to so do. He had supported the
establishment of the study committee because there was a feeling that the State's two
techniques for this preservation was not doing a 'lot for the State.
Mr..Agnor then distributed report dated October 8, 1980, from Mr. Ray Jones on the 1980
property taxes, original levy. He also noted that the 1980 tax tickets will be mailed
October 20th.
October 8 1 80~(Re ular Da~ Meetin_~)
33; ,
Dr. Iachetta said a recent article in the Daily Progress on the Ivy Creek Natural Area
gave the impression that the property was a gift to the County and City. He felt clarificatio~
of that impression should be noted that over $200,000.00 of public money was spent on the
property.
Agenda Item No. 32. At 5:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
McCann, to adjourn to October 13, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference
Room. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.