1980-02-20February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)
February 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor said he had received a letter from the Albemarle County office of thc
SU Extension Service, stating that a replacement for Mr. James Butler is being defe~
until the exact manpower needs of the Service can be examined.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the audit of Revenue Sharing Trust Fund 47-1-002-001
Antirecession Fiscal Assistance Fund for the year ending June 30, 1979; by Dulaney,
and Company, accountants.
Mr. Fisher handed to the Board members copies of a history of Albemarle County
the past decade which he had been requested to write for publication in the Daily P:
Dr. Iachetta noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Avery Catlin, Executive Vice P:
sident, University of Virginia, dated February 6, 1980, regarding the Birdwood proj
relatio~ to the Albemarle County Stormwater Detention Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said
disagreed with Mr. Catlin's statement that state guidelines will take the Birdwood
well beyond what is required in the Albemarle County Ordinance. Mr. Roudabush said
thought the University had compared the Stormwater Detention Ordinance against the
Soil Erosion Ordinance and overlooked the fact that the County also has a Soil Eros
Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to see this reviewed by the County staf
Miss Nash requested that land books be made available to the general public du
workshop sessions on the proposed Zoning Ordinance.
Agenda Item No. 27. At 5:40 P.M., Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconde
Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn to February 20, 1980 at 2:00 P.M., in the Board Room of t
County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
None.
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
held on February 20, 1980 at 2:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Buil
Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from FebruarY 13, 1980.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., 'F. Anthony Iac
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting._)
3.
4.
5.
To provide for employee salary adjustments in the most effective
manner;
To combat inflationary costs by further tightening of operational
expenditures;
To recognize the funding needs of the capital budget wit'h allocations
from current revenues;
To once again limit new programs and expansion of existing programs to
essential needs, previous approvals, or mandates; and
To limit recommended appropriations to existing resources, recognizing
that the citizens who pay for their County government are also coping
with inflation, and do not need the additional burden of increased tax
rates added to the increased property values on which their property
taxes are calculated.
authority to meet all of these objectives is limited. The cooperation of
.rtment and agency heads is essential, and is gratefully acknowledged in the
entation of the proposed budget.
following is a summary of revenues, appropriations, and significant changes:
NUES
nues are estimated to increase $3,598,160 or 14% over budgeted FY-80 revenues.
his amount, the General Fund increases $2,294,360 or 11.9%, the School Fund
03,800, or 20.4%. However, the School Fund increase includes a change made
he State in the procedure for paying social security, retirement, and insur-
benefits amounting to $1,022,500. Therefore, the actual increase in
nues to the School Fund is $281,300 or 4.4%.
hue estimates assume that the "Michie bills" will be funded by the General
mbly. This assumption increases General Fund revenues by $279,578 (Sheriff
,852 and Commonwealth's Attorney $30,726) and decreases appropriation needs
84,971 (Circuit Court $28,565 and County share of Jail Fund $56,406) for a
1 benefit of $364,549. Revenue estimates also assume funding of the School
em on the basis of the Governor's proposed budget without an estimate of
ge by the General Assembly. Neither assumption is a certainty at this
t. Mr. Agnor said he feels the General Assembly will increase state support
he School system; that amount will be known before this budget is adopted.
most significant revenue changes are:
Property Taxes
Sales Taxes
Utility Taxes
Recreation Fees
Business/Professional Licenses
Interest on Monies
ABC Profits
State Share-Sheriff
State/Federal Share-Social Services
+ $1,091,971 + 10.6%
+ 432,900 + 32.0%
+ 100,000 + 5.4%
+ 12,200 + 72.6%
+ 95,000 + 18.1%
+ 275,000 + 45.8%
+ 46,000 + 29.9%
+ 259,852 + 65.3%
+ 91,000 + 9.8%
changes in property taxes are as follows:
79-80 80-81
Change
Estate $ 6.202.24~ $6.~2q.420 +$ 22~.~87 ~.2~
Februa~ 20_, 1 8~Afternoon Meet'ing~
GENERAL OPERATIONS
The most significant changes in general government operations are:
A full year's funding of the Watershed Management Official position.
Merger of the Finance Department as approved in FY-80 from three
divisions (Assessment/Collection, Accounting, License Bureau) to six
divisions (+ Real Estate, Purchasing, Payroll) with the addition of
one clerk.
One part-time clerk added in the Circuit Court Clerk's office.
Two additional field deputies in the Sheriff's Department, subject t
approval by the State. Sheriff Bailey requested three deputies.
Expansion of the recreation program to reflect the increased part-
icipation already being experienced, an increase of $13,107 with 78%
recovered in fees.
Removal of Building and Grounds supervision from the Purchasing Offi
by creation of a Staff Services Department to be responsible for
building custodial and maintenance functions, operation of the motor
pool, and supervision of the printing/copying center.
Opening of the Market Street Post Office building for the Regional
Library system.
Increased support for volunteer fire and rescue squads.
Funding of the Capital Improvemen~ Fund from General Fund revenues i
an amount of $500,000.
General government employee salaries, unlike school division employees salarie
are recommended to be funded in a different manner than previous years. In
discussions with employees in meetings at the beginning of the budget process,
it was suggested to them that the best method to cope with inflation would be
increase their net "take-home" pay. Simultaneously, the only way to balance t
budget within existing resources would be to adjust salaries and benefits
(payroll costs) with the least cost to our citizens. The conclusion of these
discussions was acceptance by employees of a different method of adjusting
salary schedules, a method used by private industry and an increasing number o
public agencies.
This method is to increase net pay by the employer (the County), paying the
employee's cost of retirement and life insurance programs, which removes these
contributions from the employee's income and eliminates the employee from payi
federal and state income taxes on the contributions, thereby increasing net pa
by the amount of the contribution plus the amount of the lowered income tax.
The contributions are also removed from the FICA tax computation. This, in
effect, shelters the retirement program from income taxes and FICA taxes just
other private retirement plans provide. Employees will pay income taxes on th
retirement system contribution at retirement, when their tax brackets are lowe
Additionally, it is proposed that the County as employer pay the employee's ha
of FICA taxes, which results in a cost-saving to the County and therefore a
saving to its citizens. Instead of calculating 1/2 of the FICA tax on the
employee's gross wages and then matching that as an employer, the total FICA t
is calculated on an employee's FICA wage which in 1980 would be 92.87% (100.00
less 6.13% FICA tax) of taxable wages. The employee's taxable wage will be
recalculated to become the total of this FICA wage plus one half of the employ
payment of FICA tax. In other words, each employee will have a FICA wage and
different taxable wage. Since the base for the calculation of the FICA tax is
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)~
e the educational program is the responsibility of the School Board, and
e energy conservation programs and adjustments in the transportation system
~nderway, the budget analysis has been princiPally confined to salaries and
ssed increases.
~1 division salaries, are proposed by the School Board to increase the base
by 13.~%. This changes the entry level salary with zero years experience
$9,700 to $11,000. The 13.4% increase also applies to employees with more
16 years experience. In between the zero year and 16+ year, increases
from 15.63% to 17.35%. An additional step for 20 years experience has
added, providing a 16.98% change. Payroll costs will exceed these per-
~ge increases by another 2% approximately. Retirement system costs from
~rial studies increase the employers cost from 5.93% of payroll to 7.33%, a
increase in that one item. Actuarial studies do not change employee's
?ibution, presently 5%.
~derable discussion has evolved in the community from the comparison of
~1 division salary increases to cost of living increases. It seems to
~s center on the base percentage increase, rather than the base plus step
~ntage increase available to approximately 90% of the employees. Suggestions
been made that salaries should be considered as fixed increases to budgets,
Lar to energy costs. It has also been suggested that employees in the
~te sector are receiving higher wage increases, to the envy and amazement of
Lc employees. Public statements have been made that inflation in three
has increased 28.5% while salaries in the school division have increased
~, creating a loss in buying power of approximately 15%.
statements and calculations are inaccurate and deceptive, and should be
Lfied. Salaries should not be considered a fixed cost of any operation.
should reflect program costs and market costs from periodic surveys.
~te sector salaries are not increasing at higher rates. Inquiries of
~yers and employees in the private sector in this community indicate many
~yers are only maintaining payrolls and jobs without increases. Some are
~ding increases in a range of 5% to 8%, and those are on a bonus or merit
~. None are meeting inflation or cost of living increases.
of living estimates vary., usually on the period of time being analyzed Or
~rea involved. The County has never purported to meet inflationary in-
,es, but reacts to inflation. The assertion that inflation in three years
~ncreased 28.5%, while salaries have lagged by approximately 15%, is not
It is also obvious that the school's base scale has not kept pace, which
~ts entry level.employees. Employees in the 1-5 year scale have.lagged
2/10 of 1%, while other employees have received increases averaging higher
inflation percentages. County employees on the Pay and Classification Plan
lagged about 1%. A merit increase of 5% has provided some general govern-
employees with gains on inflation. The merit evaluation system is not
~ded to be an anti-inflation program, but 28% of the employees have been
led merit increases each year in these three years, and therefore have
~d salaries that exceeded inflationary changes. If the County were at-
~ing to match inflation, the base salary scale for 'FY-81 for the school
~ion should be increased, and the index factors used for step changes
~ased. The general government employees base scale would require an in-
~e from 14% to 16.5%.
~gnOr said he feels the County citizens will support salary adjustments that
not match inflation. They will also support improvement-s to teacher
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)
revenues, it is unconscionable to make budget requests that would re~sult in
local tax rates being increased on top of the inflationary tax base. To re-
commend such funding would be considered by many as irresponsible.
Many adjustments will be needed as information from General Assembly actions
determined. Funding of the "Michie bill", State levels for support of educati~
and library systems, and State Compensation Board allocations to several offic~
are the major ones that may change. If revenues from any of these sources
change, it is strongly recommended that all agency requests be reconsidered,
not just those benefiting or suffering from the changes. If major revenue
increases from the State should occur, it will be recommended that the Board
consider reducing the personal property tax rate with the real estate rate bei~
retained until the general reassessment is completed in FY-82.
Mr. Agnor said each year the budget preparation seems more difficult. This ye~
is no exception. With this proposed budget, the County continues in sound
financial condition, and, meets essential needs
Mr. Fisher noted that when the Board was given projections of expected revenu
October, the County Executive had advised that about $900,000 in new local funds w
available for Education purposes. The budget presented today recommends $1.3 mill
Mr. Fisher then noted that during work on the 1979-80 budget, there was $500,000 r
mended for the Capital Improvements Program, but during work sessions, the Board f
there were so many other needs in current operating expenses that the Board had al
all of that amount to other purposes. Mr. Agnor said that was correct and at the
1979-80 Capital Improvements Program was adopted, the Board had directed the staff
begin funding the CI? budget from curren~ revenues and not just from the General F
Carry-Over Balance.
Mr. Fisher noted Mr. Agnor's recommendation for a pay/benefit package for gen
government employees which will net those employees approximately 10% additional m
their take-home pay. He asked if this method had been analyzed to see how it woul
the salaries of instructional personnel in the Education department, either as a g
salary increase, or as a combination package. Mr. Agnor said Dr. McClure's staff
presently working on such an analysis.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the Board must rely on the County Executive's rec
mendation, but he also feels the School Board has 6one a good job in facing needs
Education system. It is necessary for the School Board to recommend to the Board
Supervisors the amount they feel is necessary for a quality education regardless o
He said the School Board's input weighted against the County Executive's recommend
should supply the Board of Supervisors with the necessary prospectives to make the
decisions as to what funds are necessary for a quality education, and where, if ne
cuts can be made.
Agenda Item No. 3. Education Budget. (School Board Members Present: Mrs. J
Haden, School Board Chairman, Dr. Ronald H. Bauerle, Mr. Dean Strong, Mr. Thomas D
and Mr. Charles Maupin, Jr.)
Mrs. Haden said in October, the School Board met with the public to receive i
the 1980-81 fiscal year budget. She said it was the consensus of the School Board
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)~
~hedule for bus drivers. Dr. McClure explained that the large increases are
~y the change in the drivers schedules, and the resulting longer hours for those
He added that the total cost in the budget for salaries alone, is $13,279,248,
~rease of $1,983,058 over this fiscal year.
McClure noted two additional expenses not in last year'S budget, those being the
~t fee for revising the pay and classification pla~ for the schools ($5,000) and
~1 Census which is required by the State ($7,500).~' He 'also noted that the English
it heads will receive an additional $500 due to an increase in workload. He said
~ 15 fewer teachers on this year's payroll, although~0 new positions are being
~wo of those new positions are ESEA positions, formerly funded under a Federal
The other eight new positions are in the field of special education, and funds
~ salaries will be realized from revenue from the State or a reduction in the
~rant costs to the County. The addit±on of threw teacher aid positions is essen-
le the additional special education teach~rs will require assistance with many of
.capped children.
~r increases are reimbursements for mileage expenses from 155 to 18.55 per mile;
~ooks show a slight increase; $2,000 for support of the Bayly Museum; and $3,000
lharlottesville/ Albemarle Association for Fine Arts. Gasoline and electricity
~ up. Last year the price for gasoline was 675 a gallon. This year's budget
~how a cost of $1.10 per gallon. The cost of electricity is up by over $110,000
oil is up by over $1Z0,000. Dr. McClure noted a capital improvement item, namely
~r Woodbrook School, which was quoted at $102,000. Mr. Agnor said he recommended
'unded from the Capital Improvement carry-over balance, so the money is not
'rom the budget, but is picked up in revenues.
McClure said the final 1/3 share of the alternative education program has been
.n this budget. This was formerly funded by Federal grants. He said the voca-
.d rehabilitation unit has been completely taken over by State funds. Prior to
over, the County had to contribute a share of the costs in the amount of $10,000.
Fisher questioned the enrollment figures used by Dr. McClure and the School Board
ing the budget. He said the census and other statistics show a steady decline in
.t, yet the enrollment figures used· in this proposed budget show the same number
~ts. Dr. McClure said that was correct. The School Board used the figure of
n though the State is using the figure Of 9,343. He noted that kindergarten
.ts have begun to increase, and that building permits in the County are up 40% per
ing Department. Mr. Fisher asked if State reimbursements were based on the State
of enrollment or the actual number of students enrolled. Dr. McClure said State
~as based on the actual number of students enrolled. Dr. Bauerle said the Plan-
.rtment and the School Board's Building Update Committee estimated a total decline
.dents for next year concentrated mostly in elementary levels. Dr. Bauerle added
elt these figures were so insecure he felt it unwise to underbudget teacher
and other tight Categories in the budget where it would be difficult or im-
to recover funds. He feels it was wiser to overbudget slightly than be short of
February 20, 19_ _ ~0 (Aft._erno~o~ Meet_ _~ng_) .............
their salaries were noted in the Health Department budget, money for those salarie
actually was being paid by the school system, and due to new Health Department reg
tions, have been transferred back into the County Educational Budget. Dr. McClure
far as travel expenses for those nurses is concerned, the dollar figure was sugges
Dr. McCloud of the Health Department who said nurses are responsible for visiting
sick students, follow-up visits, and summer visitation within the community.
Mr. Fisher asked what salaries could be funded for the teachers if the total
of funds recommended by the County Executive for the Education Division were used,
McClure said what he originally recommended, the $10,500 base, could be funded.
Dr. Iachetta asked why it was necessary to hire a consultant to draft a pay ~
classification plan for non-professional employees in the school system, when seen
all that is necessary is to mirror the plan used by the County (Mr. Fisher left t?
meeting at 3:26 P.M.). Dr. McClure said the job of each employee must be evaluate
· , /~
to determine the correct step for that position on the plan.~ ~r. ~ndstrom felt ~
school system does not have a merit system for educational personnel, the longevit
increase must do "double duty", and serve as both a longevity and merit increase.
this justified the larger increase for teachers. General county employees are eld
for a merit raise, even if only about 28% of the employees actually receive that ~
Mr. Agnor noted that in the County's pay and classification plan there is no step
longevity, it is strictly a merit system. (Mr. Fisher returned at 3~33 P.M.) Dr.
said the school system has always resisted a merit system for teachers, therefore
having~that system is not the fault of the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Iachetta sa~
wished to state that as far as school system increases went, he would never suppo~
13.5% increase for the high level positions in this budget. He said he would sup~
an increase for the lower salaried employees who were more in need, but to apply ~
percentage scale throughout the entire scale is not the correct way to go. Dr. M~
said the wage price freeze imposed by the President of the United States a few ye~
had held teacher increases to 5.5% until this year. With new contracts this yea~
teachers will just now be "catching up" to general County employees.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to give members of the School Board an opportu~
speak. First to speak was Dr. Ronald H. Bauerle, who said he did not vote to sup~
School Board budget, because of concerns he had about funding the budget. Dr. Ba~
presented a table of figures to the Board, comparing the local cost of living (pr~
the Tayloe Murphy Institute) for the past five years with salary increases given
teachers over that same period of time. When compared, it can be seen what the i~
should have been, and what they actually were. Dr. Bauerle said there are very f~
in the school system who have retained the same purchasing power through the five
period, and most employees have received no credit at all for their knowledge, or
ience while on the job. Dr. Bauerle said he was not concerned with percentages,
February 20, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting)
Charles Maupin, Jr., said teachers salaries were the most important thing in the
He said he has been criticized, as well as the School Board, for not hiring
s. He said this problem is directly due to the low salary scale. Mr. Maupin
a minority teacher seems interested in Albemarle CountY schools, he compares the
th other area systems, and then decides to go elsewhere because our salaries are
He requested the Board to favorably approve the salary increases requested for
ers and other school Personnel.
~cClure said two studies of a merit pay system for instructional personnel have
~cted within the school system by totally independent people, and the same
ave been obtained, that it is not suitable to the school system. Mr. Fisher said
t feel that was true, and he felt the general public did not feel that was true.
from said what should be done is conduct another study and have a member of the
Bupervisors participate and then see how the results turn out.
]harlotte Dammon, President of t~e Albemarle Education Association, spoke next in
substantial raises for teachers. She noted that in 1976 a committee Was formed
~ne the feasibility of a merit pay plan. She noted that a wide range of com-
~ders, teachers, and school board members were on that committee, and their
~tions at that time were as follows:
Merit ratings ultimately depend on subjective judgements.
The implementation costs would be prohibitive.
Budget preparation would be more complicated with a merit increase plan.
Development of a competitive attitude, rather than cooperative attitudes, among
teachers.
Discouragement of creativity. A premium is placed on conformity to what the
evaluator feels is important, not the teacher.
Teachers would be disinclined to admit weaknesses or problems to supervisors, if
the same supervisors were also the evaluators.
Parents would resent their children being taught by anyone other than a superior
teacher.
Over a period of time, almost all merit plans have proven unsuccessful for
teachers, and have been abandoned.
)ammon next presented results of a survey taken to solicit support ~for a pay
~or teachers in Albemarle County. The results were: Samuel Miller District,
~ Hall District, 759; Charlottesville District, 563; Jack Jouett District 346;
~e District, 224; Rivanna District, 254; District Unidentified, 449.
Wisher said he appreciated the efforts of the teachers in the county, not only in
~ the above survey, but in their profession. Mr. Fisher explained that in future
~re will be an increasing conflict where many of the citizens of the County will
~d or near-fixed incomes, and will not be able to support substantial increases
~tate taxes. He said the conflict between citizens and public employees will
~se.
Haden requested the Board of Supervisors to keep the School Board and the Super-
informed as to future discussions of the Education Budget, so they may attend if
~sire.
IcCture next presented to the Board a description of the School Self-Sustaining
.rst was Cafeterias, which Dr. McClure indicated was being affected by Federal
funding changes. He said this has increased the price of school lunches to
~sibly as high as 805 per lunch. Dr. McClure said the Textbook Fund is very
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
held on February 20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charl
tesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Ia
C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash, and Mr. W. S.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. At 7:30 P.M., the Chairman called the mee
order. Due to the fact that court was still in session, motion was offered by Dr.
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn and immediately reconvene in the Board Room
County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following r
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
At 7:37 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order in the Board Room of the
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia with Mr. Lindstrom being present
Fisher welcomed a class of government students from Albemarle High School attendin
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 2. Amend Section 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code relating
number of bond issues of the Industrial Development Authority. (Advertised in the
Progress on February 6 and February 13, 1980.)
Mr. Fisher read the ordinance as advertised as follows:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2-52
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
that Chapter 2, Article IX, Section 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code be amer
and reenacted to read as follows:
Sec. 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than five bond issuances of the industrial devel¢
authority of the county in existence at any one time.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. D. A.
Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Holden reaffirmed the Auth¢
request for an additional two bond issuances. He said it would allow the Authorit
develop more proposals, and that it would be good to have the growing space avails
noted that there were no proposals under active consideration for these two additJ
bond issuances at the present time.
Mr. Bill Moore said he supported the amendment. He then stated it was his ot
that th~ Bn~wd n~n nnt l~llv limit (l~ndew the Stmte Con~titl~tion/ the n~mher of
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
aticello Memory Gardens has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to amend Section
-25(8) of the zoning ordinance to provide for crematoriums in addition to ceme-
les by special use permit in the A-1 zone.
le crematoriums are not expressly provided for in the ordinance, funeral homes are
nitted in the B-1 and CO commercial districts. Staff opinion is that a crema-
ium is an associated cemetery use and therefore recommends the following amend-
Section 2-1-25(8) Cemeteries and adjunct crematoriums
~ld the commission
and Board choose to'approve this amendment, you may wish to
~ider that funeral homes and chapels are similar uses to crematoriums."
Tucker reported that the Planning Commission at their meeting of February 5, 1980
~ly recommended approval of this amendment.
Fisher requested Mr. St. John to define the use of the word "adjunct" in the
~n proposed. Mr. St. John said it would mean "accessory". Mr. Fisher then
the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr. Rhodes, representing the
~. He said they wished to build a mausoleum/crematorium on the site.
Joan Graves asked if this amendment would also be placed in the proposed new
~dinance. Mr. Fisher said he was not certain. Mr. Tucker said it woUld have to
under the special use permit provisions.
~ne else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and
~r declared the public hearing closed.
Roudabush asked Mr. Tucker about setback requirements for such an accessory use~
~r said since this will be a use by special permit the Board and Planning Commission
~uire more stringent setbacks then are now required for accessory uses.- Dr.
asked if it is not more common to have this use in conjunction with a funeral
~. Tucker said the trend around the country is to locate funeral homes at cemetery
~r. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission had considered broadening the defini-
~nclude funeral homes and chapels. Mr. Tucker said no. Miss Nash asked if there
~npleasantness connected with this proposed crematorium. Mr. Rhodes said no, that
meet requirements of the State Air Pollution Control Board. Motion was then
~y Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to amend and reenact Section 2-1-25(8)
~ning Ordinance as reoommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and
~n carried by the following recorded vote:
~ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
~ne.
~da Item No. 4. SP-79-78.~ Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. To locate an
power substation on 6.37 acres zoned A-!. Property on Route 29 north, south of
~section of Routes 763 and 29 North and North of Camelot. (Tax Map 21, Parcel 12,
~sville District). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on-February 6 and February
)
Tucker read the planning staff report as follows:
Electrical power substation (2-1-25(35))
6.37 acres
!uest:
~a~e:
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher'asked if it is the intention of this special permit to include the
of SP~9~56. Mr. Tucker said yes, that was the intention.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Barl
Leonard, representing the Rappahannock Electric Cooperative. Mr. Leonard said he
not like to see the Board void the earlier permit (SP-79-56), because it takes a c
siderable amount of time to develop the new site and relocate the equipment. He s
was the intent of the Rappahannock Electric Cooperative to vacate the old site upo
pletion of the~new substation.
Mr. Jim Everett, representing General Electric, said this request by Rappahan
done through negotiations with General Electric, and G. E. supports the request.
else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. F
declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, to approve Special Permit 79-78, wit
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but with the addition of a fifth
dition reading "SP-79-56 shall become void when the substation created under SP-79
becomes operable". Mr. Lindstrom requested the word ',commercial" be added to cond
number lc, before the word "access". Dr. Iachetta accepted the amendment, Mr. Le
asked about the condition of requiring Virginia Department of Highways and Transpo
approval of a commercial access. Mr. Lindstrom said this only puts the applicant
notice of the requirement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, roll was the
called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-80-01. James M. and Irene G. Fretwell. To rezone 2.
from A-1 to RS-1. Property is located on the east side of.Route 240 approximately
mile north of the intersection of Routes 250 and 240 in the Brownsville area~ Cou
Map 56, Parcel 32C(I). Whitehall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
6 and February 13, 1980.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning staff report as follows:
Requested Zoning: RS-1 Residential Suburban
Acreage: 2.23 acres
E.xistin~ zoning.: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56, parcel 32C(1), is locs
the east side of Route 240 approximately 700 feet north of its intersection
Route'250 West.
Character of the Area: This area is primarily residential in character. The
housing for the elderly, is to the northwest. A convenience store is located
Route 240/250 West intersection. A dwelling exists on this property.
Comprehensive Plan: This property, located within the Crozet community, is z
mended for low-density residential use in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: The' existing dwelling is served by a well. Public water is a
at the front property line. Under existing regulations, both the existing dy
and a new.dwelling would have to be connected to public water. (The site is
3,000 square feet below the required area for individual well and septic syst
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
?acter of the Area: Meriwether Hills to the east is zoned RS-1. Other properties
~he area are zoned A-1. This property is open pasture with frontage on both
~es 250 and 678.
~rehensive Plan: Ivy is recommended as a larger Type I village in the Compre-
ive Plan. The requested RS-1 density is consistent with the Plan.
f Comments: The applicants withdrew ZMA-79-45 at the Board of Supervisors'
.ic hearing in order to submit a proffered rezoning petition. Conditions pro-
~ed by the applicants become a part of the zoning designation and run with the
I. Staff recommends that the proffered conditions adequately reflect the public
.rest in this particular case and recommends approval of this petition.
~uary 3, 1980
~marle County Zoning Department
East Market Street
~lottesville, VA. 22901
B & T Properties
Rezoning Request
Sir:
ched please find an Application for Zoning Map Amendment filed on
.if of B & T Properties requesting a change on 16.975 acres on Tax Map
Parcel 84, from A-1 Zoning to RS-1 Zoning.
art of the rezoning, B & T Properties does, in accordance with Section
-491.1, et. seq., Code of Virginia (1950) and enactment thereof by
marle County, proffer the following conditions for the protection of
community which are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned:
If the request for rezoning is approved, B & T Properties will sub-
divide the 16.975 acres in accordance with the preliminary plat of
Locust Hill Subdivision, dated 10/26/79, revised 12/12/79, and pre-
pared by R. O. Snow & Associates. A copy of the plat is hereto
attached as Exhibit 1. (NOTE: Copy of the plat referenced is on file
in the Board's official files.)
B & T Properties will reserve for future relocation of State Route 678
the shaded area shown on the attached plat.
Water for the individual lots will be from private wells.
Sewage disposal for the individual lots will be through septic tanks
and drainfields.
The only access for the proposed subdivision onto State Route 678 will
be as shown on the ~ttached plat. There will be no access from Lots 5
and 6 onto the existing right-of-way as shown on the attached plat.
Ail conditions of subdivision approval imposed by the Albemarle County
Department of Planning will be complied with by B & T Properties in
connection with the subdivision and development of the 16.975 acre
tract.
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that with the amount of development taking p
along this road, that in ten to twenty years, it may be necessary to condemn sever
these proposed homes in order to expand the road if it is realigned as proposed by
applicant. Mr. Gibson said this alignment was approved by the Highway Department,
cluding the sight distance.
Mr. Marymor said it seems illegal to speak of possible land condemnation when
property owners affected were not notified, and are not present tonight.
Mr. FiSher asked if the State Highway Department has discouraged the use of R
as the main entrance/exit road to this property. Mr. Tucker said Route 250 has no
discouraged as the main access road, but the Highway Department is in favor of the
alignment of Route 678 as proposed in the County's Comprehensive Plan.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petiti
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Henley said the only way to get roads improved is to do it along with d~¥
ment, and he therefore agrees with the proposed plan. Mr. St. John said no person
proffer a use on someone else's land. He said there is no.way this applicant can
the expectation that a road will be reconstructed and that the Board does not have
power to impose anything on other properties shown on the proposed plan~
Mr. Roudabush said originally the only problem the Board had with this plan ~
of assurance that the road would ever be built. He said it appears to him that th
applicant has done everything he can to alleviate that concern, and he did not th~
was fair to expect a property owner to set aside property for location of a road ~
never be built.
Dr. Iachetta said he agreed with Mr. Roudabush. He then asked if the Highwa~
partment would have to purchase the right-of-way to construct the road, even thou~
reserved on this plat. Mr. St. John said yes. Dr. Iachetta said "reservation" dc
assure conveyance of the right-of-way at a future date. Mr. Tucker said it was h~
opinion that new legislation adopted a few months ago, gave the Planning Departmer
authority to require the dedication of property where the Comprehensive Plan show~
right-of-way. Mr. St. John agreed, and added that now would be the time to requ±i
dedication even though this provision is in the subdivision ordinance. Dr. Iachet
this subdivision of land is based on the proffer which specifically says "reserve~
that if the Board votes on this as is, they will be agreeing to reservation only.
John said the Board should make clear that dedication will be imposed at the time
subdivision.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve ZMA-80-02 as recommended
Planning Commission, including the full letter of proffer dated January 3, 1980, ~
amendment of condition number one to include the word "substantially"..as recommer
the Planning Commission; and a separate statement that the Board of Supervisors r~
the right to require the dedication of all rights-of-way at the time of subdivisi¢
proval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said on behalf of ~
Marymor he wished to state that he would support the motion only because this app]
will create development less dense than current zoning would permit. Mr. Fisher
regretted that more could not be done to resolve the possible impact on Mr. Marym~
property. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabust
None.
February 20, 1980 (R~gu!ar Night Meeting)
He added that there are empty seats in some schools, and if redistricting can
new construction without undue hardship on students and teachers, then that
[ty should be considered first.
Lindstrom suggested that the Planning Staff participate in.reviewing the district
Ds, as they have knowledge of potential growth areas throughout the County. Mrs.
id a member of the Planning Staff regularly works with the School Board. Dr.
[ker said if constructing a new school on the present Meriwether Lewis School site
[mulate growth in an area not recommended for growth in the Comprehensive Plan,
School Board needs direction from the Board of Supervisors. He did not think it
job to plan for growth. Mr. Fisher said schools should be placed where the
~nts the population to locate, not locate the schools near present populations.
~Y Fletcher, representing the Parents Teachers Organization for the Meriwether
~ool, was present, and requested a decision as soon as possible on the fate of
~r Lewis School, because they also must make plans for the future education of
lldren, and distribution of PTO funds. Mr. Fisher said if a new school were
;ed, the earliest possible completion date would be 1982 or 1983. Mrs. Judy Gough
time frame of the School Board for their district study. Dr. McClure said the
~ld have to be completed in time for the School Board to review their capital
~nt program for adoption by June.
Iachetta asked Dr. McClure the approximate completion dates of present construc-
iects. Dr. McClure said the .Scottsville School should be completed by Fall, 1981.
School goes to bid in June, but due to the phased construction schedule planned,
~ke as long as three years to complete. Mr. Fisher said he appreciated the
~f the School Board, and was glad to see that they were looking into the pos-
of redistricting to make better use of the existing schools in the County.
ida Item No. 8. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor sa~d on February 6, 1980,_the Board
1 agreement with the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, for the advance of
?unds. No appropriation was made at the time the agreement was executed. The
has now been signed by the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department and the
~tion is needed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
$200,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
transferred to Code 7C-226g.t.
Fisher said this money is being appropriated to help the fire company construct
~ing. This is actually an advance of the County's annual contribution for the
year period. There was no further discussion, and roll was called. The motion
~y the following recorded vote:
~ssrs~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush.
~ne.
~da Item No. 9. Appointments:
~are Board: Mr. Fisher said the County AttOrney was requested to check into a
conflict of interest regarding this appointment. Mr. St. John said he did check,
~d there was no conflict of interest regarding Mr. Fisher,s candidate.. Mr. Fisher
~mmended that Mrs. Katherine Burton of Route 1, Box 243, North Garden, Virginia be
[ as a member of the Welfare Board. He stated that Mrs. Burton was formerly a
February 20, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and MisS Nash and Mr. Roudabush
None.
Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the Board of Directors o
Dogwood Festival for a raffle to be held on March 6, 1980. Motion was offered by i
Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the lottery permit in accordance with
Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher reported receipt of the Columbia Gas Transmission Company's curren
inventory of gas lines in Albemarle County and current mailing address and telepho
number' of the area superintendent. Mr. Fisher recommended that this be made a par
Emergency Services file.
Mr. Fisher reported receipt of a memorandum from .Sheriff George Bailey regard
parking in handicapped parking spaces. This was in response to a complaint presen
the Board that such spaces were being used by, and tickets not issued to, non-hand
drivers. Mr. Fisher said the Sheriff reported that there is no ordinance which al
Deputy Sheriff to put a summons on the windshield, that the Deputy must wait until
owner of the vehicle returns and gets into the car, at which time the summons must
signed; only then can the driver be charged for parking ina handicapped area. Mr
asked Mr. St. John if this was indeed the proper interpretation of the law. Mr. S
requested a copy of Sheriff Bailey's memorandum, and said he would investigate thc
blem.
Mr. Agnor said last week the Board of Supervisors reviewed the report from t~
Charlottesville/Albemarle Joint Services Committee, as to their plans to do a~stud
Parks and Recreation. Mr. Agnor said he did not point out at that time that the (
may require as much as $2,000 for time and office supplies. Mr. Agnor said he sp¢
City Manager Cole Hendrix, who suggested that the costs be divided on a 50/50 bas~
Agnor said rather than request a special appropriation, he would suggest taking i~
the County Executive's budget category for "Intern Services". Board members had r
objection to the proposed handling of this request.
Dr. Iachetta reported that at a meeting yesterday of the Albemarle Transport~
Safety Commission, the Commission voted that Dr. Iachetta should request the Boarc
Supervisors to request the Highway Department to lower the speed limits on U.S. Hi
North between Rio Road to the South Fork of the Rivanna River from the present 55
to 45 m.p.h.; and that the speed limit from the Charlottesville City Limits to Ri~
Route ~29 North be lowered from the present 45 m.p.h, to 35 m.p.h. Dr. Iachetta sl
Sheriff endorsed this request.
Mr. Fisher said a considerable number of people would be effected by this ch~
he was not sure if a resolution should be adopted or a public hearing. Dr. Iache~
all that is being requested is for the Highway Department to make the necessary s~
report their findings to the Board. Mr. Fisher said he thought if the Highway De]