1979-08-08483
Mr. Fisher said a letter dated July 13, 1979 has been received from the State Air
Pollution Control Board concerning the State's Indirect Source regulation. The regulation
became effective January 1, 1975 and required that a permit to construct be obtained for
any sizeable development which will attract motor vehicles to the site. The regulation
exempts projects which will attract fewer than a certain number of vehicles to the site.
The regulation also provides for an air quality analysis of each permit application to
assure that the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Carbon Monoxide will not be
violated by the vehicles attracted to the proposed project. Mr. Fisher said the Air Pollution
Control Board is soliciting comments on the regulation specifically on ~he effectiveness of
the regulation and any improvements which could be made to it. Mr. Agnor said he has
passed this letter to the Planning Department for comments. Essentially, the Planning
Department's recommendations were to respond in a manner indicating that the standards and
regulations were beneficial to localities but should be administered by the State simply
because of the localities inability to have that kind of expertise.
Agenda Item No. 22. Transportation Committee, Report from.
The following memorandum dated August 3, 1979 was discussed:
"Subject: Transportation Committee Meeting, 8-25-79
The County has been advised by the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation that the grant application for the bus system to
serve the Route 29 corridor, and the application to administer a
ride-sharing program in the County will not be approved unless both
projects serve a regional need. The Transportation Committee
recommends the applications be modified as follows:
1. The Route 29 system be coordinated with the Greene County
transit bus and the Charlottesville bus system to provide transfer
points for Greene County residents to ride Greene, Albemarle and
Charlottesville buses to employment centers.
2. The ride-sharing program be expanded to include the Planning
District, with the program being transferred to the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission office for administration.
The Transportation Committee is continuing work on an emergency
plan for transportation in a gasoline crisis situation."
Mr. Fisher asMed if this change would coordinate this program with the University Bus
System. Mr. Agnor said no but such will probably result. The idea is that the 29 North
system will bring people to a major point of employment and the City bus system is close
enough to the University campus so this system does not have to be integrated with the
University bus system to get~ to that point. Dr. Iachetta felt it should be included.
Mr. Agnor said he had discussed with Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, Executive DireCtor of the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, whether the Commission would like to be the
applicant for the grant. The State Department of Highways and Transportation has said that
the County cannot isolate an organization and contract with them to continue to administer
these programs. It has to be made available almost on a competitive basis for anyone
interested, if the County administers the program.
Mrs. Harbaugh was present. She had discussed this with the Commission and they felt
it would be appropriate for the Planning District Commission to be the. applicant and in
effect draw the criteria and the program and then negotiate a contract. The Comission is
willing to fund the planning until grant funds are received. Mr. Fisher asked if the
Commission wanted to be the applicant. Mrs. Harbaugh felt the Commission would have to be
the applicant to develop the criteria but it could not be the operating agency. She felt
JAUNT was the appropriate agency for such.
Mrs. June Moon, Administrative Assistant, was present and noted that a representative
from the University was present when this was discussed and he was willing to work with the
County. Mr. Agnor recommended that the Route 29 North Corridor situation be pursued on a
regionaI effort and the Planning District Commission be the applicant for the other programs.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the recommendations of the Transportation
Committee as set our above by including the Universit~ of Virginia bus system in #1; adopting
number 2 as set out and authorizing the Thomas ~efferson Planning District Commission to be
i~ e applicant for the grant applications to the Virginia Department of High~ay~ and Transportat
i~r. Zaohetta seconded the motion. Mrs. Harbaugh noted that it was the Commmssmon'~ ,,~*~ ·
ithat the bus woul · · . .......... ndz
i~ . d come into the Un~verszty parking lot. She also stated that the Planning
!~istrict Commission recommended that the application state that if thms particular project
'proved to be feasible it could be expanded to Route 29 South 'and Houte 250 East and West.
~oll was then called on the foregoing motion and same 'carried. b~ the' following recorded
~ote:
~YES: MeSsrs.' De~er, ~er, Henley, Zachetta', L~d~tr'~m and Reu'dabmsh.
~AYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3~. Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the communities and villages in
;he Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher suggested that Hollymead and perhaps one village be
~iscussed August 15 at 2:00 P.M. and Crozet be discussed on September 5, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.
It 6:10 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to August 15, 1979 at 2:00 P.M.
.n the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Dorrier second~Sd~ the motion and same
:arried by the following recorded ~ote:
~YES:~v~. Messrs.~ Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Me~ting) 482
Several factors have affected the following allocations:
1. Inflation - requiring supplementary allocations to funded projects.
2. Readiness - shifting of funds from projects that were delayed
due to studies or design problems to projects that were 'ready to go'
3. Timing - the relationship of one project to the starting or completion
of another project.
4. Availability of Money - inadequate appropriations in Federal budget
and release of funds by Office of Management and Budget.
5. Political Pressure - appearances by State legislators at SWCB
allocation hearings in the past couple of years.
In 1973, the Rivanna Authority launched a pollution abatement program
which was to span five years. Of seven major projects of this program,
six have been funded and are completed or ~under construction. The Crozet
Interceptor is the one lone project remaining. It has been affected by all
five factors described above. In spite of delays, the pollution abatement
program is not far off its original schedule.
To offset the delays that have occurred, the Rivanna staff has recently
examined sources of Federal funds other than the source being relied upon.
The effort so far has been unsuccessful. The search for other sources will
continue, but success is doubtful, particularly in the amount of funds
needed for the project.
In my opinion, the possibility of reversing the delays by accelerating the
funding allocation has better possibilities than seeking other funding
sources. That acceleration is dependent upon successful consummation of
negotiations currently nearing completion between Mortons and the Albemarle
County Service Authority for Morton's connection to the Crozet Interceptor
and the AWT plant. With that contract in hand, the Rivanna Authority
will be in a much stronger position before the State Water Control Board
in its 1980 allocation hearing, for several reasons:
1. Mortons has a consent order to operate its waste treatment
facility which the SWCB can eliminate with the Crozet Interceptor
construction.
~2. Removal of a major point source polluter of the drinking water
supply will be possible with the contract-, but will not be accomplished
until the interceptor is in service.
3. Federal and State funds are already~ invested in the Morey
Creek interceptor, Moore's Creek interceptor, and the AWT plant, all
of which will be under utilized until the Crozet Interceptor is put
into operation.
4. The record of this locality in complying with State imposed
requirements to form a regional agency and develop and administer a pollution
abatement program will be further enhanced with the Morton's contract, and
should further indicate to the SWCB this community's continuing effort
to meet Federal clean water standards and to protect its water supply.
These are some of the points that will be raised at the Rivanna Authority
Board meeting. With support from local and State legislators, it may be
possible to achieve a reallocation of the Crozet Interceptor, in closer
sequence to the ANT plant cgmpletion in~1982."
Mr. Fisher also noted response from Congressman J. Kenneth Robinson who is trying to
get the General Services Administration to move the Federal District Court out of the Post
Office Building.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of "1977 Survey of the Flow of Five Major Hazardous Materials
along Highways in Albemarle", prepared by J. W. Schmidt and D. L.~Price of VPI-SU for the
Virginia Department of Transportation Safety. Dr. Iachetta noted that this report is the
first of its kind from the Department of Transportation and Safety. He said the report
does not identify the number of vehicles being used and the Regional Director for the
Safety Division is trying to identify these vehicles.
Mr. Fisher also noted that Senator John Warner will be present at the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission office tomorrow morning at 9:30 A.M. and the Board is invited.
Mr. Fisher said response has been received from Senator John Warner regarding the
AMTRAK resolution adopted by the Board on March 7, 1979 (Minute ~Book 17, pages 190 and
191). It has been noted that the Crescent has been retained since the ridership is up 78%.
Mr. Fisher noted copy of memorandum from the ~irginia Association of Counties concerning
481
was changed to read: "The 'parties' obligations hereunder are subject to annual appropriation~
by their respective governing bodies." Motion was then offered by Dr. ~achetta to authorize
the County Executive to execute the Tourist Bureau Agreement in its final form. (Copy of
this agreement is set out in full in Minute Book 17 of the July 18, 1979 meeting.) Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoUdabush.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Agenda Item No. 26g. Appointments: Land Use Classification Appeals Bo'ard.
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded bY Mr. Roudabush, to reappoint Messrs. Dan
Maupin, Montie Pace and Samuel Page to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board for a term
expiring on September 1, 1981. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achettq, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
No other appointments were made.
Agenda Item No. 27. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
June, 1979, was received as information in accordance with ¥1rginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 28 and 29. Removed from agenda.
Agenda Item No. 30. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of July, 1979, along with summary statements of prisoner
days, statement of jail physician, and statement of salaries of paramedics and the classificat~
officer were received. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve these statements as presented.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 31. Set public hearing to amend Ordinance: "Line of Duty Act."
Mr. Agnor said Albemarle County Code Section 15-1, Article % needs to be amended and
reenacted to include Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company and the Western Albemarle Rescue
Squad as part of the Official Safety Program of the County. He noted that Seminole Trail
has been included in the Code but be could not find authorization for such. Motion was
then, offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the public hearing for the amendment and reenactment
of Albemarle County Code Section 15-1, Article I to include the above for September 12,
1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 32. Special Appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said a $1,000 litter grant for the Clean Community Commission was received
prior to June 30, 1979, and placed in the County's General ~und. Since it was not received
after July 1, it could not be placed in the Grant Project Fund. Therefore, an appropriation
is needed to transfer these funds from the General Fund to the Grant Projects Fund. Motion
was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,000.00; be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
transferred to the Grant Projects Fund and coded to 68-18B, Charlottesville-Albemarle
Clean Community Commission Program.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 33. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher noted the following letter dated August 2, 1979 from Mr. Agnor concerning
the Crozet Interceptor:
~S~ ~T~a~R~vanna Water and Sewer Authority Board has scheduled discussions
with the Rivanna staff concerning the funding delays of the Crozet
~2 Intem~epD~r~ These discussions will be held this Fall in preparation
~or~a position to be taken on the matter at the Spring 1980 State
Water Control Board (SWCB) allocation hearings. Members of the Board
of Supervisors have asked questions on the funding of this project, and
Mr. Fisher has requested a Status report on the project.
The Crozet Interceptor project is ranked #9 on the SWCB priority
funding list out of 185 ranked projects. The project has held this
high priority number for several years, but has lost ground in terms
48'0
August 8, ]~,979 (Regular Day Meeting)
the Lessee shall be allowed a reasonable time to begin construction of the squad
building and appurtenances, after funding for the construction is secured, and
~rior to such time this Lease may not be terminated unless Lessee dissolves or
is no longer in existence.
4. In the event of the termination of this Lease, the premises with the
improvements thereon shall revert to the Lessor, except that Lessee shall be
allowed to remove its rescue fixtures.
5. For the term of this Lease and any extensions thereof, the Lessee
shall have the use of the above described premises rent free.
6. Lessee shall have the right to perform grading, landscaping,
and other construction work necessary for the erection of the building,
parking area, and roadways to serve Lessee's building on the property
hereby leased. Ail work shall be in compliance~th applicable Federal,
State and local requirements.
: 7. LLessee shall make no assignment or sub-lease of the leased
Premises or any part thereof, unless it shall first have sought and
obtained from Lessor written consent to such assignment or sub-lease."
Agenda Item No. 20. Library-Louisa County Board of Supervisors, memorandum on.
Mr. Agnor presented the following letter dated July 12, 1979 from Mr. C. Edward Kube, Jr.,
County Administrator of Louisa County:
"During its meeting of July 2, 1979, the Louisa County Board of Supervisors
discussed its dissatisfaction-of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. The
Board of Supervisors directed me as County Administrator to check with the
County Auditor (Daniel A. Robinson & Associates) to determine if Louisa County
is receiving 'dollar value for dollar spent' by the Regional Library. The
Board further asked that the other counties participating be contacted to
see if they would be interested and willing to share in the cost of a management
and operation audit.
I am aware that each of the Counties have been concerned with revenue
projections, excessive budget requests, and circulation figures used by
the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library and the Board feels this would be
the best means of determining their accuracy.
At the time, I do not have a cost figure from Daniel A. Robinson &
Associates to prepare the audit but will apprise you of the cost as soon
as I receive it. Please advise me of interest by YOUr Board."
Mr. Agnor recommended the County not partici-pate in this request. Budgeting procedures
have improved and an annual audit is being provided by the Regional Library. Therefore, he
did not feel an additional audit was necessary unless the Library Board itself requested
such. He noted that City Council had deferred action until the Library Board had been
consulted on the matter. Mr. Agnor said he had discussed this with Mr. Christopher DeVan,
Director of the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library, and Mr. DeVan was unaware of the request
but welcomed any audit a locality had done. The Board agreed with Mr. Agnor. Therefore,
no action was taken.
Mr. Fisher noted responses received from Senator J. Harry Michael and Delegate James
Murray regarding the resolution requesting the State to fund public libraries according to
their standards or that the mandates be suspended on how libraries spend their funds. Mr.
Fisher did not see any mention of redUcing the mandates and noted that the Board may wish
to have this resolution included in the Legislative Package to the Virginia Association of
Couhties.
Agenda Item No. 21.
revisions of.
Parks and Recreation Ordinance - Set Public Hearing Date for
The County Attorney's Office had reviewed the draft ordinance and worked out the
concerns expressed at the July 11, 1979 meeting and agreement has been received from the
Parks Managers. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advertise a revised Parks and Recreation
Ordinance for public hearing on September 12, 1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Roudabush asked if this ordinance will help alleviate the problems expressed in a
petition concerning Chris Green Lake Park received from the residents or the area. Mr.
Agnor felt it would.
Agenda Item No. 23. Piedmont Virginia Community College, memorandum from.
Mr. Agnor noted letter dated July 12, 1979 received from Mr. P. J. Jenkins, Dean of
Administrative Services of Piedmont Virginia Community College. This letter is to inform
the Board that the College is returning a surplus in the amount of $988.00 to the County
and the amount will be deducted from the revenue requested for 1979-80. Mr. Agnor also
noted a copy of the "Local Funds Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 1978-79" has been
received and is on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors' Office.
Co~ty ~as some ~ter'est ~ ~est~t~n~ t~e ~oss~b~l~ty o~ ~s~n~ t~e ~re~ as ~art of t~e
County's ~r~-s~stem &nd ~s~ ~f t~e ~o~n ~s ~nterested ~ do~ s~e. ~r, ~orr~er t~en
offere~ mot~on~to t~s effect, ~r. ~c~e~t~ seconded t~e motion ~nd same c~rr~ed ~y t~e
fol~ow~ng recorde~ ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, IaChetta, Lindstro~ and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. State's Fuel Allocation Process, memorandum on.
Mr. Agnor noted letter dated July 11, 1979 from Mr. George L. Jones, State Coordinator
for the State Office of Emergency and Energy Services, offering localities the option of
participating in the review process for the allocation of gasoline from the State set-aside
program. Mr. Agnor said the staff feels this would be Just one more procedure for the
County to become involved in. Discussions have been held with the City and the local
retail gasoline dealers. The feeling'of the dealers is to not accept the offer. However,
they did ask for a resolution indicating that the allocation from the State set-aside
program is unfair to the City and County; with same being sent to the State Energy Office.
Mr. Agnor said before such a resolution is prepared, he is having some statistical information
generated to determine whether the above is correct and if it is there will be some basis
for developing such a resolution. Such information should be available within the next few
weeks. No action was taken.
Agenda Item No. 19. Lease of County Property to Rescue Squad.
Mr. Agnor said the Board, on July 11, 1979, deferred action on execution of the lease
until several questions as set out in Minute Book 17, page 389 had been resolved. Letter
dated July 17, 1979 from Mr. St. John, CoUnty Attorney has been received and follows:
"Enclosed please find a copy of the site plan referred to in the lease.
Secondly, enclosed is a revised proposed lease agreement. ?aragraph 3
has been changed to indicate that the grant of the lease is subject to
the condition that the lessee remain a voluntary organization. Thus,
if the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad at some time during the
term of the lease changes from a volunteer organization to a paid
membership, the Board of Supervisors would have the right to terminate
the lease at any time thereafter.
Finally, the language in Paragraph 1 has been amended to state that
the Rescue Squad may use the premises for all voluntary Rescue
Squad purposes as provided by law. At present, the Code of ¥irginia
authorizes the Board of Supervisors to set forth certain conditions
governing the use of Premises for bingo games. I do not believe
the language in Paragraph 1 will allow any ResCue Squad building to
become a 'bingo parlor.'"
Mr. Fisher re¢~~d~i~that with these changes the County Executive be authorized to
execute the agreement on behalf of the County. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
THIS LEASE made this 10th day of August, 1979, by and between the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Lessor, and the CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC.,
a Virginia corporation, Lessee,
WITNESSETH :
For and in consideration of TEN ($10.00) DOLLARS, cash in hand paid,
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Lessor hereby LEASES unto the Lessee that parcel of land
located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, off Berkmar Drive, containing
2 acres, more or less, and designated as Parcel X, Parcel ¥, and that portion
of Parcel Z which adjoins Parcel ¥ and lies south of a red line, as shown
on a site plan entitled "Satellite Station for Charlottesville-Albemarle
Rescue Squad and Fire Station for Seminole Trail Vol. Fire Dept." by
Samuel E. Darnell, architect, dated November 21, 1978, which site plan is attached
hereto and made a part of this Lease.
.... · This Lease is subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The property hereby leased shall be used by the Lessee for the
future construction, reconstruction, maintenance and use of a rescue squad
~building with necessary-outside parking area and access roadway to Berkmar
Drive, all for volunteer Rescue Squad purposes as provided by law (including
Rescue Squad fund raising); provided, however, that the Lessee may permit
.~occ. asional use of the premises by other civic and/or non-profit organizations.
The right to enlarge the rescue squad building and appurtenances within
the leased premises is specifically reserved to the Lessee.
2. The term of this Lease commences with the date of this Lease and
Shall continue for a period of 25 years and shall automatically be extended
beyond this term of 25 years for so long a period of time as the Lessee
continues to use the property for Rescue Squad purposes as set ou~ in paragraph 1
herein.
To design the proposed program, the League needs to raise $10,000 through
contributions from each interested locality based on its population. Albemarle's
contribution would be $250. The contribution does not commit the County to join
the pool. That decision would be made after the program design is complete.
The costs of the County's insurance premiums are increasing at an alarming rate.
We have only been under unemployment insurance for two years, and the premium
increased from $5,114 for fiscal year '78 to $16,692 for fiscal year '79, a 226%
increase. In the same two years, Auto insurance has increased 57%, Workmen's
CompensatiOn~ 295% and Fire insurance 40%. These costs do not include the
school division but their costs are increasing similarly.
We have on file correspondence from a firm which specializes in unemployment
cost control as well as correspondence from another firm dealing with all types of
insurance programs and risk management. Neither of the firms sell insurance.
The Board's Insurance Committee has reviewed the spiraling costs, and considered
ways whereby the County can be assured of having maximum coverage at the most
economical cost. It is the Committee's recommendation:
1) that the Board approve the expenditure of $250 to participate
in the Virginia Municipal League's program,
2) that proposals be obtained for a study of unemployment and workmen's
compensation insuranc.e by firms offering such services, and
3) that no change be made in Auto or Fire insurance at this time."
Mr. Fisher supported the above recommendations and recommended their approval. Dr.
Iachetta then offered motion to approve recommendations 1 and 2 as set out above. Mr.
Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. E.P.A. Water Quality Management Planning Grant, revision-of.
Mr. Agnor said in August 1978 authorization was granted to the Watershed Management
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
item No. 17. Mink Creek Lake, discussion of.
At the meeting on August 1, 1979, Mr. Dorrier requested the County Engineer, Mr. J.
Harvey Bailey to prepare a report of the available flow data for the Mink Creek Lake. When
the Town of Scottsville applied for a special permit to provide recreational facilities in
the Mink Creek Impoundment (See Minute~Book 15, pages 425-429, October 19, 1977), they
offered sixty acres to the County for a park including the lake. Since the County has
never investigated the matter, Mr. Dorrier felt it was time to study same. Officials from
the Health Department felt the flow was not adequate for swimming purposes. Mr. Mark
Osborne, Assistant County Engineer at that time checked into the matter and prepared a
report which was presented at that meeting. Since that meeting, no further action has been
taken.
Mr. Fisher said the County has never received a formal offer from the Town to either
lease or puchase the property. Mr. Dorrier said the County was to look into the feasibility
of constructing a Park and the Town Council of Scottsville was willing and ready to make
the gift if the County could present some plans of what they intended to do. While no
formal offer has been made, it is his understanding that the Town agreed to cooperate with
the County.
Mr. Agnor said there has not been any examination of Mink Creek Park in terms of any
details for development. He noted that the Five Year Parks Master Plan has not been finished
and therefore no recommendation is available f~msthi~asite
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said he has reviewed the work done by Mr.
Osborne. As for taking readings on the stream, it was determined that it is not the proper
procedure and records examined over a period of years is a better result.
Mr. Fisher asked if this particular site could be examined while the work on the five
year parks master plan is underway· Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. ~Fisher felt the area should
be examined for development as a potential park· Dr. Iachetta felt the evaluation of the
site is an engineering function· Mr. Fisher suggested that the Parks Department review the
matter because he did not feel the engineers would know what to estimate until there is
~some idea of what facilities are needed. Mr. Agnor noted that a schematic landscaping plan
has been developed. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any federal funds that could be
used for~this work. Mr. Agnor said possibly through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation· Mr.
Bailey noted that in 1977 the cost was estimated to be $85,360 and with inflation it has
probably i~creased 20%· Mr. Fisher felt something should be done to update~ the estimate
and have the parks staff review the matter. He also felt fede~ f~a~ ~hm~ ~ ~~
Plan Committee to apply for a 208 Planning Grant in the amount of $77,100 for a monitoring
program in the watershed, estimated to cost $102,800, with $25,700 from local sources. The
grant has been approved in an amount of $119,650 with the local funds reduced to $15,350,
for a total project cost of $135,000. Changes in the program were made by EPA. Mr. Agnor
recommended the Watershed Management Plan Committee be authorized to accept the revised
grant offer in the amount of $119,950. Motion to this effect was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
477
The new Bingo Law, Virginia Code Section 18.2-340.6, now requires those
holding bingo games or lotterie~s to keep complete records of all receipts
and disbursements and to file annually a financial report on those receipts
and disbursements. Virginia Code Section 18.2-340.7 now requires all such
financial reports to be audited by a local official designated by the local
governing body. I believe that because of the requirements of Virginia Code
Sections 18.2-340.6 and 18.2-340.7, the Board of Supervisors may require those
holding bingo or lottery permits under the new amendments.to maintain a separate
bank account for bingo or lottery proceeds. Otherwise, I believe the County
will have problems in satisfactorily complying with the audit requirement. ~
3. You have asked whether the Director of Finance or other official
named by the Board of Supervisors to be responsible for the audit requirements
can rely upon an audit statement of an independent certified Public
Accountant?
Virginia Code Section 18.2-340.7 states that the required financial reports
shall be audited by the local official. However, the local official may use
whatever information or methods he considers reliable, including an audit --~
statement of an independent certified public accountant, in carrying out his
audit.
4. You have asked who should investigate applicants after an
application for a permit has been filed?
The Bingo Law provides an exemption from what is otherwise criminal activity.
At present, questions concerning an applicant's eligibility for a permit are
directed to the Commonwealth's Attorney in Albemarle County. This office
feels the County should continue this practice.
5. You have asked whether the Board of Supervisors should consider
adopting a local ordinance paralleling the changes in the state Bingo
Law?
This office believes that the state law is self-enforcing and that no parallel local
ordinance is needed. The Board of Supervisors may continue its p~es~ntpp~a~ee
of setting conditions for issuing permits through resolution of the Board."
Mr. Agnor said the following recommendations are offered for the Board's consideration:
1. Appoint the Director of Finance as the "local official" to administer
.the bingo laws. Permits would be filed with the Finance Department,
passed to the Board for approval, and administered by the Finance
Department, including performance of audits.
2. Waive the $25 permit fee as provided in the State law. Mr. Agnor did not
feel the application and approval process encouraged that much expense.
3. Establish an audit fee of $7.50 per hour with 1% of gross receipts as a
maximum fee. An audit performed by a CPA would be accepted in lieu of one
by the County.
4. Do not enact a local ordinance prohibiting "instant bingo" which is a
local option in the State law.
5. Include in the County's annual legislative requests to the General
Assembly, through the Virginia Association of Counties, an amendment to the
State Code which would provide a local option on the one-third limitation of
annual gross receipts from "instant bingo", and allow discretion of the
"local official" on the need for audits by local governments. Mr. Agnor said
no problems to the locality have arisen from this and should not be any
limitation on the permit holders as to the receipts of that instant bingo.
As for the second item pertaining to the discretion of the local official, Mr.
Agnor felt it should only be applied to the permit holders that complaints
have been received about as to their utilization of funds. If that becomes
a problem, then perhaps an audit can be asked for. Mr. Agnor felt to require
an-audi~ every year was burdensome.
In summary, Mr. Agnor requested approval of items 1, 2 and 3 as set out above. Dr.
Iachetta offered motion to approve items 1, 2, and 3 as recommended by the County Executive.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher then requested that the staff, Board members and Planning
Commission members consider suggestions for the legislative package to the Virginia Associatior
of Counties for modifications to State Law.
Agenda Item No. 24. Insurance Committee, report from.
Mr. Agnor reviewed his memorandum dated August 2, 1979:
"The County has been approached by the Virginia Municipal League regarding a study
conducted by the League on the feasibility of localiti,es pooling insurance. The
League has concluded that the organization of a reciprocal insurance company would
create substantial savings for its policy holders. Additionally, as experience is
47(;
Adjustments in the ranges of the Director of Finance and the Deputy Director of
Finance are recommended in the expansion of the department. An evaluation of
both positions by a factor sYstem which is a part of the County's Pay and
Classification Plan shows the following:
Director of Finance
Deputy Director of Finance
Present Range Recommended Range
29 31
23 2~
Salary Range
(26,656 - 37,492)
(t8~,93.9 - 26,656)
It is recommended that the reorganization of the~Finance Department be approved
effective immediately. The timing of the change will accommodate the biennial real
estate assessment cycle, will allow time for department procedures to be established
and tried for inclusion in the system design of replacement accounting equipment,
and will be an accomplished fact when the time arrives for a physical relocation
to a central administration building. The design of the Lane B~i~di~g?~ill
accommodate these changes. No additional personnel will be required by this
reorganization. It is possible that revising purchasing procedures may create
additional clerical needs, but these revised procedures will not be completed for
several months, at which time personnel requirements will be considered."
Mr. Fisher asked if the data processing system would be under the direction of the
Finance Director. Mr. Agnor said the consultants recommended a separate department managed
by a staff committee of department heads. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones his opinion of the
reorganization. Mr. Jones said many of the present problems particularly with calls about
real estate, will be solved with this reorganization. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to
approve the expansion of the Finance Department as recommended by the County' Executive with
the salary ranges of the Director of Finance and the Deputy Director of Finance to be
reflected as presented above in the Pay and Classification Plan to be effective August l,
1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the folloWing recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Report of the County Executive for the month of June was received
as information. Mr. ~Agnor also presented a financial report from Ray B. Jones dated July
25, 1979 summarizing the year's activity. He noted the carry-over balance was increased
for the year by $900,993.24~
Claims against the County for the month of June, 1979, which had been examined, allowed
and certified by the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds
were presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsvitle 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
McIntire Trust Fund
Mental Health FUnd
Crozet Elderly HouSing Escrow
Debt Service Fund
$ 1,439.89
2,367, 97.o0
.00
10,840.44
71.71
65,967.38
224.24
80,629.36
~3,250.00
.00
168,760.70
8,215.00
23,737.00
$$,149,643.57
Agenda Item No. 15. Bingo and Raffle Permits.
The issue of bingo and raffle permit procedures was discussed at the July 11, 1979
Board meeting and deferred to this date in order to allow the staff time for further review
of the matter and to make specific recommendations. Mr. Agnor then presented letter dated
August 2, 1979 from the County Attorney's office regarding this matter:
"This letter is to follow up on our conference on Friday, July 27, 1979.
At that conference you posed the following questions concerning new
legislation affecting the Bingo Law, Virginia Code Section 18.2-340.1
et seq,:
1. The new Bingo Law became effective July 1, 1979.
Do those people holding bingo permits granted by the
County prior to July 1, 1979, have to reapply for permits
under the new law?
Recent amendments to the Bingo Law do not state that the amendments are retroactive.
Further, by the rules of statutory interpretation they should not be applied
retroactively. I believe that those people holding permits Under the old law
are not required to file under the new amendments until their current permits
have expired. I understand all permits issued prior to July 1, 1979 will
expire on December 31, 1979. The old permit holders should be notified
in the fall of 1979 of the need to reapPty under the new law.
:2. May the Board of Supervisors require permit applicants to
maintain separate bank accounts for bingo and lottery funds as
a condition of issuance of the bingo o~ ~t~v ~m~,~
475
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the improved section on Route 643 is scheduled for resurfacing
this year. Mr. Roosevelt did not think it was. Dr. Iachetta asked if anything was going
to be done to the pavement as you turn into Route 643 from Route 29 because he felt some
maintenance work was needed. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check. He noted the amount of
resurfacing is determined by allocation.
Dr. Iachetta asked about Route 651 which was scheduled for improvement last year but
deferred. Mr. Roosevelt said if it is paved, a pipe will have to be put under the road and
there is not an easement through there. There is surface on each end and at the intersecti~n~
but the only easement is through the industrial section.
Dr. Iachetta then asked the status of finishing Route 643. Mr. Roosevelt said the
right of way has been staked, with a gentleman from Virginia Land Company and contact is
.being made with the property owners but he was unsure of its status.
Mr. Roudabush had checked the status of Terrybrook Roads and has been informed that
the bonds have been called and a contractor is being looked for to do the work.
Agenda Item No. 13. Reorganization of Finance Department.
Mr. Agnor reviewed his memorandum dated July 26, 1979:
~_'!There are several changes in the structure of the County staff that deserve
consideration, and all have been targeted fur the move to a central administration
b~i~iflg~h~s~ah&n~es involve Planning, Purchasing, Payroll, Personnel,
Real Estate Assessments, Building Maintenance, Vehicle Operations and Maintenance,
and internal services such as copying, printing, stock room, and custodial care.
The move to a centralized building will facilitate some of the changes, but it
has become apparent that not all changes should be timed to occur with Just that
move. The move itself will be disruptive and will require a settling time.
Staff changes that are not entirely dependent on physical location could be
accomplished prior to the move, and not be intermixed with the relocation changes.
Additionally, and most importantly, changes in the Finance Department should be timed
to a cycle of assessments as well as bookkeeping equipment changes. I am therefore
recommending that the Finance Department be expanded now to include Payroll,
Purchasing, and Real Estate Assessments.
~ Recent changes in the payroll distribution system pointed out a glaring
need for the payroll function to be removed from a direct alignment with the
Superintendent of Schools and the County Executive's Office to a direct responsibility
of the Director of Finance. It is a financial disbursement function that belongs
in the Finance Department and has by inheritance been directly related to the
two offices mentioned above. Dr. McClure, Mr. Jones, Mrs. Thraves (Payroll
Clerk) and I all agree on this point and have operated in this fashion since May 1.
Your official approval is requested.
Purchasing; The purchasing system needs improved controls which strengthen purchase
order origination, and integrates the encumberance of accounts with the approval
of disbursements and the payment of invoices. The interrelationship between
~purchasing goods and services with the payment for the goods and services can
be improved if the systems are under the administration of a single financial
department. Currently the purchasing function operates directly under the
Superintendent of Schools and the County Executive. The accounts payable function
operates directly under the Director of Finance. Dr. McClure, Mr. Ray Jones and
Mr. Calvin Jones and I agree that improved controls are needed and can best be
accomplished with the Purchasing Office becoming a Finance Department function. Your
approval is requested.
Real Estate: The assessment of real estate, like the assessment of personal
property and other taxes and licenses, is a financial function which requires
coordination with the Finance Department. The assessment notices are distributed
over the signature of the Director of Finance who is called upon by the taxpayers
to respond to activities for which he is no~ responsible. ~t is my recommendation
that the asessment-and collection of all taxes, not Just some, be a function of
the Finance Department. The assignment of the Real Estate Office to the Finance
Department will not only afford better coordination of assessment and collection
activities and cycles, but will relieve the Supervisor of Assessments, Mr. Bill Bradshaw,
of program schedules and personnel responsibilities to devote more time to field
appraisal supervision. The timing of change, if approved, should occur prior
to a reassessment cycle which will begin in August of this year. Mr. Bradshaw,
Mr. Jones and I have discussed this change, and agreed on its need. Your approval
is requested.
Job Titles-Classification: When the Pay and Classification Plan was revised in
1~78, the merger of the Purchasing Department and Real Estate Department with the
Finance Department was anticipated, with the department head titles and classifications
being rewritten. The Director of Purchasing was retitled Purchasing Agent and
the Director of Real Estate retitled Supervisor of Real Estate Assessments. The
~ ..... ~ ~ ~ Pu~ah~.~in~ A~ent was not changed, remaining at a Range 22,
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt requested Board agreement to this letter. Motion was then offered by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to agree to the above letter regarding the Hydraulic
Road Project. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS' None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 3g. Letter: Glenaire Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Fisher noted the following letter to Mr. Roosevelt from Mr. Robert A.. Buckley,
dated July 10, 1979:
"I have been asked by the Glenaire Neighborhood Association which represents 36 of
the~50 families in Glenaire to determine what would be required to obtain a turn-off
lane from Route 250 (heading west) onto Route 6Z6 (about one mile west of Ivy).
Mr. Fisher of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors told me that you were
the proper person to address my question to.
What we visualize is a turn-off similar to that constructed at the entrance to
West Leigh. We believe that the danger of rear end collisons to drivers who
have slowed to make the right turn onto Route 676 merits consideration of such
a turn-off lane.
A turn-off lane onto Route 676 would of course benefit not only the residents of
Glenaire, but also the many county residents who use Route 676 as an access road
to their homes.
I will appreciate any assistance or advice you can give me in this matter."
Mr. Roosevelt said he responded that the intersection will be studied to determine if
it is accident prone. If a turn lane is needed, the Association will have to finance same.
Mr. Roosevelt said after the accident study has been done he will respond further to the
Association. Mr. Fisher requested a copy of these results be sent to the B~ard.
Agenda Item No. 3h. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a petition from property owners on Route 717 for road
improvements. He asked the procedure for obtaining right of way. Mr. Roosevelt said if
the traffic count on this section is greater than 50 vehicles per day then he was willing
to have the road staked for the right of way and let some interested citizen get the right
of way. ~After that, the request will be treated in the same manner as other graveled roads
which have right of way. The project will have to be worked into the six year plan when it
is reviewed in the fall. Mr. Roosevelt said a problem is that Route 6 to Route 755 is
actually another secondary intersection so there are two sec~tions with traffic counts on
them. The first section has 55 vehicles which would qualify for hard surfacing but the
other section only has 33 vehicles. Therefore, he did not feel the r~ght of way should be
obtained for the section with only 33 vehicles. Mr. Fisher asked if ~t was logical to have
the right of way donated now on that section. Mr. Roosevelt said there was logic in it if
the people can be convinced that it will not be considered for hard surfacing until it
reaches 50 vehicles trips per day. Dr. Iachetta felt it was a mistake to obtain the right
of way if the road cannot be improved. Mr. Dorrier suggested a letter be sent to the
property owners stating that the matter has been discussed and that the Highway Department
will contact them concerning the right of way on the section having more than 50 vehicle
trips per day. The Board agreed.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter dated July 20, 1979 from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III,
Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportatio ,
noting the final approval to the Interstate, Primary and Urban construction allocations for
the fiscal year 1979-80.
Mr. Fisher also noted receipt of letter stating that the Route 29 North planning money
is available. He asked how the status of the work for the Route 29 North improvements
affects the County. Mr. Roosevelt said the transportation planning section has been asked
to work up a final copy of the written part of the plan and such will be provide~ to the
Board when received.
Mr. Agnor said request dated August 2, 1979 has been received from Mr. Donald J.
gagner, Vice President of Bennington Woods, Incorporated, to have Bennington Road extension
taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was then offered by Dr Iachetta, seconded
sy Mr. Dottier, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Bennington Woods Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0-1+80 of Bennington Road, a point common
to the centerline intersection of end of state maintenance of
Bennington Road State Route 1407; thence with Bennington Road
in a northeasterly direction 1058.89 feet to station 878.89, the
end of Bennington Road in Bennington Woods Subdi¥ision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
473
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Donald McCants of Horner, Barksdale and Company, was present and stated .that a
computer system is generally obsolete in ~Ive years. The firm does net feel it is reasonable
to star,t with a minimum specification system program and then discover more programming is
needed. Mr. McCants did not feel the question is one of leasing or purchasing, but of
making or buying and the application of software. The firm has proposed to use packaged
software, By doing this and having the proper resources one does not have to go through
the cycles of receding every two or three years in order to add mere memory.
Mr. Fisher asked the cost for Phase II. Mr. Agnor said $15,000.00. Motion was then
of£e~ad by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the County Executive to proceed with Phase II and
prepare the specifications for the data processing system for the County. Mr. Dorrier
seconded.the motion and same carried by the ~llowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Roudabush.
NAYS: .... None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $15,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and coded to 1A-299, Data Processing Feasibility Study, Phase II.
Mr..Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Route 743: Hydraulic Road Project.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, reported that location and design has
been approved by the Highway Commission with changes discussed at a previous meeting. By
October the Department will begin right-of-way appraisals followed by negotations. Mr.
Fisher noted Mr. Roosevelt's letter dated guly 20, 1979 regarding conversations with the
Union Ridge Church Board of Deacons regarding the Hydraulic Road project.
"At the May, 1979 day meeting of the Board of Supervisors, I discussed certain
changes to the proposed Hydraulic Road improvement with the Board. One change
involved the Union Ridge Church located near the intersection ef Rio Road and
~Xydraulic Road. The Board requested I contact the church prior to the Boa~d
acting on the requested revision.
As requested by the Board, I have contacted the Church Board of Deacons. Attached
is a letter I wrote to Mr. Ronald I. MaGruder, Chairman of the Board of Deacons,
explaining the proposed revision and requesting the concurrence of the church.
.I have met onoe with Mr. MaGruder and once with the church as a whole concerning
this matter. You will note that Mr. MaGruder has signed my letter agreeing te
this action."
The following letter which was sent to the Chairman of the Board of Deacons was also
presented:
"May 29, 1979
Mr. Ronald L. MaGruder
2628 Hydraulic Road
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Mr. MaGruder:
This will confirm statements I made at our meeting on May 15, 1979 concerning
the Department's project for the improvement of Hydraulic Road and its effect
upon the Union Ridge Church.
At our meeting on May 15, we looked at the plans for the Hydraulic Road
improvement, which were presented at a public hearing in the fall of last year.
?he Department has since learned that an extension of Greenbrier Drive will tie
into Hydraulic Road at its intersection with Rio Road. This being the case,
the Department feels that right of way for a proper connection to Greenbrier
Drive should be obtained at the same time that right of way is purchased for the
Hydraulic Road improvement. The purpose of our meeting on May 15 was to look at the
additional right of way which would be required.
The attached sketch is a copy of the plan which I reviewed with you. For
your information, I have shaded in red the location of existing Hydraulic Road.
The green line is the proposed location of the curb line for the new roadway. The
biUe: line is the limits of right of way~'q~posed at the public hearing last fall.
The wedge of land shaded orange is the additional right of way we feel should
p.~'e purchased for the Greenbrier connection.
I indicated at the time of our meeting that I did no~ expect any actual
construction to occur within the orange shaded area at the time we improve
Hydraulic Road. Construction in this area will take place at the time Greenbrier
Drive is connected. At the time the connection to Greenbrier Drive is built,
the only significant loss appears to be two or three trees which are now
located in the orange colored wedge. As I showed you on the ground, I do not
believe addition of the orange colored right of way will have any signficiant
~x'~ ..... *~ ~'~ ~'~~ ~rooer. ~ wish to emphasize, as I did the night
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
6. Since it is contemplated that the owner and operator of the Project may be
~Windham, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Central Virginia to be created for
such purpose or another related or affiliated corporat±on or 6thor bus~ness entity,
the Authority agrees that the inducement given by this resolution to Central
Virginia shall also run to Windham, Inc. and to any such related or affiliated
corporation or other business entity which will own or operate the Project, and all
references above to Central Virginia shall also be references to Windham, Inc.
and to any such related or affiliated corporation or other business entity."
Mr. Fisher asked why this method of financing was chosen instead of using a conventional
method. Mr. Robert Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Central Virginia Health Facilities,
said there is an outright coupon rate of 9.15~. With the discount, that is computed to be
an effective rate of about 10.75%. The current conventional rate, depending on the size of
the project, is 11% to 13%. Therefore, by using industrial bond issu.ance the project is
more feasible. Mr. Jackson said the facility is to be licensed by the Virginia Department
of Welfare. This will make the project eligible for elderly welfare recipients and it is
expected that approximately 20% of the residents will be welfare sponsored. An annual cost
report has to be filed with the Department of Welfare. The Department wil'l review Windham's
cost and determine the maximum rate to be paid by welfare residents for the ensuing year.
The cost can be reduced by industrial bond issuance because the net effective interest rate
will be less than present conventional rates.
Mr. Fisher asked how the residents will benefit from these tax-free bonds. Mr.
Jackson reemphasized that the Facility will be regulated by the Department of Welfare. He
noted current statistics indicate about 20% to 25~ of people in nursing homes can probably
be cared for in these facilities. The average rate of a room in a nursing home is about
$1,100 a month. If nursing is extracted from the cost, a.semi-private room in a home would
cost about $700.00 a month. He said the semi-private rooms for Windham would be $550.00 to
~600.00 a month. Seventy percent Of the nursing home
~rogram which is a Federal/State sharing program. Mr. Jackson noted the need for this type
of facility. He said charts from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission show
that there is a need in the Planning District for 110 beds and between now and 1983, a need
for-about 400 more beds.
Discussion followed on the financing aspects of the project. Mr. Fisher said he
favored the project but did not feel sufficient evidence had been presented that the project
could not be undertaken with conventional financing. He felt some responsibility to examine
who would benefit from the use of the bonds. Mr. Fisher was concerned that taxpayers would
share the cost by an increase in either income taxes or inflation.
Mr. Jackson noted other benefits would be derived from the project such~as an economic
benefit to the tax base of Crozet, the merchants of Crozet and the sewer line. This project
will also increase the scope and size of district homes. Therefore, he requested favorable
consideration of this project.
Mr. Dorrier felt the project was sound and did not have any concern with using industrial
revenue funds. Dr. Iachetta agreed and supported the use of his tax dollars if 85% of the
sewer line were to be funded. He felt another aspect was that the raw discharge problem in
the Crozet area would be solved. Mr. Henley felt this project would be a great benefit to
~he area. Mr. Roudabush noted the County housing goals are to create some stimulus for
orivate enterprise to provide housing for the elderly. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to
~dopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby gives its approval in accordance with Section 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 3,
Article IX of the Albemarle County Code to the financing by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, of a 118 bed facility for
elderly persons in Crozet in Albemarle County, all as outlined in the letter
dated July 24, 1979, from Stanley P. Wilcox to the Authority and as approved,
subject to various conditions, by Resolution of the Industrial Development
Authority dated as Of August 1, 1979.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney had reviewed
the resolution. Mr. St. John said the resolution was proper. Mr. Fisher noted condition
2(b) of the resolution adopted by the Industrial Development Authority and questioned if
the Authority was going to obtain such evidence. Mr. Holden said a fair amount of evidence
has been received. Mr. Fisher was concerned that no real evidence had been submitted and
?elt it should be. He requested an investigation of such be made by the Industrial Development
~uthority and reported back to the Board. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and
~ame carried by the following recorded vote:
kYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
~AYS: -Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 12. Data Processing Feasibility Study.
Whe'n the Data Processing Feasibility study was presented to the Board in April., it was
~equested that more time be given to the Board members to study the report by the consultant
~nd to find out whether the School Board and the Albemarle County Service Authority agreed
to such study before Phase II began. Mr. Agnor said a positive response has been received.
~herefore, the request today is to give authorization to proceed with Phase II. Mr. Agnor
;hen reviewed the memorandum dated April 11, 1979 and set out in Minute Book 17, page 267.
~e also noted that during work sessions on the capital improvements program, a planning
item in the amount of $300,000 was approved for the Data Processing Study. The annual
~ecurring costs would be borne from the County's General Fund, School Fund and the Albemarle
]ounty Service Authority's Funds.
Discussion then followed on leasing or purchasing of equipment. Mr. Agnor said the..
~taff has recommended the system be bought ~d ~ ~,,~*~*
471
...... ~ ...... Au ust 8 1 Re ular Da Meetin
Although the site and existing cold storage building are presently
owned by Central Virginia, it is contemplated that final ownership may be in
the name of th'e undersigned or a related or affiliated corporation or other
business entity. Accordingly, it is requested that the inducement resolution
run to Central Virginia, the undersigned or any corporation or business
entity created to own or operate the Facility.
Central Virginia understands that the Authority proposes to designate
Messrs. Hunton and Williams as bond counsel. Central Virginia agrees that
fees and expenses of bond counsel, counsel for the Authrority and the agent or
underwriter for the sale of bonds shall be paid from the proceeds of the bonds.
If the bonds are not issued for any reason, Central ¥irginia agrees it shall
pay.all such fees and expenses."
.Mr. Holden said Industrial Development funds are needed for this project because of
sewage disposal requirements imposed on SP-78-64 which was approved by the Board on October
18, 1978. He then presented the following resolution which was adopted by the Industrial
Development Authority on August 1, 1979:
"WHEREAS, there have been described to the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the Authority), the plans of Central ¥irginla
~'~HeaIth Facilities, Inc., a Virginia corporation (Central Virginia), to construct
and equip a llS-bed facility for the residence and care of the elderly (the
Project) in the Crozet community in Albemarle County by (a) con~erting an
e~Isting cold storage building into a 98-bed facility, including kitchen and
other support areas, and (b) constructing an adjoining facility for an
additional 20 beds; and
· :~ WHEREAS, Central Virginia in its app.earance before the Authority and in its
letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and materials furnished to the Authority
~esCribing the Project, which include an assessment of the need for such a
facility, has described the Project, the need for the Project and the benefits
which it will provide for Albemarle County and its environs and has requested
the Authority to agree to issue its revenue bonds under the Virginia Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act (the Act) in such amounts as may b~ necessary
to finance the cost of the Project;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIT~ OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby found and determined that undertaking the Project will result
in the availability of facilities for the residence of elderly persons of Albemarle
County and its environs, will be in the public interest, will be of benefit to
the inhabitants of Albemarle County, will promote their health and welfare and
will be consistent with the purposes of the Act.
2. The Authority hereby agrees to assist Central ¥irglnia in every reasonable
way to finance the Project and, in particular to undertake the issuance of its
revenue bonds therefor in an amount now estimated to be $2,200,000 (the Bonds) (a)
upon delivery to the Authority of an appropriate stud~ of the feasibility of the
Pro~ect by a nationally recognized consulting firm, (b) upon evidence reasonably
satisfactory to the Authority that the savings resulting from the issuance of the
Bonds will be shared with residents of the Project and (c) upon such other terms
and conditions to be mutually agreed upon between the Authority and Central Virginia.
The amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $2,500,000 without further consent of the
Authority. The Pro~ect shall be leased or sold by the Authorit~ to Central Virginia
pursuant to the Act for a term and upon rental or installment sale payments sufficient
to pay the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and to pay
all other expenses in connection with the maintenance of the Project. The Bonds
will be issued pursuant to an indenture of mortgage and deed of trust between
the Authority and a Virginia bank as Trustee, which will set forth the form and
terms of the Bonds, will assign to the Trustee as security for the Bonds the
Authority's rights to payments under the lease or sale agreement and will mortgage
the Project as additional security for the Bonds.
3. The Authority hereby agrees that Central ~lrginia may go forward with its
plans for the development of the Project in such manner as it deems appropriate,
provided that nothing herein shall be deemed to authorize Central ¥irginia to
obligate the Authority without its consent to the payment of any moneys or the
performance of an~ acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees
that Central Virginia may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds for all costs
so incurred by it from and after adoption of this resolution and that all
expenditures by Central Virginia, including borrowed funds, prior to this date,
shall nos be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds unless approved by bond
counsel.
4. The Authority, with the approval of Central Virginia, having proposed to
appoint Messrs. Hunton & Williams, Richmond, ~irginia, as bond counsel in connection
with the issuance of the bonds and Messrs. Hunton & Williams having filed with
the Authority a disclosure pursuant to Virginia Code Seotlons 2.1-~(a)(2) and
(b)(5), being part of the Virginia Conflict of Interests Act, of certain members
and associates of such firm, and spouses of members or associ~ates, who serve
governmental agencies other than the Authority, and an agreement to retain Messrs.
Hunton & Williams being a contract for legal services which, in the Judgment of
the Authority, in the public interest should not be acquired through competitive
bidding, the Authority hereby appoints Messrs. Hunton & Williams as bond counsel
to supervise the proceedings and approve the issuance of the bonds.
5. Ail costs and expenses in connection with the Project, including the fees
and expenses of bond counsel, shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds. If
470
A~t 8, 1979 (Re~ar ~ay ~eeti~)
Agenda Item No. 8. At 1:!0 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into
executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:15 P.M. (Mr. Dorrier returned at 2:24
P.~.)
Agenda Item No. 9. AHIP Quarterly Report.
Ms. Ann Paul, Executive Director of the Albemarle Housing ~mprovement Program, Inc'.,
was present. She presented the rehabilitation program report and the fourth quarter report
for FY 78'79. During the fourth quarter five families were served, 40% of the families
were~.mi~ority and 53% were elderly. Ms. Paul then showed slides of rehabilitation projects.
Mr. Fisher noted the Board's appreciation for the work done by AHIP.
Agenda Item No. 10. Alcohol Safety Action Program - Don Henck.
Mr. Donald Henck, Program Director for the Region H Alcohol Safety Action Program, was
present. He noted that ASAP is affiliated with the Region X Community Services Board and
the Department of Transportation Safety. The goals are to reduce traffic fatalities,
injuries and property damage due to drunk drivers and to detect and ~oerce the undetected
alcoholic into treatment. The rationale is based-on 50,000 persons dying as a result of
traffic accidents per year of which half are a result of an alcohol impaired driver. The
method is to detect the driver while intoxicated through apprehension by the Sheriff's
Department and educate or treat that individual. The program will continue to have presentati¢ s
in the Region X schools and work with the media on special events and holiday awareness.
The treatment is directed toward abstinence, therefore resolving the illness of alcoholism.
Mr. Henck noted that juvenile and domeStic courts are also involved with this program.
Agenda Item No. 11. Industrial Development Authority.
Mr. Donald Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present to
make the following request as set out in letter dated July 24, 1979 from Mr. Stanley
Wilcox, President of t~e Central Virgini~ Health Facilities, Incorporated:
"Central Virginia Health Facilities, Inc. ("Central Virginia"), a Virginia
Corporation, presently owns a six-story structure (formerly a cold storage
building) in Crozet, Virginia in the White Hall Magisterial District of
Albemarle County.
It is proposed to convert this building into a 98-bed facility, including
a kitchen and other support areas, for the residence and care of the elderly
and. to build an additional facility attached to the rear of the cold storage
plant for an additional 20 beds for such care so that in the aggregate there
will be a self-sufficient ll8-bed facility providing supervised living, meals
and recreation for the ,elderly (the "Facility").
The following additional facts would appear pertinent:
1. It is proposed to construct in addition to the facility, a 3,000
square foot building, to be used as a library and to be leased to and operated
by the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Council. We are advised by the Council
that this library is badly needed, and it is being designed for their use
and is being built at their specific request, subject to the approval of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
2.~ The construction of the Facility will also solve a pressing waste
water treatment problem in this area since, as part of the Project, a sewage
treatment plant ~ill be constructed, the cost of which will be shared by the
builders of the Facility and Albemarle County Service Authority, subject to the
approval of the Board of Supervisors. The plant will provide treatment for
businesses in Crozet as well as the Facility, and will conform to the proposed
sewage interceptor system in the County. We are advised that this sewage
treatment is very badly needed.
3. The estimated number of employees to be employed by the Facility is
23, and the estimated annual payroll is in excess of $200,000.
~. We ha~e made a very careful study of the need in this area for
residential beds for the elderly, and believe that these additional 118 beds
will definitely serve a public need.
5. Construction of the Facility will transform an existing building
which has been substantially dormant for 25 years into an attractive and
useful structure.
In view of what we believe is a real public need for this Facility, it is
respectfully requested that this Authority issue an inducement resolution agreeing
to issue bondS upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Authority and its
bond counsel in an amount now estimated to be $2,220,000 but not to exceed
$2,500,000 with later approval of the Authority.
Prior to the issuance of any bonds, we will obtain an acceptable
feasibility study from a nationally recognized consulting firm.
Au ust 8, 1 79 (Re ular Da Meetin
Agenda Item No. 7. Tax Assessment: Soil and Water Conservation District Property.
(John Smart farm).
Mr. Fisher noted the package of correspondence received along with a memorandum from
Mr. Ray Jones dated August 3, 1979.
"A deed dated December 19, 1975 signed by Mr. and Mrs. Smart on 12Z31Z74 was recorded
on January 2, 1975. The deed conveyed the "Smart" property to the Thomas Jefferson
Soil and Water Conservation District which consisted of 155.13 acres located just
south of Charlottesville on the south side of Route 20. The deed specified that the
property be retained as open space land with certain reservations or "usufructs" for
the life of the donors (Mr. and Mrs. Smart). In my opinion, the original deed
reserved a life estate and was taxable in the name of the donor or in this case "The
Smarts". A tax ticket was issued for the year 1975 on the property in the name of
John A. & Clara Smart and forwarded to them in Florida. On November 22, 1975, the
office received a letter from Mrs. Smart saying they did not own any property in
Albemarle County.
The issue was discussed with the County Attorney and b~ letter dated December 1,
1975, Melvin Breeden wrote Mr. and Mrs. Smart that the property was taxable. The
taxes were not paid but a letter from Mrs. Smart dated December 6th was received
claiming we were wrong and the property was owned by the Soil Conservation District.
The County Attorney obtained an Attorney General's opinion dated April 30, 1976,
which upheld our original opinion - that it was taxable due to the life estate. The
County Attorney advised Mr. Magruder Dent, Attorney, of the opinion in a letter dated
May 7, ~1976, aHvising him to prepare a Deed of Correction to clarify the ambiguities
of the original deed.
A second deed dated April 22, 1977 was recorded in the Clerk's Office which eli-
minated several paragraphs of the original deed that reserved certain rights and
occupancy privileges of the property by Mr. and Mrs. Smart.
Therefore, the property was taxed for 1975, 1976 plus a portion of 1977 with a
present delinquency of $1909.67.
The property was placed on a tax exempt status as of April 22, 1977. In my opinion,
the property was taxable during the years taxed above due to the conditions of the
original deed. Mr. Breeden and I visited the property during this period. Even
though Mr. and Mrs. Smart spent half or better of their time in Florida, Kentucky and
traveling; they were occupying the property while in Virginia. There was a nice
garden, several horses grazing and the fields were bushogged. Even some University
of Virginia students had lived in the main residence while the family was away from
home.
Also, in my opinion,~'~t was the intent of the Smarts to make a gift of their property
to the SCS District without incurring any further real estate tax obligations. But
the instruments that were acted upon and recorded did not accomplish their intent.
As this situation stands now, there is a tax lien for the year 1975 due to the fact
that 1975 is three years delinquent. Therefore, the property has incurred charges in
the Clerk's Office pursuant to the Code of Virginia. Since 1976, this office has
pursued the collection of the tax in the same manner as we would any other~ tax
account. There is no way to exonerate the tax. The only solution is for someone to
pay the bills whether it is the SCS, Mr. and Mrs. Smart, or the County. If the
County participates in the payment, I would recommend that payment be made to SCS
"for services rendered" and let SCS make payment to the County. Also, I would
recommend a formal contract between SCS and the Smarts if they intend to continue
occupying the property to prevent future controversies of the taxable status."
He added that the Board does not have the descretion of forgiving the taxes, and that
unless someone pays them, the land will be sold at public auction. Dr. Iachetta said his
interpretation of this matter was that an attorney made a simple error when writing the
original deed, and the Board should acknowledge that, correct the error, and allow for the
payment of the tax. Mr. Fisher said he did not think it was the intention of the Smarts to
avoid paying taxes by donating this property.
Mr. Russell Fisher said the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
does not have the funds to pay the amount of the back taxes owed on the property. He
added'that Mr. Smart worked with the Soil and Water Conservation District for many years,
and that it was always his intent to donate the property; there was no scheme to avoid
paying taxes.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the District planned to properly manage the property. Mr.
Fisher said yes, it is being taken care of by volunteer groups. He then read a resolution
issued by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Board which
reexplained the circumstances by which the land was obtained.
Mr. Dottier said he felt the Soil and Water Conservation District was providing a
service by allowing the public to use this land as a natural wildlife preserve. He felt
it was in the interest of the County and its citizens to support this service with a
payment of $1,909.67, and offered motion for approval of the following resolution:
Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 21.57 and Section 21.58, the sum of $1,909.67
is hereby appropriated to the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
for services rendered, the purpose of this appropriation being to enable the Thomas
Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District to protect its title to the property
donated to them by John A. and Clara Barnes Smart by paying delinquent taxes thereon.
.............. ~ .... ~^~ ~ ~ ~^~ re~orded vote:
488
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
with the adopted comprehensive plan or part thereof. In connection with any such
determination the commission may, and at the direction of the governing body shall,
hold a public hearing, after notice as required by Section 15.1-431."
Mr. Lindstrom said that he felt the expansion of a public road system in the area,
recognized as Agriculture/Conservation, would not be consistent with his interpretation of
that part of the Plan. He added he could not support the application. He stated his
concern that present County ordinances are not adequate to handle this kind of problem.
Dr. Iachetta asked how many lots will be served by private roads. Mr. Tucker said
Dunmore Road was the only extension that would be a state road, all others would be
private roads. Dr. Iachetta asked if this was a way of getting around building state
standard roads. Mr. Tucker said the applicant was attempting to use private roads in
order to cut down on the standards that the Highway Department requires. Dr. Iachetta
said the whole idea of private roads is that you may be able to get bigger lots in areas
where you do not want 40 or 50 foot cuts. Mr. Dorrier said this application is appro-
priate for private roads but it is just that the magnitude of the development is so large
it probably goes beyond what was intended. Mr. Fisher said the staff has reviewed the
application in accordance with the private-road ordinance and he assumes the roads will be
built to the standards required by that ordinance. Mr. Dorrier said if the application
were redone and brought back with a one unit per five acre density, it would be in com-
pliance with the present Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said a five-acre density would
give the subdivision 51 or 52 lots as opposed to 70 tots.
Mr. Henley said he kas sympathetic to comments by Mr. Harris and others, but he does
n6t see any legal grounds for denying the application.
Mr. Fisher said he had two concerns: 1) the State road is now listed as non-toler-
able with 1,080 vehicle trips per day and 2) whether or not this subdivision meets the
character of the area as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he felt
the courts were continually increasing their dependence on the Comprehensive Plan when
making zoning decisions.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the statute that has been mentioned makes it~ impossible
for him to vote for approval of this application. Mr. Dorrier said if this applicant came
back with another plan that called for 55 lots and had the same private roads, the Board
would almost be compelled to approve it because it would be in compliance with the Compre-
hensive Plan.
Mr. Randy Rinehart, representing Mr. Roger H. B. Davis, Jr., the_applicant, accused
the Board of changing the rules olf the game in midstream. He asked how many roads in the
County are non-tolerable. He said he thought it was a majority. Mr. Fisher-said this is
why the Board is trying to encourage development of State standard roads. Mr. Rinehart
said it would take at least 12 years for this subdivision to be developed, and he questioned
this subdivision's non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He also suggested that most
buyers do not want five-acre lots.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was a motion from the Board to change the approval of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to reverse the approval given by the
Planning Commission based on the statute read by the County Attorney. Mr~ Lindstrom
said he did not feel that approval of this plat as a defacto acceptance~of the public road
shown on the plat is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta seconded the
motion.
Mr. St. John reminded the Board that if the motion carries, the subdivision is denied.-
He said the Code requires that reasons for denial be stated and also what changes can be
made on the application to obtain approval.
Discussion took place among Board members and Mr. Tucker about the pros and cons of
State versus Private roads. Mr. Tucker said that although he would recommend roads be
built to State standards, in this particular instance he would prefer seeing private
roads, as there would cause less disturbance of the land~ Mr. Henley agreed. Mr. Dorrier
said he was also in favor of private roads because it would not destroy the ecology of the
area. He said his sympathies were with the adjoining landowners, but that if the.appli-
cant submitted this subdivision plat following all County ordinances, then it should be
approved. Mr. Fisher said the problem arises due to the fact that there are two official
documents. He said the Planning Commission is now trying to change the Zoning Ordinance
to fit the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Henley and Mr. Roudabush both felt the Board should
work toward fitting the Zoning Ordinance to the Comprehensive Plan together, otherwise the
Comprehensive Plan will never stand up to atest in Court. Mr. St. John said if the Board
reverses the decision of the Planning Commission, it will be a radical departure from
precedents established by the Board in the past. He felt if this plat was taken to court,
the Board would be accused of being discriminatory in view of other subdivisions that have
been approved.
Dr. Iachetta said he seconded the motion so it could be discussed but will not vote
for the motion, even though he seconded same although he does not agree with what the
property owner proposes, the application is in compliance with County ordinances. Mr.
Dorrier~said he also was going to vote against the motion. He said if the Board was going
to go against the Zoning Or'dinance, that the Board should require more public hearings and
request comments from other than the applicant and adjacent landowners. Mr. Fisher said
it is important to bring the Zoning Ordinance in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
to avoid further conflicts of this type.1 He said the motion is to deny the subdivision on
the basis of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he was going to cut off debate at
this point, and asked for a call of the roll. Motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr~ Lindstrom
Messrs. Dorrier~, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
August 8, 1979 (Regular-Day Meeting)
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance and Soil Erosion Ordinance;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance and improvements on Route 614;
c. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans for Dunmore Road;
d. Compliance with the Private Road Ordinance, including:
1. County Engineer approval of road plans and drainage easements;
2. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreements.
e. No lots are to have access on the cul-de-sac of Dunmore Road.
f. In the development process, only those areas where a structure,
utility, road or other physical improvement is located shall be disturbed;
all other areas shall remain in their natural state.
Mr. Tucker said, on June 19, 1979, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
this plat with the Staff's conditions, but adding the following conditions:
g. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Route 614 on the residue.
h~ No septic fields on slopes in excess of 25%.
Mr. Summers was the first to speak in opposition to this application. He said this
type of growth in this area is more applicable to Ivy and Crozet, butnot to the area being
discussed. Mr. Summers noted that the White Hall District is set out as a rural district
in the Comprehensive Plan, and asked the County Attorney if under 15.1-456 of the Code, a
new street that is not recommended in the Comprehensive Plan needs approval of the Board.
He suggested this was legal ground for the Board to deny this subdivision.
Mr. M. Roy Harris also spoke in opposition to this application. He felt this 70 lot
subdivision is totally out of keeping with the rural area. He also felt that Route 614
cannot support this amount of traffic. He was also concerned about the overcrowding of
Meriwether Lewis School.
Dr. Josephthal echoed the sentiments that were expressed, and voiced his disapproval
of the subdivision.
Ms. Barbara P~yne, who is not an adjacent landowner, felt it involved anyone who
drives on the road and voiced her disapproval of the subdivision.
Mr. Ed Bain, r.epresenting the applicant, felt all the requirements of the County's
Subdivision Ordinance have been met and that approval should be given.- Mr. Fisher asked
about comments in the staff report on soils. Mr. Gordon Yager, Soil Conservation Service,
said there are some areas that do have hazards as far as developing. Mr. Earl Brunger,
Soil Scientist, employed by the applicant, said a soil study was made lot by lot, and
borings were made at each septicfield site. Adjustments were made on several lots so the
percolation rates would be more suitable. The average slope on these lots is 8 1/2%, and
he felt slope was definitely not a problem as far as septic drainfields are concerned.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about State Code Section 15.1-456. Mr. St. John said this section
of the State Code says that when any public utility, including buildings, roads, etc. are
installed, there has to be an affirmative finding by the Planning Commission that it is in
accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The Code goes on to say that anytime a public utility
is shown on a subdivision plat and that plat is approved, then the Plan is deemed to be
amended to include that facility. In other words, subdivision approval satisfies that
statute. There is an exception which says that the Planning Commission's finding can be
overruled by this Board. The only public facility in this plat is the public road which
was included at the suggestion of the staff. Mr. St. John said there is a case pending in
the Circuit Court of Fauquier County where adjacent landowners brought suit to set aside
subdivision approval on the grounds that, although it complies with the existing Zoning
Ordinance of Fauquier County, it is completely out of compliance with Fauquier's Compre-
hensive Plan. He said it is a question of which takes precedence, the Comprehensive Plan
or the existing Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier felt the only legal ground to deny this subdivision is if it is not in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Board does not know if that is legal since
the Supreme Court has not yet ruled. The Supreme Court has always put the Zoning Ordinance
ahead of the Plan.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the public road on this plat is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board felt that if the road only had
lots of five acres or greater densities on it they would feel it was in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. The Code section in question speaks only to public utilities, it
does not say anything about densities. Mr. St. John read the first part of the Code as
follows:
"15.1-456. Legal Status of Plan. -- (a) Whenever the local commission shall have
recommended a comprehensive plan or part thereof for the county or municipality and
such plan shall have been approved and adopted by the governing body, it shall con-
trol the general or approximate location, character and extent of each feature shown
on the plan. Thereafter, unless such feature is already shown on the adopted master
plan or part thereof or is deemed so under paragraph (d), no street, park or other
.............. ~' '~ ~*~ ~a ~tf~ltv facility or public
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
~iscuss the problem of garbage disposal in southern Albemarle County. In
particular, those of us who live in the area of 01d Dominion are concerned about
several quarries and roads surrounding them which have become a general
dumping ground. Not only is the accumulated garbage and trash unsightly, but
we feel it poses a health problem as well.
Please scheduleme for a hearing as soon as possible; once a date is
set I will be able to send you a list of people in the area who will attend.
If you need any more information please write, or call 295-0191 (my office
phone, we are in and out).
Sincerely,
(Signed) Joy Harris"
Mrs. Harris said she is concerned because she lives about 1/4th mile from the quarry
and the problem is getting worse. People dump garbage there all the time, and she was
concerned that it was spreading around the quarry, and onto private land and State roads.
She said the owner of the property, Mr. Vance Wilkins, contacted the Sheriff's Department
and tried to prosecute, but never got much cooperation. She added she would do whatever
was necessary to clean up the problem. She then introduced Mr. Ed Roseberry from the
Health Department who showed slides of the problem area. He said there was concern that
garbage could be (in some degree) filtering back into the underground water table.
Dr. Iachetta said this clearly violates State Department of Solid Waste and Vector
Control regulations as well as local regulations, and he would like to have the staff look
into correcting this. Mr. Dorrier said it is a real health hazard because there are dead
animals there. Mr. Roseberry said this is-not the first time he has been involved with
the problem of refuse dumped at this site. Several years ago he and a representative of
the Zoning Department looked at it. The landowner at the time cleaned it up, and blocked
off the entrance road to the quarry, but this has not deterred continued violations.
Mr. Fisher said this matter needs the cooperation of the Health department, the
Sheriff's department, the property owner and others to try to stop what is happening. Mr.
Lindstrom asked that Mr. Agnor report back to the Board at the first meeting in September.
Mr. Dorrier said he would like to have the Sheriff present to discuss the. legal enforce~
ment of the trespass and dumping laws. Dr. Iachetta said he thinks the State people
should~ be involved in this also. Mr. Dorrier asked if Mr. Wilkins could, be requested to
also be present.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roseberry what the Health Department's role is in this
situation. He said the Health Department would normally prosecute a landowner for im-
proper garbage storage on his land, but in this case, the owner is not responsible for
what is there. Mrs. Harris suggested a Deputy Sheriff make visits to try to find out Who
is dumping garbage here. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to cooperate and get the Sheriff's
office to help do something. Mr. Lindstrom said he hoped, the County Attorney's office
would work with Mr. Agnor and the Health Department to provide a solution. Mr. St. John
said there are plenty of ordinances to work under to find a solution. Mr. Dorrier said
Mr. Wilkins should be notified of the meeting.
Mr. Henley said he can't believe that something will not be done about this matter
before September. Mr. Agnor said he does not want to leave the Board with the impression
that the staff is not going to do anything, but he said from past experiences, it is a
difficult area to prosecute. He said the problem must first be investigated.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: Waverly Final Plat.
Mr. Fisher said this plat was appealed by Mr. Paul D. Summers, Jr., an adjacent.
property owner, ~i~Mr. Roy M. Harris. Mr. Tucker read the following staff report:
Location: Tax Map 42, parcel 37A - located on the south side of Route 614, about
three miles southeast of White Hall.
Acreage: 275+ acres, 259+ to be subdivided.
Zoning: A-I, Agricultural
Histor_~; The Planning Commission denied the preliminary plat on January 9, 1979 and
reconsidered and approved the preliminary on February 13, 1979 with six
conditions (compliance with runoff control and soil erosion ordinances,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval; compliance with
Private Road Ordinance, Health Department approval and a soil scientist's
report).
Proposal.: For 70 lots (lots 1-33 and 35-71) to have access off Route 614 on State and
and private roads.
TopograPhy of Area: Steep in some areas; does not appear to restrict building sites.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The 1978 traffic count is 1081 vehicle trips
per day on this section of Route 614 whichis currently listed as non-
tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna
Soils: Mr. Yager's comments were as folIows: "Very steep slopes on some lots will
make homesite and septic drainfield locations important. Avoid grading
on steep slopes to reduce soil erosion. Several lots have shallow soils.
Comprehensive Plan 'Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended
density of one dwelling unit/five acres.
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of about 40 students; may require additional
s6'aff at each level particularly the elementary level; may require additional
space at the middle school.
Type Utilities: Individual wells and septic facilities.
Staff Comment: The Soil Scientist's report has been prepared and Health Department
approval has been received. Th~_fina! plat follows .the preliminary
485
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Thomas E. Flynn, associate in charge representing the Wilbur Smith & Associates
Engineering firm, presented hiS~firm's traffic impact study to the Board. (Copy is on
file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) He noted a figure of 9,275
projected vehicle trips per day would be added as the result of the original two rezoning
requests. He noted that the majority of the traffic is headed toward the University. Mr.
Flynn then presented ideas for future road and traffic flow improvements as follow:
"Improvements proposed to increase capacity include roadway wideninE, traffic signal
control, and roadway realignment. Given additional residential development at Ivy
Gardens and Huntington Village, normal traffic growth, and staged development of the
proposed plan at approximately 50 units per year over a 12-15-year period and com-
pletion of business/commercial space within five years, an improvement program is
proposed which reflects the staged traffic growth. Summarizing, the staged improve-
ments include:
1979-1985: left-turn lanes and right-turn deceleration lanes into the site from
Old Ivy Road and possible signalization of intersection of Old Ivy Road and U.S.
Route 250; and
1985: realignment of Old Ivy Road under east railroad overpass to provide three
traffic lanes and possible widening of Old Ivy Road to 34 feet.
Given present traffic volumes, it is recommended that as construction begins, left-
turn and right-turn deceleration lanes be provided at site entrances. As the rail-
road overpass at the east end of Old Ivy Road presently restricts traffic flow, to
alleviate the immediate safety and capacity problem on Old Ivy Road, a traffic signal
should be considered for the intersection of Old Ivy Road and U.S. Route 250. Al-
though not the ideal solution, traffic signal control would provide safer and more
efficient traffic operation~ The situation should be investigated further before a
final recommendation is made.
It is anticipated by 1985, traffic volumes under the overpass will have increased to
such a level to require further treatment. At that time, realignment of 01d Ivy Road
under the railroad overpass is recommended.
Initial engineering investigations suggest a three-lane roadway (approximate 38-foot
width) can be provided without disturbing the overpass by realigning the roadway to
the east north of the overpass, and having 01d Ivy Road connect with U.S. Route 250
west of its present location. Although this improvement does not provide ideal
roadway geometric configuration, and its feasibility should be further investigated,
the provision of a three-lane roadway under the overpass would provide acceptable
operation in'terms of traffic flow and safety.
At the time of roadway realignment, consideration should be given to the continuation
of the middle lane on Old Ivy Road to provide a total of three traffic lanes, one per
direction plus a continuous left-turn lane for both eastbound and westbound vehicles.
This would require the widening of Old Ivy Road to a minimum of 34 feet (two through
12-foot lanes and one 10-foot storage lane); 01d Ivy Road would be wider at site
entrances where right-turn deceleration lanes are also provided. It is noted,
however, the necessary widening of Old Ivy Road to 34 feet to provide the additional
lane is not essential in terms of roadway capacity but is desirable for improving
traffic flow and safety through the area."
· Mr. Perkins noted that these traffic figures would not impact on the County immed-
iately, but over a period of approximately 12 years. He stated that the financing of the
road improvements should not be borne by the developer because the volume of traffic is
not entirely that of the housing units on Old Ivy Road.
Mr. John Hulvey, a partial owner of the property on the Heischman petition, said the
taxes generated.from the apartment complex when completed would more than pay for road
improvements. Mr. Fisher said property taxes are not used for road improvements, but for
education.
Mr. Fisher asked if it was acceptable to defer this item to August 16, 1979, at which
time the third rezoning request would be ready for review by the Board of Supervisors, and
the Highway Department would have sufficient time to study the proposed realignment of the
road under the railroad underpass as suggested by Mr. F!ynn. Dr. Iachetta offered motion
to defer both ZMA-79-15 and ZMA-79-16 to August 16, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Courthouse.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush ~A¥~ ~a
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5.
County.
Complaint concerning garbage disposal in Southern Albemarle
Mr. Dorrier said this matter concerns garbage and trash being dumped into a stone
quarry in-the Old Dominion area near Schulyer. He felt the reason for this is that the
nearest landfill is about 10 miles away. He felt the problem was getting out of hand, and
noted receipt of comments from Mrs. Joy Harris:
"July 1, 1979
Ms. Lettie E. Neher
Office of the Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
n~ Ms. Neher:
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Cole Hendrix
City Manager"
Mr. Agnor said the hearing will be held on the basis of one request, but he felt
since it involved the County, the Board might want to participate.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to have the Board join in the request for a public
hearing on the above proposed construction. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion.
Dr. Iachetta asked when this hearing would be held. Mr. Roosevelt said some changes
have to be worked into the plans so the hearing will probably be four or five months from
now. Mr. Roudabush asked if this project was all located in the County. Mr. Roosevelt
said yes, and that apParently the City's interest was just as any other adjacent property
owner.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. Se. Request: Bikeway Plan - Hydraulic Road Project. Mr. Agnor said
Mr. Robert Colley has requested an opportunity to ask the Board to reconsider the bikeway
plan for Hydraulic Road.
Mr. Colley, a member of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle Association, first
complimented the Board on their desire to install a bicycle path on Hydraulic Road. He
then quoted recommended methods of bike-path construction from the California Bike-ways
handbook, and added other safety suggestions from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycle
Association. He asked how motorized bicycles fit into the bike-path concept, and who
would be responsible for the maintenance of the path. He finally requested the Board to
have the Planning staff meet with area bicyclists to investigate alternatives to the
)osed bike-path, and that the C0m~issioner of the Highway Department not approve the
plans for the acquisition of right-of-way until such a report is received.
It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Colley's requests were brought to their
attention too late to be considered, as the public hearings and plans for improvements to
Hydraulic Road have already been completed. They suggested Mr. Colley meet With the
Planning Department, and pass along any information which may be useful to the County for
future bike-way development, but that it would be impossible to change the plans for
Hydraulic Road at this late date.
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and Iachetta questioned if it would not be more in the public
interest to eliminate the bike-path altogether, since Mr. Colley feels the present design
is unsafe. Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department said the bike-way could be eliminated,
but that design changes or improvements to the road to include a bike-way would not only
cause time delays, but would cost thousands of dollars more.
No Board member wished to enact a motion to change the proposed design for the road
and bike-path on Hydraulic Road, but Mr. Dorrier and Dr. Iachetta said if the present
design is unsafe, rather than construct it at taxpayers expense, the possibility of eliminatin
the bike-path altogether should be investigated.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the prop~Ded____ bike-w~ p~o_~ed a good safe corridor for
students to get to school. Mr. Dorrier said if bicyclists did not use it, it could be
converted to a pedestrian path. Mr. Fisher asked the Planning staff to present a report
on the bike-way within a month so the Highway Department can proceed with their plans ~for
Hydraulic Road improvements. He also suggested that Mr. Colley be notified of the time
this report will be presented to the Board. (Discussion of Agenda Item No. 3f. resumed
later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-79-i5. Hunter Faulconer.
ZMA-79-16. S. W. Heischman. (Deferred from July 11, 1979).
Mr. Fisher reviewed past discussions, then asked Mr. Roosevelt about the right-of-way
widths on Old Ivy Road. Mr. Roosevelt said old Ivy Road was once a part of the Rockfish-
Rivanna Turnpike. There is a question as to whether the Highway Department can claim a 60
foot right-of-way, but they are doing ~o. He noted that the present traffic count is
2,123; and that the projected count (with the two rezoning requests) could be approxi-
mately l~,000. Mr. Roosevelt noted that there is a third rezoning which will be presented
to the Board soon, which will also effect this traffic count. Mr. Tucker said this third
rezoning is for the Nokes property and is for CO zoning. It is scheduled to be presented
to the Board on August 16th. He then suggested that the Board defer this discussion until
this third rezoning can be included.
Mr. Lindstrom asked about the railroad underpass. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway
Department is recommending a four-lane road (52 foot width with curb and gutter),
which would not allow sufficient land for rebuilding th~ underpass. He said either a new
location for the underpass would have to be found, or a detour would have to be created
until the existing location is upgraded.
Mr. William Perkins, attorney for the applicant, Said his client had Wilbur Smith and
Associates take a traffic count and analysis of the project and the road system was under
the impression that the Planning Department originally thought there was not enough
Commercial property presented in this plan. Mr. Perkins said the Nokes property was added
to allow for more commercial property. He s~id he wished to further discuss th~ w~t~ t~
August 8, 1979 (R~gular Day Meeting)
dated April 6, 1979, from James Sherwood Morris, Douglas MacKay and O. S. Bailey requesting
this abandonment. Mr. John Finley, representing his father who lives in India, opposes
the abandonment, since Route 668 provides access to property owned by Mr. Finley. Mr.
Henley was to work with Mr. Morris and Mr. Finley to try to work out an easement over Mr.
Morris' property for access to the Finley property. Mr. Henley said he had tried to
contact the parties several times but could not get in touch with them. Mr. Agnor said a
letter had been received from Mr. Finley and read the 'following:
"August 3, 1979
In reference to your letter dated July 13, 1979, I will be out of town and
unable to be present August 8.
I have contacted my father concerning his position on abandoning the public
right-of-way to Route 668. He will agree to abandonment provided: 1) We have
a deeded right-of-way (out of both ends) in hand; 2) Mr. Sherwood Morris agrees
to pay all legal fees.
I have not had the time since my father's reply to pursue this matter further.
Inform Mr. Morris of this and if he agrees I will have our attorney write up the
proper documents.
Sincerely,
(Signed) John Finley
Power of Attorney for William Finley"
Mr. Fisher said he did not like the Board to be in a position of go-between for two
property owners. Mr. Henley said he would try to contact Mr. Morris and Mr. Finley again
and asked the Board to defer this matter to September 12, 1979. Mr. Fisher asked that a
copy of Mr. Finley's letter be sent to Mr. Morris and Mr. Henley.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to defer this item to September 12, 1979.
Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Dr.
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3c. To abandon a road off Route 602. Mr. Agnor said this is the
section of road which Mr. Paul Stacy and Mr. Bruce Rasmussen are concerned with and which
has been pending for several months.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to defer this request to September 12 and asked
that all parties be notified. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, ~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3d.
following letters.
Request:
Route 631 (Park Street Bridge).
Mr..Agnor read the
"July 11, 1979
Mr. Guy B. Agnor
County Executive
400 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Subject:
Route 631 (Rio Road) - Albemarle County
Project #0631-002-186, C-501, B-643
Dear Mr. Agnor:
Attached, for your information, is a notice of willingness to hold a
combined location and design public hearing concerning the proposed construction
of a bridge and necessary approaches over Meadow Creek, on Rio Road in Albemarle.
Written requests for such a hearing should be sent to the Resident
Engineer, Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, on or before August 10, 1979.
Sincerely,
(Signed) D. B. Hope"
"July 20, 1979
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
P.O. Box 910
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Roosevelt:
m~ ~ ~ inform you that City Cguncil of the City of Charlottesville favors a
~ ~onosed construction of
August 8, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 8, 1979, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County 0ffic~ Building, Char-
lottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., ~erald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony
Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 9:14 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:15 A.M. by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes:
(Night), April 11, May 16, and May 23, 1979.
February 28, March 7 (Afternoon), March 21
The minutes of February 28, March 7 (Afternoon) and March 21 (Night) were read and no
corrections reported. Motion to approve the minutes as presented was offered by Dr.
Iachetta~ seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The minutes of April 11, May 16 and May 23, 1'979 were deferred.
Agenda Item No. 3a.
665.
Highway Matters:
Resolution to abandon and add section to Route
Mr. Agnor said there were changes in the Secondary System due to relocation and
construction on Route 665 which is in the Buck Mountain Creek area. He presented a sample
resolution to the Board listing these sections. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer,
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, said there should be no problem since
the new road basically replaces the old road and provides service to adjoining property
owners. Mr. Henley said the only comments he has heard about this project was from Mr.
Palmer regarding some trees that had to be taken down near the bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said
he had met with Mr. Palmer who mentioned nothing about the trees.
Mr. Fisher asked about public access to the water. If the Board wishes to guarantee
access to the waters Mr. Roosevelt suggested the resolution and sketch be revised to
indicate the section from the river back to Route 667 be discontinued rather than ab-
andoned. Mr. Henley said the stream was very small and he did not think the public would
want to use it. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr.~Henley~ould object to reserving a public access
to the river. Mr. Henley said this could be done to see if the public would want to use
it. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board could always take action at some future date to abandon
this access to the river. Mr. Fisher said it was the western most portion of section 2
between Buck Mountain Creek and Route 667 to be discontinued, rather than abandoned, and
everything else to remain the same in the resolution.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following resolution as amended above:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
due to relocation and construction on Route 665; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that no public hearing will be
necessary in this instance due to the fact that property owners
involved have access to the new locations and/or own the property on
both sides of the old location;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following additions and abandonments
be and they are hereby approved, each section listed being indicated
on sketch presented to this meeting and made a part of the Board's
permanent file:
Section 1: 0.09 Mile shown in blue to be abandoned.
Section 2: 0.02 Mile shown in yellow to be discontinued.
Section 3: 0.12 Mile shown in blue to be abandoned.
Section 4: 0.16 Mile shown in blue to be abandoned.
Section 5: 0.10 Mile shown in red to be added to the
Secondary System.
Section 6: 0.16 Mile shown in red to be added to the
Secondary System.
Section 7: 0.14 Mile shown in red to be added to the
Secondary System.
BE IT FURTHER HESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, ~achetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3b.
1979) ~
To abandon a portion of Route 668.
(Deferred from July 11,