1979-06-13 337
June 13_, .1'979 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on
June lB, 1979, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:04 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present:
John.
County Executive Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney George R. St.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M. by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: February 21 (Night); February 26; March 7
(Night); April 4 (Afternoon); April 4 (Night); and May 9, 1979.
February 21, 1979, (Night), Mr. Roudabush reported no corrections.
February 26, 1979, Mr. Dorrier said there were no corrections necessary.
March 7, 1979, Mr. Henley reported no corrections.
April 4, 1979 (Afternoon), Dr. Iachetta reported no corrections.
April 4, 1979 (Night), Mr. Lindstrom had not read these minutes.
May 9, 1979, Mr. Fisher gave no corrections.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve all of the minutes listed, as presented,
except April 4, 1979 (Night). Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vo~e.
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, .Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None. ·
Agenda Item No. 3. Jim Skove - Statement from the OffLSite Road Improvements Committee.
Mr. James Skove, a member of the Committee, gave the following recommendations for the
Committee:
Ae
DRAFT REPORT OF OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS COMMITTEE
The subdivision ordinance should be amended to include a standard frontage
improvement requirement with built-in flexibility to provide for relaxation
of this requirement or requirement of additional improvement in particular
cases where the facts of a particular development require special treatment.
This standard should apply equally to any subdivision, whether approved
administratively or by the Planning Commission.
The zoning ordinance should be amended to require analogous improvements
in connection with site-plan review. The Committee does not recommend any
change to the ordinances of the County regarding off-site (non-frontage)
improvements to public roads for the following reasons:
1. Neither the Highway Department nor any other resource available
to the County is capable of making adequate determinations of the
off-site improvements which should be required of most developments.
In the great majority of cases, the traffic impact of a given
development is reasonably ascertainable along the road frontage.
However, beyond this point, it usually appears to be impossible
to project with any degree of, accuracy where the impact will
principally occur, to what distance from the site it will be
significant, and in what proportion to other development and to
through traffic it can be discerned. Thus, the Committee feels
that[, as a general rule, any such projection is so speculative as
to be unfair and indefensible.
The limitation of construction to existing right-of-way where the
adjoining land is not subject to the developer's control limits
the effectiveness of off-site improvement to the point of negligibility.
In those cases where right-of-way is not a problem and reasonable
impact projections can be made (as, especially, in the case of
dead-end roads), the existing off-site improvements provisions of
'the subdivision and zoning ordinances appear to be adequate. For
these limited cases, the existing recommendatory procedures involving
the Highway Department and the planning staff appear likewise to be
adequate.
Mr. Skove mentioned that the Committee had studied the recent Culpeper County case and
determined that Culpeper County was not recommending off-site improvements, but had developed
a formula for determining whether the capacity of an existing road would allow any development.
On this basis, two subdivisions were denied by Culpeper County because it was determined that
the roads might become hazardous should any development be allowed. Mr. Skove said he personal
feels that if the Co~ty i~ going to consider the question of off-site improvements in the
........ ~ ~ ~ ~ *~ ~~ ~ m~ ~eaommendatlons. Mr,
June~ ~. 13_ 197 (Re ular Da Meetin
Mr. Lindstrom said roads are the most frustrating issue with which the Board deals In
the absence of Highway Department recommendations as to the safety of roads, beyond sight
distance recommendations, (Mr. Roosevelt stated several months ago-that he will never say a
road is unsafe), the Board does not have any other means of making determinations without
specific guidelines. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his disappointment that this Committee did not
address some of these problems. If the Board is to make judgements on the safety of roads,
the Board needs some written guidelines for fairness and also for legal defensibility.
Mr. Dorrier said he felt that even though the Highway D~partment does not make recommendat.ons
for safety improvements, other than sight distance improvements, they should be able to furnis
the Board with some criteria to help them in making decisions. Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr.
Skove felt there was enough work to hire a full-time professional transportation planner. Mr.
Skove did not think this person needed a college background in engineering; the person could
be a planner with background training in transportation or computer science.
Mr. F~sher thanked Mr. Skove for the presentation and the Work of the Off-Site Road
Improvements Committee.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing on a request to abandon the public right-of-way
(Maintenance of this right-of-way was discontinued on November 19, 1964) of Route 668 between
Routes 601 and 667; said length 1.10 miles. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 5 and May
12, 1979).
The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Finley was present to speak for his father (Mr.
William Finley who is living in India), who owns Parcels 16, 23 and 24, Tax Map 17, on this
right-of-way. Mr. Finley said that Parcels 23 and 24 have no direct access to any other State
road, therefore his father objects to abandonment of this right-of-way.
Mr. James S. Morris, one of the petitioners for this abandonment, said this request was
made because of the four-wheel vehicles which come in and climb the steep hill near his
property, plus the reasons set out in the minutes of April llth.
Mr. Henley asked if the right-of-way were abandoned to public use, if Mr. Finley and Mr.
Morris would be willing to work out some type of easement so Mr. Finley could have access to
his property. Mr. Finley said he was not sure to what his father would agree. Some years
ago, his father was told that if a house were built on one of these parcels, the road would be
reopened. There is a house planned for part of Parcel 23. The right-of-way is needed to get
a driveway into that house. Mr. Henley did not think the State would ever reopen the road.
Mr. Fisher said if Mr. Finley and Mr. Morris can work out a legal easement to protect
their rights, the Board should consider this abandonment at a later date, but not until such
an easement is signed. Mr. Roudabush said he would not support abandoning this right-of-way
until some type of easement is worked out by the owners involved.
Mr. Finley said this discontinued portion of Route 668 is cut into in the middle by a
creek, therefore they need access from both ends of the road for a timber operation presently
taking place.
Mr. Henley suggested that action on this request be deferred to July llth so he can talk
to the property owners involved and offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley left the meeting at 9:46 A.M.
Dr. Iachetta said in his district there are old logging roads being used by trail-bikers
and four-wheel drive vehicles. These people have no respect for property owners. He thought
that if these roads are not public rights-of-way, the Sheriff's department should have authorit
over such activities. Mr. St. John said the private property owner would have to get a warrant
before the Sheriff could do anything, and the property would have to be posted with signs
stating "Private Property" or "No Trespassing".
Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-79-10. Charles W. Hurt. (Deferred from May 16, 1979).
a) Report on Lamb's Road: Mr. Fisher said this petition was deferred so the Board
could receive a report on the traffic and road conditions of Lamb's Road; receive a report on
the drainage problem brought to the Board's attention by Mrs. Peggy Fitzgerald; and receive a
comparison of the Runoff Control Ordinance and Stormwater Detention Ordinance.
Mr. Roosevelt said Route 657 (Lamb's Road), in 1978, had-a traffic count of 657 vehicle
trips per day. The latter half of the length of the road is 14 feet wide from the edge of
pavement to the edge of pavement and 18 feet wide from ditch line to ditch line. The Departmenl
tolerable/non-tolerable standard indicates a road carrying 657 vehicles per day should be
hard-surfaced and 18 feet wide. With only 14 feet of surface, this road is considered non-
~olerable.
Mr. Henley returned at 9:49 A.M.
b)-. Discussion of Run-off problem at property of Fitzgerald: Mr. Fisher then asked Mr.
loosevelt about, the runoff problem which Mrs. Fitzgerald had brought to the Board's attention.
~r. Roosevelt read his letter of June 7, 1979:
S
339
June 13~ 1979 (Regular .Day ~eeting)
"Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
County Board of Supervisors
400 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Ms. Neher:
Reference is made to your letter dated May 17, 1979 concerning the proposed
rezoning of 26.002 acres by Dr. Charles W. Hurt, along Lamb's Road (Route 657),
and the effect this rezoning will have upon the drainage across the property of
Mrs. Fitzgerald.
Concerning the rezoning, this office commented at the time it was considered by
the Planning Commission. Our comments were as follows: 'Rezoning request would
increase the potential of this property from 13 units to 18 units and would not in
itself be an appreciable increase in potential. Frontage along this property has
already been improved, setting back the ditchline and improving sight distance
along the frontage, as well as through a sharp curve to the southeast of the
property~ This existing section of the road is currently listed as non-tolerable
and carries 657 vehicles per day according to the 1978 traffic count.'
For the information of the Board, a road carrying a traffic count between 400 and
1,000 vehicles per day is considered to be tolerable if the surface width is 18
feet wide and hard surfaced. Route 657, through about half its length, is only
18 feet wide from ditchline to ditchline and has a 14 foot wide surface treated
pavement.
Concerning the drainage problems at Mrs. Fitzgerald's property, I do not believe
that the work on Dr. Hurt's property has substantially increased the run-off. Mrs.
Fitzgerald and her neighbor, the Bryants, were experiencing problems prior to any
work undertaken by Dr. Hurt. I have attached a copy of a letter dated June 22, 1978
which I wrote to Mrs. Valerie L. Bryant concerning this problem. I feel this letter
properly expresses our responsibility and the property owner's responsibility for
this drainage.
Our records show that a permit was issued to the Virginia Land Company on
October 6, 1978 to construct a standard street entrance and widen along Route
657. This was some three to four months after my letter concerning the drainage
problem. Since receipt of your letter, I have looked at this location on at
least three occasions. My most recent review was after the heavy rain storm of
June 2, 1979. Although it appears that a considerable amount of water is
passing through the pipe in question and across the Fitzgerald property, I must
say that erosion control at the upper end of the pipe appears to be protecting
the Fitzgerald property from siltation. The options available'and the details
of each are too lengthy to discuss here. I will be prepared to discuss this
matter with the Board at their regular meeting."
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt about the options referred to in his letter. Mr.
Roosevelt said there is no option to take the water to any area other than where it is naturall
flowing now. Something could be done at the outlet end of the pipe to carry the water between
the two houses. This could be done in two ways: 1) through a better defined ditch, which
would require-rock or grass stabilization, or 2) pipe the water between the Fitzgerald and
Bryant properties. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department would participate in either
of these two alternatives. Mr. Roosevelt said no; Highway Department policy states that the
Highway Department will participate in those cases only where there is some benefit to the
Highway Department. In this case, there is none. Mr. Lindstrom said he has looked at the
Fitzgerald property and it is obvious that the water running onto that property is not caused
by the Highway Department, but the fact that the water is concentrated in this area is the
result of Lamb's Road. Although it is not a maintenance problem for the Highway Department,
there is no question that this outlet pipe has created a problem for the property owners on
the north side of the road. He feels the Highway Department should be directly involved in
this problem, even if the improvement would be of no benefit to the Highway Department.
Mr. Roosevelt said during a rain storm, water runs down the opposite side of Lamb's Road,
from private property west of this site, into the ditch line, along the~ditch line and then
breaks out and down a small draw across the Fitzgerald property and goes behinH their house.
He looked at this probtem prior to the rainstorm of June 2, and there was more water running
along that path than was running along the other side of Lamb's Road and~through the pipe in
question. He has never received complaints about this runoff problem, although it appears to
be a greater problem.than the water running between the two houses. Mr. Roosevelt said when
the land was developed, it was sloped so the water would run away from the Fitzgerald's house.
The pipe under Lamb's Road was there long before either the Fitzgerald or Bryant houses were
built, end-he feels it was-the responsibility of the developer to take care of the water
coming onto the property. Mr. Lindstrom said in walking around the property he did not see
any damage done by the water coming from the west, but he did see damage done by the water
from the drainage pipe.
Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any way to run the water parallel to Mrs. Fitzgerald's
property to get it'further down the road.- Mr. Roosevelt said no, the pipe is at the low spot
on-the road and the Fitzgerald property is below the level of the road. There is no way to
ditch the water across the front of either of these two properties. He feels the water has to
run between these two houses because that is the low spot on the road and the natural drainage
course. Also, the property opposite Mrs. Fitzgerald's property is two or three feet higher in
elevation. He said some rip-rap was put in on the south Side of the road 'last fall to try and
slow the flow of the water.
3,40
June lB, 1979 (Regutar Day Meeting)
Mr. Roudabush said although this is relevant, the issue before the Board is a rezoning
application and the question is whether this land should be rezoned to RS-1. He said if this
property is rezoned, any development that takes place will have to comply with site plan
conditions, Highway Department criteria for drainage, and County review of grading, erosion
control and drainage plans. Mr. Roudabush felt a solution to the drainage problem will come
about with the development of the property. Dr. Iachetta said he thinks the rezoning does
affect the problem because if twice as many buildings are built on the property, there will be
twice as many impervious surfaces. This will increase the runoff. He did not know of any way
to separate the two issues. Mr. Roudabush said this is a problem which will not be solved by
zoning alone. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Henley said, if the Board requests the Highway
Department to help solve this problem, the Board will be setting a bad precedent since there
are many similar problems all over the County. Mr. Dorrier asked if this petition could be
deferred until the property owners work out some agreement. Mr. Henley said he has sympathy
for the property owners because they bought a piece of property with a lot of problems; but,
he does not feel it is the Highway Department's responsibility. Mr. Lindstrom said he had
told Mrs. Fitzgerald that the Board members would only be able to express their opinions,
because the Highway Department will follow its policies.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roosevelt if the proposed development will contribute drainage to
the Fitzgerald property. Mr. Roosevelt said he had not looked closely at the drainage on Dr.
Hurt's property, but in walking over the area, it appears the drainage divide is about 200
feet from the road and that less than two lots will drain to this pipe. The rest of the
property will drain back over the hill away from the pipe. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Highway
Department looks at drainage problems when site plans are submitted to the County. Mr. Rooseve
said yes; but the Department has not been able to require off-site drainage improvements. He
could not make any firm statement about how Dr. Hurt's development will affect drainage to the
pipe in question since the property has not yet been developed. There are only three or four
acres of woods which will be changed to home sites.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, if the Runoff Control Ordinance
applies to this tract of land. Mr. Bailey said yes. Mr. Roudabush asked if the requirements
of that ordinance would limit the rate of runoff from the site to the pre-development rate.
Mr. Bailey said if more than five percent of the total area is changed from natural cover to
impervious cover, a permit will be required, and the stormwater features of the Runoff Control
Ordinance will apply. Mr. Fisher said if the site is developed with single-family housing on
one acre or two acre lots, it would more than likely be exempt from the permit requirements of
the Runoff Control Ordinance. He asked Mr. Bailey if any subdivision is exempt. Mr. Bailey
said one-acre lots would very likely be exempt, depending on the amount of road surfaces.
Dr. Iachetta said the Board is dealing with the Urban Area as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan. There is a difference in what is developed in the Urban Area and what is developed in
the other parts of the watershed. He said a good example of how the cumulative effect can be
overlooked is the flood in the Four Seasons/Berkley area resulting from the June 2, 1979 rain.
People had to be evacuated from the Pizza Inn by boat; a man lost two cars in the creek at the
intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Four Seasons Drive; there were two feet of water in the
Jefferson Supply building and eight inches of watem in the Wayside Press building; and the
area is being developed with more cover. He said one site may look insignificant; but the
cumulative effect can be disastrous. Mr. Bailey said there has been no attempt in any County
ordinance to subdue the effects of a storm of that intensity. Also, the Four Seasons/Berkety
area is~one of the most densely populated areas of the County. Mr. Agnor said the area was
developed before the Runoff Control Ordinance and the Stormwater Detention Ordinance were
enacted. These ordinances are designed to retain water on the site to prevent flooding of '
this nature. Dr. Iachetta said the Board, ~in looking at Dr<. Hurt's property, should do somethi
to prevent a similar occurrence.
Atlthi~ point, Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board return to discussion of ZMA-79-10 and
asked for c~mments from those present. Mr. James Hill was present to represent the applicant.
Mr. Hil& said the applicant has presented a simple rezoning request to the Board. The drainage
problem has existed for many years. The applicant widened Lamb's Road and straightened the
dangerous curve. Existing pipes were used. Mr. Hill said he feels the damage to the Fitzgeral
property from the June 2nd rain would have been done whether or not the applicant had done any
work on the road. He said Mr. Roosevelt has already stated that he feels the major drainage
from Dr. Hurt's development will not run toward Lamb's Road. Therefore, he asked the Board to
vote favorably on the applicant's rezoning request.
Ms. Nancy Stand, attorney for Mrs. Fitzgerald, showed to the Board pictures of the
Fitzgerald property, both before and after the June 2, 1979 storm. She also noted that the
Fitzgerald's garden has washed away four times this spring. She said although the Highway
Department says this is not their problem, a prescriptive easement does not give the Highway
Department the right to continue burdening Mrs. Fitzgerald's land beyond what it has been
burdened in the past. Ms. Stand said Mrs. Fitzgerald is asking for some way to plug up the
culvert or divert the water so that the rate of water flow is not any greater than it was in
the early 70's. Ms. Stand said representatives from the County, the Highway Department and
Dr. Hurt's office met with Mrs. Fitzgerald and all agreed there is a problem, but no one
accepts responsibility. Mrs. Fitzgerald does not personally know the most effective way to
solve the problem, and she wants it known to the County that this problem is not going to go
away. -Mr. F~sher said he understands that everyone is pointing a finger at the other person,
but, the only real question raised is whether it is a public responsibility or the landowners
responsibility. At this point, that is not clear, but if Mrs. Fitzgerald knows how to remedy
the problem and can pay for it, she should proceed to have the work done.
Mrs. Lindstrom said at the May 16th meeting, Mr. Hill indicated the applicant had been
willing.at one time to put in a channelized ditch with rip-rap. Mr. Lindstrom said maybe the
Highway Department could work with Dr. Hurt to accomplish this work to help remedy the problem.
Mrs. Fitzgerald asked whose responsibility it would be to install this ditch. She said the
pipe had been stopped up for 25 years with little drainage. Since the applicant cleaned the
pipe out, the problem has grown steadily worse. She did not think the Highway Department
should be "let off the hook" as they just recently installed an additio~]
which h~ m~ +~ ~
.t
Lg
June .... 13, 1979 (R_. _ __ _ _._egular Day Meeting)
with his original suggestion. Mr. Hill said the applicant offered to do this work earlier in
the year but was turned down flatly. Mr. Lindstrom again asked Mr. Hill if Dr. Hurt will
install this ditch with rip-rap. Mr. Hill said the applicant will participate for 2/3rds of
the cost. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Hill had any estimate of the cost. Mr.' Hill said he feels
it will cost between $400 and $500. Mr. Henley asked if this ditch with rip-rap would create
a drainage problem for someone else further down Lamb's Road. Mr. Hill said that is the
reason it was suggested that the drainage only be brought a little past Mrs. Fitzgerald's
house. This would allow the water to spread out more.
Mr. Fisher said he does not think the Board should be discussing a problem over which the
Board has no control. He said the question before the Board is a rezoning request and this
discussion has no bearing on the decision the Board must make.
Mr. Roudabush felt the solution to the problem lies in provisions of the Stormwater
Detention Ordinance. Mr. St. John said in order to require the developer to install off-site
drainage facilities, it must be drainage that is created by his subdivision. Since Dr. Hurt's
subdivision has not taken place yet, the Board cannot force him to comply with the ordinance
for a problem which already exists. Mr. Roudabush said he was talking only about any additiona
runoff which would be created by Dr. Hurt's subdivision.
Mr. Fisher said whether or not the applicant is willing to solve the drainage problem is
not relevant to the vote on the rezoning request. The Board has to look at what the change in
use of the property from the present zoning density will do to the area. The question of the
existing water problem is there and it is going to continue to be there. A solution may or
may not be worked out voluntarily by the developer, or the Highway Department, or it may be
that in order to get it resolved, Mrs. Fitzgerald will have to go to a higher level of decision
making.
Mr. Fisher then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Roud~bush immediately offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve ZMA-79-10. Mr. Henley seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said this property is located in the Urban Area. The density proposed in
the application is reasonable. The property is served by schools in the immediate area. The
only problem is the impact of traffic on Lamb's Road. Dr. Iachetta said one Other problem
with development in this area is the continued use of septic tanks and drainfields relative to
high 'density areas. He does not think this makes sense with the record that the County has in
some other parts of the County. Although he realizes that in RS-i, two septic field locations
are required for each lot, he feels it is the wrong approach for an area that will be urbanized
Mr. Lindstrom said he is disappointed that revision of the zoning ordinance ~as taken so long
that the Board has not received the report on utilities in the Urban Area t~at was to go with
the Capital Zmprovements Program. Mr. Lindstrom asked where the sewer line is located in
relation to this property. Mr. Tucker said it is at Albemarle High School.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support the petition primarily because of the road. Mr.
Henley did not think the road will be upgraded until traffic justifies upgrading. Mr. Lindstro~
asked how much of Lamb's Road will be upgraded when Hydraulic Road is reconstructed. Mr.
Roosevelt said only to the first entrance of Albemarle High School, about 200 feet. Mr. Hill
said the applicant is going to improve an additional 200 feet of Lamb's Road and dedicate
another 15 feet of right-of-way to the Highway Department. He said the applicant realizes
that the road needs to be upgraded. -
Mr. Fisher said he is undecided about this petition because of'Lamb's Road and the
proximity of this property to the resarvoir. THe Board has, in the past, denied rezonings base~
on the fact that the property was located on a road which could not tolerate additional traffic
and the Board has also denied rezonings for higher densities in this area because of the
reservoir. However, this property is in the area calling for higher levels of development in
the Comprehensive Plan. But, unless roads and utilities can be provided, this higher level of
development will not occur. He felt that if the Board approves this rezoning request, the
Board is in effect raising Lamb's Road on the priority list for road improvements and in doing
so will be taking funds from other areas of the County. He said that in order to implement
~the recommendations contained in the Comprehensive Plan, this may have to be done.
Mr. Roudabush agreed with Mr. Fisher's statement about roads. But, he felt the Board had
already made such a commitment when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and certain areas were
selec'ted for growth. Mr. Roudabush said he has faith in existing County ordinances to protect
the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said if road funds are taken from other areas of the County to
upgrade this road, the Board will be t~ansferring not only money, but also development rights
Mr. Roudabush said it may well boil down to that. ·
Mr. Hill said the most dangerous curve on Lamb's Road had been reconstructed. Dr. Hurt
is not opposed to making improvements along the frontage of his property.
Mr. Lindstr'om felt the Board must use the present available tools to implement the
)rehensive Plan. If the Board members vote for this rezoning, he feels they do so recognizi~
if growth is to occur in the urban areas and the cluster areas, that the problem of
utilities will have to be dealt with in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not convince~
the solution to all highway problems is to make all roads 18 feet wide. Although Lamb's
needs resurfacing, it may be possible to Go it in a way that is not as expensive as
the road and running into right-of-way problems Mr Lindstrom Said he would support
rezoning request. ' '
Mrs. Fitzgerald said she thought there was already a 25-foot dedication on Lamb's Road.
· Roosevelt said there is a dedication across the Fitzgerald and Bryant properties, and on
other property on this road. On the rest, the Highway Department has only a 22-foot
iptive easement. Mr. Fisher said that statement changes his thinking on this petition.
June 13 1 7 (Re ular Da Meetin
Dr. Zachetta agreed that a two-acre density does not make sense in this area, but he
feels this petition may be premature because at this time the Board is unable to deal with the
existing problem with the road.- He will not vote-to make the situation even worse.
Mr. Henley asked if-there were any way of:improving the road within the existing right-
of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not think it could be improved this way. At the present,
the surface is only 14-feet wide and the ditches are at 18-feet. There are two additional feet
on each side down to the ditch and the ditch is about a foot lower tha~ the road. Mr. Fisher
asked how far from Hydraulic Road this site is located. Mr. Roosevelt said it is three-
quarters of a mile. Mr. Fisher-said part of the property on the left of Lamb's Road is owned
by the,.County School Board. If property has not already been dedicated for road improvements,
the Board should arrange for that dedication.
MN, Lindstrom said his concern is not with the width of the road, but with the one bad
curve near United Parcel-Service, If the County-owns the'property on that curve, the County
should work w.ith the-Highway Department to get the curve improved.
Mr. Roosevelt said he is going to present revisions to the Six-Year Highway Plan in the
near future. With a change in the Code of Virginia requiring that approximately $300,000 be
put into gravel road improvements each year, it appears that the remaining funds will have to
go to major improvements such as_Hydraulic Road and McIntire/Rio Extended for the next six
years.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the County will have to put funds into implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. In those areas that are pressured for growth and development, it will
cost the County money and some of these improvements cannot wait six to eight years until the
Highway Department has the money. He said this is not encouraging growth, but simply acknowled lng
that growth must go somewhere. If the Board does not want growth spread over the County, then
utilities will have to be made available where the County is encouraging growth. Mr. Lindstrom
said he had hoped that when the Board finally received the revised zoning ordinance, there
would be included proposals for extension of utilities, including road improvements, out of
County funds.
Mr.. Dorrier agreed that the County has been conservative in putting money into utilities
and road improvements. For this reason, the Comprehensive Plan is not being implemented. The
growth is going into areas of least resistance and into areas that save money for the developer
Mr. Dorrier felt the County must provide utilities in order to channel growth into desired
areas.
.Mrs, Fisher said the-Board can begin by requesting the School Board to donate right-of-way
along s~hoo! properties. As for Lamb's Road, two years ago the traffic count was 657 vehicle
trips per day making this road non-tolerable. There is not right-of-way donated so the
Highway Department could reconstruct the road if funds were available, and'he did not think he
could vote for this rezoning with the road in its present condition.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not convinced there is a safety problem on this road at other
than the curve near UPS. Mr. Dorrier said he had not seen the road, but would rely on the
statements made by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Lindstrom that there is not a safety problem, and
would support the application.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if this rezoning is approved, that a commitment must be
made by the Board to improve the road. Without such a commitment, he thought there was a
problem with the rezoning request.
Mr,. Dorrier said he will not vote to spend money to z~mprove Lamb's Road when there are
many roads in the Scottsville District which need improvements. He felt it should go on the
priority list, but not ahead of other roads which have been on the list for a long time.
At this time, Mr. Fisher asked for a roll call on the preceding motion to approve this
rezoning. The vote was as follows:
&YES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Mr. Dorrier said-he felt Mr. Lindstrom was going to support this rezoning request and
that is the reason he voted aye. If Mr. Lindstrom is not willing to support this request in
his. district, then Mr. Dorrier said he would like to change his vote to no.
Mr. Fisher said the Board should follow up on the issue of rights-of-way on County owned
properties. He said the question of the drainage problem on private property is unchanged,
and he assumes it would continue until other properties along this road come in for approval.
At the time of subdivision approval, maybe this situation can be corrected.
c~ Comparison of Run-off Control and Stormwater Detention Ordinances:
i~memorandum and letter were presented for the record but were not discussed:
"TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
DATE: June 8, 1979
RE: Relationship of the .Runoff Control Ordinance and
Stormwater Detention Ordinance
The following is a comparison of the two ordinances:
Runoff Control
Control of'rate of runo'~f 1.
Control of soil and phosphorous loss 2.
Exempts development involving 3.
The following
Stormwater Detention
Control of rate of runoff
No control of quality of runoff
Exempts develooment invotv~
June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
The Runoff Control Ordinance is the more restrictive ordinance. As related in the
attached letter from Mr. Bailey, the two are not designed to supplement one-another.
If property is found to be exempt from the Runoff Control Ordinance, and if the
Stormwater Detention Ordinance was extended to the reservoir area, the same property
would be exempt from the Stormwater Detention Ordinance since the Runoff Control
Ordinance is the most restrictive. If, on the other hand, property is required to
meet the Runoff Control Ordinance, the Stormwater Detention Ordinance would have
no application to the property since the Runoff Control Ordinance is more restrictive
and would control.
It is therefore not recommended that the Stormwater Detention Ordinance be considered
for application to the reservoir area as a supplement to the Runoff Control Ordinance."
"June 4, 1979
Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Route 5, Sheffield Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Relationship Between the Runoff Control Ordinance and
Stormwater Detention Ordinance
Dear Mr. Fisher:
I received a communication from Miss Neher, informing me that the Board wished me
to discuss the relationship between the Runoff Control and Stormwater Detention
Ordinances at the Board's meeting on June 13, 1979.. Mr. Agnor has discussed this
matter with me. He told me tha~ the Board was interested in the idea of extending
the provisions of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance to the area of the reservoir
watershed so that the two would supplement one another.
The Stormwaver Detention Ordinance is not as restrictive as the Runoff Control
Ordinance. Article II, Section l(e), (4) and (5) of the Runoff Control Ordinance
exempts parcels, the development of which does not result in a total impervious
coverage of five percent of the lot area. Section 18-21 (Subdivision Ordinance)
and 17-5-13 (Zoning Ordinance) exempt the development of any lot or parcel which
results in a total impervious surface cover of not greater than 20,000 square feet.
The Runoff Control Ordinance exempts any development involving the establishmen~ of
not more than 500 square feet of impervious surface but requires a permit for any
development resulting in greater than 5% of the lot or parcel being under an impervious
cover. So between lots of 10,000 square feet and 9.18 acres the Runoff Control Ordinance
requires a permit under the 5% provision, while the Stormwaver Detention Ordinance would
require a permit only when the impervious area exceeded the 20,000 square feet.
As to the reason for allowing exemptions of any kind relative to these ordinances,
these concessions were made on the basis that it is not practical to require ~a
permit for lots or parcels which do not change more than 5% of their surface from
natural to impervious conditions. Few residential lots of two acres would exceed
the 5% provision. The cumulative effect of these exemptions is not anticipated
to be burdensome on the state of the reservoir. Eve~ without the requirement of
a permit, the homeowner can be expected to use some of the practices which are
recommended in the Guidelines of the Runoff Control Ordinance, such as the
establishment of a good turf, planting of trees and shrubs and grading to prevent
washing.
These two ordinances were not designed to supplement one another. The Stormwater
Detention Ordinance was tailored to that portion of the urban area which is expected
to be intensely developed, resulting in a greatly increased rate of stormwater
runoff. Detention of stormwater in order to reduce stream flooding has become
highly desirable. This program replaces the concept of designing drainage strucvures
to carry the immediate runoff, a policy which did nothing for the protection of
natural stream channels and allowed uncontrolled flooding. The Runoff Control
Ordinance requires a similar control of the rate of stormwater runoff and in
areas,addition, requires the control of soil and phosphorous loss from the developed
Very truly yours,
gL ·
(lgned) J Harvey Bailey
County Engineer"
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters. Road Viewers Report.
Mr. Fisher read the following report from the Road Viewers dated June 7, 1979:
"Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned Road Viewers, reviewed three requested rural additions
follows:June 7, 1979, and this is our report. The three requests r.eviewed were as
1. Extension of Route 806 for approximately 0.13 mile
2. Extension of Penn Park Lane (Route 1481) for 0.29 mile
3. Road off of Route .250 East near Moose Lodge -~0.25 mile
~-~ .... *~ ~n~n~nln~ the eligibility of thase requests, their service and
....... June 1 R
We recommend that No. 1 be accepted as requested provided sufficient right-
of-way is made available at no cost and $3,455 of the cost is paid by others.
We recommend that No. 2 be accepted to the last permanent residence, a length
of approximately 0.13 mile, provided sufficient right-of-way is made available
at no cost and $4,850 of the cost is supplied by others.
We recommend that No. 3 be added as requested provided sufficient right-of-
way is made available at no cost and $10,225 of the cost if made availabIe
by others.
We recommend that right-of-way and funds for all three additions be made
available by July 1, 1980, to remain eligible for-~he use of Rural Addition
Funds.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed) John O. Higginson
(Signed) Alonzo Jones
(Signed) William L. Rennolds
(Signed) Bernard C. Ward"
Mr. Fisher said the recommendation to only accept these roads if funds are paid by
others is somewhat different from the Road Viewers recommendations in the past. He asked the
reason for this change. Mr. Roosevelt said Section 33.1-72 was repealed by the 1979 Session
of the General Assembly, and replaced by Section 33.1-72.1. This new section of the Code
defines a street or highway as one that is shown on a plat recorded, or otherwise opened to
public use, prior to July 1, 1975. In the prior section, the date was listed as July 1, 1958.
This "Rural Addition" law has always required that the right-of-way be donated to the Highway
Department. Department policy has required that any street platted between 1949 and 1959 be
accepted only on a 50/50 cost-sharing basis. This change in legislation now extends that
policy to 1975. This section also allows the County to contribute general county revenues to
have roads taken into the System. Mr. Roosevelt suggested that the Board accept the Road
Viewers Report as submitted. If any of the people petitioning to have these roads accepted
into the System accept the recommendations, the County should take the money and at the time
the Board adopts a resolution requesting acceptance, turn the money over to the Highway
Department.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the Road Viewers recommendations as submitted.
Ro~dabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: 'Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush~
NAYS: None.
(Being Parcel 49c(1) on
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal - Rutledge Farms Preliminary Plat.
Sheet 45, County Tax Maps, Prepared by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd., dated November
17, 1978; revised April 20, 1979.)
Mr. Fisher said this appeal was called before the Board for review by Dr. Iachetta, who
is concerned that this subdivision has access only through Bedford Hills Subdivision and
Condition (g) as imposed by the Planning Commission does not require that all roads in Bedford
Hills be brought up to a standard so same may be accepted into the State Secondary System of
Highways.
Mr. Tucker read the staff report:
"Location: Property described as parcel ~9C(1) on Tax Map 45. On the west side
6'f'Route~743 south of the Bedford Hills Subdivision.
Acreage: 87.2 acres.
~j0ning: A-1 Agricultural
History: On December 19, 1978, the Planning Commission denied a preliminary
~'lat of the same property, and gave the applicant a list of recommendations
for resubmittal.
Proposal: For 26 lots to have access from private roads through the Bedford
~bdivision on Madison Drive and Monroe Street.
Generally gently rolling with some steeper areas not
T°P°graphy °f Ar~:Serving Proposal: The 1978 traffic count °n R°ute
affecting buildi~ sites. 743 was
Condition .Of Rca .......... +1~ listed as non-tolerable. -
Watershed Imp.oundme~: ~ ~^_ ~,~ural/Conservation with a
Comprehensi've 'Plan Recommendat~uq: ~
recommended density of one dwelling unit/five acres.
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 15 students. Ail levels
~urrent'~'Y require the use of mobile classrooms for the current, undercapacity
enrollment. At the elementary level, seven students may cause overcrowding
in the fourth grade if all seven students are located there. Impact at the
secondary and middle levels is listed as slight.
T~y~pe of Utilities: Private wells and septic systems.
Staff Comment: Staff has received a letter of opposition from landowners in
~edfo~'d H'ill~. They outlined various problems with private roads as proposed
by the developer and gave two alternatives as solutions to the problems. One
alternative is to construct the new roads to State standards so that the roads
in Bedford Hills could be accepted int~ the State road system. The plat that was
reviewed by the Site Review Committee showed a 50-foot right-of-way extending
from Staunton Street in Bedford Hills to proposed Rutledge Drive. The staff has
recommended that a loop from Staunton Street to Rutledge Drive easterly to its
connection with-Madison Drive be constructed to be accepted by the State Secondary
Road system. This would allow the roads in Bedford Hills to be accepted into the
State system also if improvements were made to the roads (as outlined in letter
from Byron Coburn, dated 4/16/79). The revised preliminary plat, however, shows
private roads connecting Rutledge Farm to Bedford Hills on Monroe Street and
Madison Drive. The staff had favored the loop road on the first submittal.
Should the Planning Commission choose to act on the proposal before them, staff
recommends the following conditions for final approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval:
a. Any connection to the Bedford Hills central well system or any new central water supply system will require approval of all
appropriate agencies.
b. Compliance with the private roadordinance, including:
1. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements;
2. County Engineer approval of road specifications.
c. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control ordinances.
d. Fire Official approval.
e. Written Health Department approval.
f. Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline must be shown for parcel
-49(1) on Tax Map 45.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 22, 1979, approved this preliminary plat
subject to the conditions recommended by the staff, but adding (g) and (h):
g. The loop comprising Monroe Street, Madison Drive, and Culpeper
Drive in Bedford Hills and Rutledge Farm be brought up to State
standards and accepted into the State system.
h. To construct a deceleration lane, if possible, within the existing
right-of-way along Route 743 and to improve the existing entrance
within the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Henley left the meeting at 11:45 A.M.
Dr. Iachetta added that Culpeper Drive Extended at the rear of Bedford Hills, is the only
access to 75 undeveloped acres in that area. Williamsburg Road is already serving six lots.
This proposal makes no provision for any future subdivision, and yet Bedford Hills is the only
access to all of this property. Dr. Iachetta noted that he has a file of letters going back
to 1975 on the roads in Bedford Hills. As late as May 6, 1978, he and Mr. Roosevelt met with
owners in Bedford Hills to discuss road problems. This was prior to any proposal to
rther burden the roads. In view of this past history, he thinks it would be a serious error
to put a further burden on the roads in Bedford Hills without bringing those roads into the
State System. He also feels there should be an alternate access to the Rutledge Farms subdivis
from Route 743.
Mr. Buddy Smith, resident of Bedford Hills, said the brochure which was circulated when
most of the residents purchased their lots, clearly stated that the roads would be built to
state specifications. He said the residents of Bedford Hills are not opposed to development
of Rutledge, but they are concerned about the amount of traffic it will generate over the
existing Bedford Hills roads. Another problem is the entrance to Bedford Hills off of Route
743. The Highway Department and the residents recently cleared the brush to improve sight
distance but it is not a good entrance. The residents would like to present an alternative
proposal. Mr. Smith said in checking over tax maps, a previously dedicated 60 foot right-of-
way was discovered. This 60 foot right-of-way is near the end of the proposed Rutledge Drive.
The residents would like to propose that this right-of-way be utilized as the entrance for
Rutledge subdivision, terminaze Madison Drive in Bedford Hills and bring that cul-de-sac up to
standards. Mr. Smith said this will alleviate any traffic problems which might arise from
having only one access to the Bedford Hills/Rutledge Farm Subdivision. He suggested that this
change would also save the developer money. Also, an alternate route for traffic to get
around the dam near the intersection of Madison and Culpeper Drives is needed before the roads
can be accepted into the State System. The Highway Department also said the vertical' curve
ust past the lake would have to be brought up to standard.
Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 11:55 A.M. and Mr. Dorrier left the meeting.
Mr. Fisher asked if any roads in Bedford Hills subdivision are in the State system. Mr.
~mith replied no. 'Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Smith if he was proposing that the developer
bring all the roads in Bedford Hills up to State standards as well as provide an alternate
entrance to Rutledge Farms Subdivision. Mr. Smith said yes, the'brochures for Bedford Hills
stated that the roads would be built to State standards.
Mr. J. F. Bishop, the applicant, was present. He said the main reason for having access
to Rutledge Farms through Bedford Hills is that the Highway Department said it is safer.
Another reason is that the owners of Rutledge Farms do not have the controlling interest in
Bedford Hills Subdivision. Also, this would give Bedford Hills residents another way out if
Culpeper Drive across the dam should become flooded or the dam should break. Mr. Fisher asked
if Mr. Bishop thought ali the roads in Bedford'Hills and Rutledge should be privately maintaine:
Hr. Bishop said yes. Mr. Fisher asked how many dwelling units would be using the Bedford
Kills roads. Mr. Bishop said there are 82 lots. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bishop if he agrees
with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Mr. Bishop said he agrees with everything
except the requirement'for State roads. He does not want to put State roads in any subdivision
he builds; he feels State roads take away from the character of the development.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much improvement is needed to bring the roads in Bedford Hills up
to State standards. Mr. Fisher referred to Mr. Byron Coburn's letter of April 16, 1979, which
listed the following improvements:
on
.... June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
"1. All pavement needs to be sealed. Erosion occurs at a number of points
within the subdivision which needs to be corrected. This could be done
either through establishment of vegetation or perhaps utilizing rip rap
to reduce the velocity of water in the ditches.
2. Sight distance at the intersection of Monroe Street and Culpeper Drive
needs to be corrected.
3. The outlet section of concrete pipe under Madison at approximate
Station 5+15 has settled and fallen away from the normal line of the
pipe. In addition, the pipe in the fill seems to have separated
allowing the joints to come open. Accordingly, water at normal flow
is settling between the joints and running underneath of the pipe
rather than through the pipe for approximately three sections or
12 feet.
4. Several streets have trees growing between the pavement and ditch
which should be removed.
5. Several water valves need to be adjusted and have proper covers
installed.
6. There appears to be settlement which is creating a dip on the dam
as well as settlement to a pavement repair at the intersection of
Staunton Street and Williamsburg Road.
7. The cul-de-sac at the end of Williamsburg Road needs to be enlarged.
In addition to these items, for the roads to be eligible beyond the dam a second
access which is State Maintained must be provided. This could be accomplished
through the construction of a state road in the~Rutledge Farm Subdivision.
loop which could connect Staunton Road with Madison. However, this would place
an additional burden on Madison and Culpeper Drive from Madison out to Route 743
which was not anticipated when the design was approved for those streets in
Bedford Hills. Accordingly, Madison, and Culpeper from its intersection with
Madison, out to 743 would have to be strengthened. The most economical method
would be through the addition of approximately two inches of S-5 asphalt."
Dr. Zachetta asked if Monroe Street would also have to be strengthened as the letter
indicates that Madison Drive would have to be strengthened. Mr. Roosevelt said no, only
Madison and Culpeper Drives. Mr. Fisher asked about the entrance to Bedford Hills. Mr.
Roosevelt said the sight distance would have to be corrected and additional right-of-way is
needed in order to build a turn-lane. Mr. Fisher asked about the 60 foot right-of-way
by Mr.~'Smith. Mr. Roosevelt said he had not known about this right-of-way previously, so
someone would have to check the sight distance. Mr. Bishop said the sight distance is not
good at the alternate access proposed. He said he could not give land away for this access
unless it directly benefits the developer.
Mr. Alfred McClatchy, resident of Bedford Hills, also spoke in opposition to Rutledge
using the Bedford Hills roads. He said if this subdivision is allowed to be built as per the
plans, he will have roads on three sides of his property. It makes more sense to put the
through road from Bedford Hills on Staunton Road, which would make for a smoother traffic
flow.
Mrs. Peter A. Murphy, resident of Bedford Hills, said they own two lots at the intersectio
of Culpeper and Madison Drives and one-half of the lake, so they know the condition of the
dam. She also spoke in opposition to Rutledge Farms using the Bedford Hills entrance and
roads. She said this would harm her property.
Dr. E. Richard Brownlee, who lives on the corner at the entrance to Bedford Hills, said
it is a difficult turn into the Bedford Hills entrance now and with the increased traffic, it
will be disastrous. It disturbs him very much to see all this traffic routed through Bedford
Hills. Also, he assured the Board that the residents in Bedford Hills do want the roads
brought into the State System.
Mr. Fisher asked who is maintaining the roads in Bedford Hills. Dr. Brownlee said a
neighbor provided snow removal this past winter, but he does not know that anyone maintains
the roads. Mr. Bishop said the Bedford Hills Corporation pays the bills. Mr. Fisher asked
where the money comes from. Mr. Bishop said from the proceeds of the operation of the central
well system.
Mr. St. John said he had looked at the declaration of subdivision which is on record in
the Clerk's office. When Bedford Hills subdivision was established, part of the restrictions
and covenants establishing that subdivision stated that the developer would be responsible for
for 25 years or until the roads were taken into the State system. It
maintainingis also stated these in roads the restrictions that the roads in Bedford Hills are dedicated to public
use.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that the Board separate the issues into 1) the subdivision of
Rutledge and 2) whether the conditions of approval can bind this developer to improvement of
the roads in Bedford Hills. He said there are two distinct entities involved, one being the
applicant for this subdivision and the other being the developer of Bedford Hills. Mr. Fisher
said the County should have something to say where the only access to a subdivision is across
roads which are not in the State system. Acess is one of the primary things to look at in
subdivision approval. If, on the other hand, the proposed alternate access is feasible, Mr.
Fisher.said he questions whether any requirement can be placed for improvement to roads in
Bedford Hills. Since the Board has received some additional information which the Planning
Commission did not have, he did not know if this would have made a dSfference in their recommen~
but felt the alternate access should be studied.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer this item to July 11, 1979 in order for the
?lanning staff to review the alternate access in terms of traffic circulation; for the Highway
Department to look at the recorded 60 foot rightofway as an alternate entrance; and to send
Mr. Smith and Mr. Bishop these recommendations for their review. Mr. Roudabush seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
ations,
June 1~ 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
At 12:30 P.M., the Board recess'ed and reconvened at 12:33 P~M.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation:
"June 7, 1979
As requested in your resolutions dated April 11, 1979 and May 23, 1979, the
following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby
approved, effective July 1, 1979.
LANGFORD SUBDIVISION
Langford Place - From:
Churchill Lane - From:
Frontage Road 177; To:
Frontage Road 177; To:
End of Cul-de-Sac.
End of Cul-de-Sac.
LENGTH
0.49 miles
0.14 miles."
"May 30, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated April 11, 1979, the following additions
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
June 1, 1979.
HOLLYMEAD SUBDIVISION
LENGTH
Woodburn Road - From end of State Maintenance, Rte. 1521,
northeasterly 0.13 mile to Tinkers Cove ROad.
O. 13 miles
Tinkers Cove Road - From: Rte. 1521, 0.31 mile to Woodburn Road.
0.31 miles."
Mr. Roosevelt referred to his letter of May 23, 1979, which was presented for the record:
Re: Manually Controlled Traffic Signals
"At the May 9, 1979 Board meeting, Sheriff Bailey requested some consideration
be given to installing equipment in the traffic signals along Route 29 which
would allow his officers to manually control these signals. Sheriff Bailey's
request was based upon the number of emergency calls he has had lately due to
signal malfunctions and the long response time the Department has in correcting
these malfunctions.
I have discussed this matter with the District Traffic Engineer and confirmed
that such a system works only if the signal itself is working properly. Such a
manually operated system does not override the switching equipment in the
controller, but only lengthens or shortens the time for each phase. Such
equipment would, therefore, be of no value when the signal is malfunctioning.
It may be that the County and the Sheriff's Office feel that such a system would
be of value for use during special events such as University football games. If
th~s is the case, Z believe the cost of such an installation must be borne from
funds other than this Department. We are starting design of an interconnecting
signal system along the Route 29 Corridor. It would appear that a manual
operation could be added to this system at this time for the minimum amount of
~'additional expense. If you wish to consider the addition of a manual control
to this signal system at your expense please advise me and I will have cost
estimates prepared. '
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Mr. Roosevelt said on September 13, 1978, the Board after receiving a Road Viewers
report, requested that a road off of Route 616 be taken into the State Secondary system
conditioned upon the right-of-way being donated. The right-of-way has been obtained and the
Department needs a resolution from the Board requesting acceptance. Mr. Roudabush offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE ET RESOLVED: That the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road from State
Route 616, approximately 1.3 miles north of its interchange with 1-64, to
a point approximately 1,565 feet east of Route 616, to the Secondary System
of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33..1-229 of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED: That this Board does guarantee the
Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 50 feet with
necessaryPages 416-421. easements for cuts, fills and drainage; recorde~ in Deed Book 672,
vote:
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
w~a~s. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
3, 8
Mr. Roosevelt also advised that speed limit signs had,been installed on Rio Road at the
request of the Board.
Mr. Roosevelt reminded-the Board about the public hearing on June 27, 1979, at Walker
Middle School in Charlottesville on the McIntire/Rio Road Extension.
June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt said he has an allocation in the current year's budget for a turn-lane at
the intersection of Routes'601 and 658 (Barracks Farm entrance). He said Mr. Haffner has
refused to give the necessary right of way. Since Mr. Lindstrom had requested that something
be done about the sight distance at this intersection, he requested his help with this problem.
Mr. Roosevelt said he met with the Head of the Board of Deacons of Union Ridge Church
(Hydraulic Road), and they are in agreement with the Highway Department's recommendations on
the widening of Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he sent the Church a letter with a space
for signatures of approval but it has not been returned. He sent a letter noting the Board's
approval of the other five conditions to the State Highway Commission. When the Church
approves the final change, it will be handled as a plan change.
Mr. Roudabush said he had been notified that a pond located close to the side of~Route 20
North near Route 649 overflows and is washing out the .side of the road. Mr. Roosevelt will
check this situation.
Agenda Item No. 9. At 12:45 P.M., Mr. Henley offered motion for the Board to adjourn
into executive session to discuss personnel matters and property acquisition. Mr. Roudabush
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:44 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 10. Application for Central Well Permit - Oakhill Water Company.
(Deferred from May 9, 197.9.)
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated June 8, 1979, from Mr. J."Ashley
Williams, Assistant County Engineer:
"Since the Board meeting on May 9th, I have received additional information
about the referenced water system. At this time I ha~e, in hand, "as built"
plans for the existing system., pump test analysis of the 48 hour drawdown
for the wells in the system and all pertinent information about the system.
I do not have the final approval of the plan by the Health Department because
they are still reviewing it. I do feel from a technical standpoint, that
the system is an adequate well system to serve both Southwood Mobile Homes
and Oakhill."
Mr. Fisher asked if action could be taken today on the central well request. Mr. Agnor
said approval of the central, well permit would have to be contingent upon approval by the
State Health Department. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was a provision of law authorizing
the County to require a simultaneous test of a well on this property against a well on
adjacent property. Mr. St. John did not know of any. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there was
a way to determine the impact of these wells on neighboring properties. Mr. St. John said
no. The only way to control such would be through the Critical Groundwater Act.
Mr. St. John said the Board has the power to prevent a central well system from being
established or expanded within the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service
Authority. However, they would be required to provide water of the same capacity within a
reasonable timeframe. Mr. Dorrier asked if this system is compatible with the Service
Authority system. Mr. E. E. Thompson said yes. Extension of service would cost about
$20,000, but the Service Authority would provide a better source of water and more gallons
per minute as well as fire protection. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Service Authority had
considered how they would, gain control of the system and if the Service Authority is prepared
to purchase this system. Mr. Thompson said no formal action has been taken by the Service
Authority Board on those questions. Mr. Thompson said the service could be provided either
by extending the lines or the Service Authority could operate the well system. He noted
that the Service Authority does not desire to operate any well system.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, noted that jurisdictional area #7 was created in
1973 so the Service Authority could purchase customers in the County who were being served
by the City at that time. The central well system is within the present Jurisdictional area
of the Service Authority and is shown in the proposed reduced area of the Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. Fisher felt the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan should be met and did not
feel water systems relying on well water should be approved in any Jurisdictional area. Mr.
Dottier agreed and felt this area should be served by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Mr. John Little, attorney representing some concerned citizens in the Route 20 South
area, was present. He stated the concern of the property owners were the possible adverse
sffects of this system on their own private water supplies. He also noted the history of
water shortage in this area. Therefore, Mr. Little felt it was more feasible for this area
to be Served with public water.
Mr. David Kudravetz, attorney for the Oakhill Water Company, Incorporated, was present.
He said the report of the County Engineer's office should be suff~a
private well system. Mr. Kudravetz said there are 60 customers in the 0akhill Subdivision
and B2B mobile home customers in Southwood Mobile Homes. Since mobile homes are not considered
full units when determining water capacity, there are only 300 actual connections at this
time. The County Engineer has stated that the supply from this well system is adequate to
serve 456 units. Mr. Kudravetz pointed out that the system has been in existence for ten
years and his client has invested a great deal of money in the system. He noted that the
Service Authority has never approached his client about purchasing the system. He felt they
have complied with all the statutory requirements of Virginia Code Section 15.1-333. He
noted State Health Department approval is contingent upon platting of the well lot and the
plat has not been signed by the County. In conclusion, Mr. Kudravetz said the State Health
Department has approved the system with no concern about the supply of water.
Mr. Little said the County Engineer's study did not examine the adverse effect of this
system on adjacent landowners and he felt findings by a geologist are needed.
Dr. Charles Beegle, an adjacent property owner, was present and emphasized the impact
this system has had on adjacent properties over years, particularly with ponds.
Mr. Kudravetz said the wells for this system are located in the center of 2,000 acres
of land. Even though he understands there has been a certain drop in the ponds, no proof
has been submitted that such is a result of the Oakhill Water System.
~ Mr. Charles Yost, adjacent property owner, was also present in opposition.
Mr. Roudabush felt two things needed to be considered: l) The availability of public
water. 2) Whether the County should require the Albemarle County Service Authority to
build k water system around the area. Before he could make any decision, he felt information
was needed from the Service Authority as to whether or not they could reasonably provide
service to the area and if they had facilities accessible to serve same. Mr. Roudabush felt
a report was needed from the Service Authority to indicate how service could be implemented
to the area and whether or not the costs were reasonable and justifiah~e to provide the
service. He then offered motion to defer action on this matter until July ll in order that
the Albemarle County Service Authority could prepare a report outlining their plan for
implementing service to the area in question. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Dr.
Iachetta felt the question is the relationship of this system with the Service Authority and
what will happen in the future. Mr. Bailey felt another fact germane to the discussion was
the private sewage system serving Southwood and did not feel it was practical to separate
water and sewer services. Motion was then called on 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. 11. Outreach Counseling Service.
Mr. Agnor presented the following letter received from Mr. Tom DeMaio, Director for
Outreach Counseling Services, Incorporated:
"May 22, 1979
The Virginia Department of Corrections has expressed an intent to fund
Outreach Counseling Services, Inc. as a delinquency prevention and treatment
agency in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. For these ongoing State
funds to become available, the Department of Corrections will require that
the county participate in the project, both in terms of support and local
matching money.
Outreach Counseling Services has been working with youths and families
in the Charlottesville area for more than three years now with Title XX
~ support from both Departments of Social Services. Families are provided a
package of services on an outreach basis, including family counseling in the
home, individual counseling of the youth at school, and group counseling and
recreation each week. In addition~ Outreach staff have regularly coordinated
with and provided consultation to school and social service personnel. During
the coming year, under the anticipated funding arrangements, the agency would be
able to serve fifty families simultaneously with a professional staff. Such
a program addresses the local need for services to status offenders and delinquent
youths. Virginia law now prohibits status offenders from being committed
to the state and mandates local services. Without Outreach, many of these
youngsters would be placed in foster care or more expensive residential treatment.
In addition to the services provided directly to families, Outreach staff
would provide direct consultation to school and social service personnel.
School teachers and administrators, especially, have expressed the desire for
support in working with the more difficult, behavior problem adolescent. Crisis
intervention would also be available for families as determined by the sheriff's
office or juvenile court.
Funding .through the Department .of Corrections covers all operating expenses
and two-thirds of salaries. The match required of the localities is, therefore,
one-third of the salary portion of the budget. The projected budget for the July
'1978-79 fiscal year is $162,000 of which $127,916 is personnel cost. If the
City and County were to divide the match equally, the cost to each would be
$21,319. The Full amount would need to be guaranteed for the State to commit
its share.
This money can be guaranteed directly from the County budget or through its
~ahool or social service budgets. It may also be possible that services provided
.... '*~ ~111~ h~ nurchased
35O
.. __ June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
With funding through the Department of Corrections, there may be a requirement
that Outreach affiliate itself with Community Attention. In this case, Outreach
-might function under their Board as City employees. Such a situation, however,
may prove difficult.with matching funds also needed from the County. The Board
of Directors of Outreach would prefer to remain private; it would save the
localities administrative expenses, assure responsiveness to both localities
equally, and leave the oversight of the program with those who have developed
it. These issues are certainly open to discussion.
The D~par~,m~.mf Corrections has suggested a potential start-up date for
July 1, 1979."
Mr. Agnor said the request from Outreach Counseling Services ~ncorpora.ted is: 1)
Approve the continuation of such a service in the community funded by local money, and 2)
Guarantee that $21,319, if needed, would be available during Fiscal Year 1980 as local money
for this Department of Corrections grant program. He noted that Judge Zehler, Juvenile
Judge, supports this and feels it is very valuable to the judicial Juvenile system.
Mr. Tom DeMaio was present and said Outreach was developed to provide services to
youths and families that will not use services available in the County. He noted funding of
this program will save the County money particularly by preventing Juvenile delinquency.
Mr. DeMaio said Outreach Counseling Services is a nonprofit private organization. He prepares
a report to the Board of Directors, which are self-selecting, and they determine whether the
budget is being met or not. Mr. DeMalo said either the City or the County will have to be
the fiscal agent. The State has not yet determined whether they can remain a private organizat
Mr. DeMalo said if the organization remains private, the Board of Directors would like for a
Board of Supervisor member to be appointed to the Board of Directors.
Ms. Karen Morris, Director of County Social Services, was present in supPort of the
request.
Mr. Dorrier supported the organization and felt this would be beneficial to the criminal
justice system.
Mr. Agnor felt this program would help youths before having to go to Juvenile Court.
He noted Title XX funds would not be available for the-juvenile if they ~ere ineligible for
welfare unless some funding was available by local government. He recommended approval of
the"~equest in the amount of $21,319 for Fiscal Year 1980 but the appropriation be made
after the report for Fiscal Year 1978-79 has been made by the Director of Finance. Mr.
Fisher said although, he supports the request, he is uncertain about the operation of the
program and felt an audit should be required. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve
the request as recommended by the County Executive with the understanding that if the funds
are appropriated, a yearly audit will be requested and a Board member will be appointed to
the Board of Directors. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Housing Opportunity Plan.
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Jane Saunier from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission was present.
She said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Housing Opportunity Plan encourages
the distribution of housing assistance funds in order to facilitate the improvement of
housing opportunities for a greater geographical choice. The Plan estimates there are
approximately 11,000 lower income households in the region who are in need of housing assistanc
Factors including need, population and population growth, employment, fiscal capacity, and
present amount of assisted housing for each jurisdiction have been used to generate an
allocation percentage for assisted housing in each jurisdiction. These percentages would be
used to allocate annually rental assistance subsidy funds and/or public housing funds among
the localities of the region from an amount annually awarded to regions with approved Housing
Opportunity Plans by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Percentage goals by
household type and housing type (new, rehabilitated or existing) have been set for each
jurisdiction for a three-year period. Goals include estimates of housing assistance funds
from all potentially available sources including HUD, ~armer's Home Administration,. the
Virginia Housing Development Corporation and local, private, o~ pubIic sources. The' lack of
orga~nizations, such as public housing authorities, private development 'corporations, or
housing coordinating agencies, to deliver assisted housing; and the constraint of limited
public water and sewer facilities in rural areas are identified as the major barriers to
assisted housing in the rural portions of the region. The Planning District Commission
proposes to coordinate and prepare information and training sessions and workshops on housing
programs, management, and counseling with local agencies providing housing assistance and
private developers, sponsors and landlords. They also plan to provide a regional directory
of assisted housing in order to expand knowledge of assisted housing opportunities throughout
the area and encourage geographic choice.
The benefits of the plan are: guaranteed contract authority for rent subsidies to
either private or public sectors; local ability in advance to' de~lgnate~ wha't 't~pe of ho'using
assistance is preferred in each locality, rather than let't!ng H~Di ~ake det'erminat~ons;
continued opportunity to generate Community Development Program applications with 50 bonus
points given for participation in a Housing Opportunity Plan; and supplemental rent subsidy,
community development program and 701 planning funds available to approved Housing Opportunity
Plan regions for activities consistent with the Plan. In conclusion, Mrs. Saunier, said
letters of agreement from the Jurisdictions participating in t~e plan are 'to be fo~Wa~d~d~to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development for approval. She said if the plan is
approved by HUD, once a year when the Richmond office knows the amount of assistance funds,
a session will be held with the allocation for each region being divided among the localities
according to the distribution formula that is in the clan. A~~ ~ .... *~-' ............
Lon.
25t
Mr. Fisher asked if this Plan will give the County more money. Mrs. Saunier was unsure
but noted it is a guarantee of some money. Certain funds are there and allocating them ~to
the region will mean that the County will not be in competition with others in the' State.
Mrs. Rosa Hudson and Mr. Jason Eckford of the Housing Committee were present and supported
the plan. Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator, was 'also present in support and felt there
would be more dollars in the future.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan
and to authorize the County Executive to execute the requested letter of intent supporting
the goals of the Plan. 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. 13. Appeal: Squirrel Ridge Preliminary Plat. (Showing Parcels 11
a~d 24, Tax Map 45, located on State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), Albemarle County, Virginia;
said plat being drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc., dated April 12, 1979.)
Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion on this matter because his firm prepared the
plat.
Mr. Fisher then noted the following letter dated June 6, 1979, received from Mr. Lindstro~
"I would like this Plat called before the Board for review. My concern
is with the siting of both houses and drainfields on this very rugged property
in such close proximity to the reservoir.
I would suggest the addition of the following two conditions:
No grading or clearing shall occur within any area of the site
until the final site plan and/or subdivision plat has been
approved.
Virginia Department of Health approval of~two septic field
locations on each lot. in such approval, the Health Department
shall consider the County's desire to discourage the location
of septic tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of 25% or greater.
Any lot not having adequate septic system sites outside of the
setback and 25% slope area shall be combined with a buildable lot
and/or added to the common open space."
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Location: Described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 11 and 24. On State Route 745
just north of the intersection with Route 631.
Acreage: 28.52 acres.
Zoning: R-3 Residential.
Proposal: For 22 lots with an average lot area of 1.3 acres to be served
by public water and private roads.
Topography of Area: Building sites do not appear to be affected by the steeper slopes.
Condition Of Roads Servin~ Proposal: The 1978 traffic count on Route 743 is
4,738 vehicle trips per day. This section is currently listed as non-tolerable.
and is within the limits of the planned Hydraulic Road improvement project.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Urban area - low density residential with
a recommended density of one to four dwelling units/acre.
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 12.5 students with slight impact.
Type of Utilities: Public water is proposed and individual septic systems.
Staff Comments: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
recommended that the entrance location be moved to the vicinity of lots 17
and 18 to avoid any disturbance with the Hydraulic Road project. The
applicant has expressed willingness to do this at the ~final plat stage
if sight distance can be obtained at the new location."
Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on May 29, 1979, approved the plat
subject to the following conditions~
l)
3)
5)
6)
Relocation of the entrance to the general area of lots 17 and 18
(if sight distance can be obtained); subject to approval of Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
Compliance with private road ordinance, including:
a) County Engineer approval of road plans and drainage easements;
b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
Compliance with Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinance;
Fire Official approval of location of hydrants;
Written Health Department approval of two drainfields on each lot,
and a report by a qualified soil scientist'."
Mr. Lindstrom said since this is the first subdivision on the reservoir with slopes
this excessive that attention should be given to certain aspects of the development. He
noted the slopes on the northern and eastern end of the property, are difficult. The northeast
end has a very steep embankment which goes to the finger of the reservoir. Therefore, Mr.
Lindstrom suggested the two conditions set out in his letter be included.
Mr. Tucker asked, if. the third sentence of Mr. Lindstrom's recommended condition #2
...... ~ r~~ ~ v~ and he did not feel the phrase
~r
252
June 13 1 79 (Re ular Da Meetin
The applicant, Mr. James Gercke, was present. He realized the property was in a very
sensitive area and shared the concerns. The plat was submitted as a preliminary to get the
Board's feelings. He noted sewer is not available to this site except by lift stations and
construction of force mains about 800 to 900 feet up the road. He said the Service Authority
was'not very enthusiastic about the lift stations. He did not feel the site was rugged and
noted that the slopes are 10% or less. The interest in the development of this property
will be to preserve its attractiveness. Mr. Gercke said all of the lots open onto the
interior road system. He also noted that there will not be anymore clearing until the final
plan is approved and the property will not be developed until final approval. Mr. Gercke
felt it. was unjust to be requested to waive legal rights in order to get approval of a
subdivision which complies with.'the Subdivision Ordinance. The Planning Commission requested
a soil study and Mr. Jack Collins of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department has
stated such would be required as well as a layout of the property. He noted that the Health
Department will not issue septic permits without a house being on the lot. En conclusdon,
Mr. Gercke said he did not object to the second proposed condition.
Mr. Lindstrom said when the soil is tested some lots may not be suitable for building.
Therefore, he felt his recommended condition #2 is needed as a guarantee to the County. Mr.
Gercke understood his concern and noted the only thing not shown on the plan was two retaining
ponds to be built in conjunction with the road building.
A representative from the League of Women Voters was present and read the following
letter:
"The League of Women Voters is appearing to askfor answers to question
about the environmental impact of a residential subdivision on such steep
slopes at the very edge of the Rivanna Reservoir.
First of all, what tools does the County have to protect the Reservoir? Will ~
the run-off Control Ordinance govern land distuDbing activities during
construction of these single family house~? Have the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority and the City of Charlottesville been asked for any input?
The r~cent heavy rains have caused large slides from grass road banks
opposite this property and caused a deep ditch to form at the edge of
~t~e~p~ement. Ail of this occurred while this property was still forested.
The run-off will be much greater when trees have been removed to make
room for roads, driveways, septic fields, houses and lawns. Since it has
been determined that natural forest is the best protection against erosion, is
it possible for you to require that vegetation be left intact on slopes
over 20%?
It is obvious t~at effective septic systems are more difficult to install
and maintain on slopes. Should any of these septic systems fail, the
effluent will soon find its way into the Reservoir. If that happens, the
question before you will be who will have to bear the cost of tapping into
the public sewer at the Four Seasons collector?
The County Engineer has stated that the Rivanwood Subdivision is the first
development of major size to be built on the Rivanna Reservoir and that
at present there has been no County monitoring of the soll erosion or run-off
there. We respectfully request the Supervisors to ~sk the Engineer's office
to monitor both the compliance with, and effectiveness of, soil erosion and
run-off control efforts in these ecologically fragile areas on the Reservoir.
The issues concerning steep slopes are important anywhere, but are very critical
near the water supply. Now that development on the banks of the Reservoir
has star~e~ there will be more requests for approval of subdivisions. Without
a safe and ample water supply all of us, developers and consumers alike, will
suffer."
Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Gercke if the additional conditions were agreeable to him. Mr.
Gercke said yes and he did not intend to begin any work on the property until the final plat
is approved.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wanted to be assured that the Planning Commission will review the
final plat before any type work begins on the property. He then offered motion to approve
Squirrel Ridge Preliminary Plat with the following conditions:
Relocation of the entrance to'the general area of Lots 17 and 18
(if sight distance can be obtained); subject to approval of Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation;
Compliance with private road ordinance, including:
a) County Engineer approval of road plans and drainage easements;
b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by County Attorney.
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans;
Compliance with Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances;
Fire Official approval of location of hydrants;
Written Health Department approval of two drainfields on each lot,
and a report by a qualified soil scientist. In such approval, the
Health Department shall consider the County's desire to discourage
the location of septic tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of 25% or
greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system sites outside
of the septic setback and 25% slope area shall be combined with a
buildable lot.
No grading or clearing shall occur within any area of the site until
the final site plan and/or subdivision plat has been approved.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
~ote:
Mr. Roudabush then returned to the meeting.
Agenda Item No. 14. Request from JAUNT: Sponsorship of Funding Request.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following request from Jefferson Area ~United Transportation
(JAUNT) Board of Directors dated May 21, 1979:
"The JAUNT Board of Directors requests that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors execute and file applications to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation on behalf of JAUNT for state and federal aid
to offset the operating, capital, and administrative expenses of JAUNT
operations. This requested 'sponsorship' of JAUNT's applications includes
receipts of funds from approved applications and disbursement to JAUNT
according to state and local guidelines.
If the Board of Supervisors approves this request, Lloyd Lee Wilson, JAUNT's
Executive Director, will be responsible for preparation of requests for aid,
and will forward aid requests and all necessary supporting documentation to
the designated member of your staff for submission to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation."
Mr. Agnor had discussed this with Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance and Mr. Jones has
agreed to serve as the fiscal agent. Therefore, he recommended approval of the request.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the request for the County to serve as fiscal
agent for sponsorship of funding requests for JAUNT. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush
None. ·
Agenda Item No. 15. Request from Electoral Board.
Mr. Dorrier noted request from Mr. Landon Birekhead, Chairman of the Albemarle County
Electoral Board, that this Board rescind their action of March 21, 1979 for changing the
Scottsville Precinct polling place. Mr. Dorrier said when this action was taken, it was
assumed that the Scottsville Town Council would agree. Since that time, it has been discovere~
that there are no real problems with the present polling place and the Town Council will not
approve the change. Zn discussing this with several members of the Electoral Board, it has
been agreed upon that the present polling place should be retained. Mr. Dorrier then offered
motion that the Board rescind their action of March 21, 1979 to request a change of the
Scottsville Precinct polling place. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:-
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Deed: Crozet Volunteer Fire Department.
Mr. St. John presented the following letter dated June 7, 1979 for the Board's considerat
"At the Board's meeting on May 16, 1979, the Board asked this office
to look into the matter of property owned by Albemarle County and used by
the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department.
By deed dated August 18, 1937, Albemarle County acquired from Fruit
Growers Co-operative, Inc. the fee simple interest in that property shown
on a plat made by Hugh F. Simms, dated May, 1937, and recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 237,
page 9. The property was conveyed without restrictions as to use. The deed
does not recite the consideration received for the sale of the land. Mr.
Simms' plat contains a notation that the property was conveyed to the Crozet
Fire District. However, the record owner is the County of Albemarle.
I talked to Ray Jones and Robert Black about the history of the property.
No one knew the source or amount of funds used to purchase the property. It
appears that around 1937 the Civilian Conservation Corps put up the money to build
a firehouse on the property. Around this time', the County created the Crozet
Fire District. The District had the same geographic boundaries as the
Crozet Sanitary District. Thereafter, the County added an additional five or
ten cents to the annual tax levy on all property within the Crozet Fire District.
The County then gave those funds to the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. Both
the Crozet Fire District and the Crozet Sanitary District were dissolved in
the early !960's.
Enclosed is a proposed deed of conveyance of the Crozet property for the
Board's consideration. It will be necessary for the Circuit Court to approve
the conveyance because the land and building have been appraised by the County
Real Estate Department at approximately $25,000. See Va. Code Section 15.1-262.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED)
James M. Bowling, IV"
Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve the deed with same being executed by the
Chairman and the County Attorney to seek the Circuit Court Judge's approval. Mr Lindstrom
seconded the motion. Mr. Roudabush then noted that the description shows the easement of
........ ~ .... ~ ~ *~ ~ which is the Main Street in Crozet. Mr. Dave
County Attorney redraft the wording of the phrase in question. Mr. Henley withdrew his
motion. Mr. St. John offered the following to be added as the third paragraph of the deed:
"There is hereby reserved for the benefit of the Grantor and the public, an easement 25 feet
in width adjacent to the centerline of White Hall Road and extending along the entire frontage
of this property along White Hall Road, for purposes of public travel along the present road
and for future widening of said road." Mr. Henley again offered motion to approve the
following deed to the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, ~ncorporated, with Same being executed
by the Chairman after the County Attorney has received the Circuit Court Judge's approval
and ratification. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
THIS DEED OF GIFT, made this 13th day of June, 1979, by and between
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, Grantor, and the
Crozet Volunteer Fire DePartment, Inc., Grantee,
W~I T N E S S E T H: __~
The Grantor does hereby GIVE, GRANT, and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY
OF TITLE unto the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., all that certain
tract or parcel of land, with improvements thereon, in Crozet, Albemarle
County, Virginia, described as follows:
Beginning in the center of White Hall Road a corner to
J. T. O'Neill estate 15 foot alley, thence along~$outh
margin of said alley S 65 1/2 E 75 feet to an iron, thence
new lines with Fruit Growers Co-operative Corporation,
S 35 3/4 W 32 feet to an iron, N 65 1/2 W 75 feet to
center White Hall Road opposite an iron, thence along center
of road N 35 3/4 E 32 feet to the beginning, according to a
plat made by Hugh F. Simms, S.A.C., dated May 1937 and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 237, page 9; being
in all respects the same property conveyed to the Grantor by
deed of Fruit Growers Co-operative, Inc., dated August 18, 1937,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office in Deed Book 237, page 8.
Reference is made to said deed and plat for a more particular description
of the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is subject to all easements,
covenants, and restrictions of record.
There is hereby reserved for the benefit of the Grantor and the public,
an easement 25 feet in width adjacent to the centerline of White Hall Road
and extending along the entire frontage of this proPerty along White Hall
Road, for purposes of public, travel along the present road and for future
widening of said road.
Pursuant to Va. Code Section 15.1-262 this conveyance has been
approved and ratified by Judge of the Circuit Court of Abemarle County by
order dated (June 27~) 1979.
Pursuant to resolution of the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 1979, the
Board of Supervisors has causes its name to be signed by its chairman and its
seal to be affixed hereto by its clerk."
Agenda Item No. 17. Special Appropriations. and Transfers.
Mr. Agnor said a recent analysis of departmental expenditures indicates that $39,683 is
needed for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 to fund salaries in the General
Operations category. This excess is the result of the merit system increase'plus the adoption
of the revised pay plan ~last May. Of the above amount, $35,000 can be transferred from line
item 1F-199, Salary Adjustments, leaving a deficit of $4,683. Dr. Iachetta then offered
motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $4,683.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund
to Code 1F-199 Personnel and $39,683 then be transferred from Code 1F-199,
Personnel, to the the following codes:
1G-102 Purchasing $ 700.00 Director
1G-109 Purchasing 1,487.00 Assistants
1K-102 Housing 265.00 Director
6A-102 Sheriff 335.00 Sheriff
6A-105 Sheriff 3,300.00 Deputies
6A-106 Sheriff 9,075.00 Dispatchers
6A-109 Sheriff 718.00 Secretaries
10B-102 Code Enforcement 1,397.00 Director
10B-109 C6de Enforcement 7,995.00 Assistants
10E-102 Planning 1,116.00 Director
10E-109 Planning 3,380.00 Assistants
10L-109 Parks & Recreation 1,429.00 Director
10L-123 Parks & Recreation 6,082.00 Laborers
14-119 Maintenance 2,404.00 C~stodians
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley. Iachetta- T.~u~~ o~ ~'~"-~
355
Mr. Agnor requested that $12,000.00 be transferred from Code 10J.3 Roll-off Station
(Cismont) because this station has not become a reality, to the landfills because both codes
will be overexpended before the. end of the year. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $12,000.00 be, and the same hereby is transferred from
Code 10J.3 Roll-Off Station (Cismont) to Code 10J.1 Ivy Landfill--S5,000.00
and to Code 10J.2 Keene Landfill--S7,000.00.
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. 19. Claims Against the Dog Fund.
Claims were received from Mr. Roy L. Bailey for one ewe and eight lambs killed and from
Mr. John T. Walker for one ewe killed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to allow
$300.00 to Mr. Bailey and $75.00. to Mr. Walker for these claims. Dr. Iachetta seconded the
motion and same carried.by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. At 4:00 P.M., Mr. Henley said he had another commitment and had to leave
the meeting. However, he did want to inform the Board that the Crozet Volunteer Fire Departme~
does not have any objection to the financial assistance request for the Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Company which will be discussed later.
Agenda Item No. 18. Cancel July 46h Meeting. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to cancel the
Board meeting of July 4, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request for Street Light: Crozet.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a request from eight downtown Crozet businesses for a street
light to be placed on an existing pole located on Route 240 (Railroad Avenue). Mr. J.
Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, reviewed the request and notes the criteria of the Street
Lighting Policy has been met. Mr. Agnor recommended the approval of the street light.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by.Mr. Roudabush, to approve the request
as recommended by the County Executive. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20f. Appointments: JAUNT Board. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to
appoint Mr. Gerald E. Fisher to the JAUNT Board of Directors. Mr. Roudabush seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush .....
None.
Mr. Henley.
Ail other appointments listed on the agenda were deferred.
Agenda Item No. 21. Revision: Pay Classification Plan.
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated June 8, 1979:
"To achieve the highest possible level of standardization in our Pay
and Classification Plan, continual review is required. Changes within the
organization, as well as other factors, bring about the need for overall
review and in some cases re-evaluation. We have Just completed our first
annual review and recommend the following changes:
(2)
Amend Plan to establish a new class title - Deputy Zoning Administrator,
Salary Range 18, Code 146. The position of Zoning Administrator will
now be included with Director of Inspections with no change in salary range.
Amend Plan to establish a new class title - Planning Aide, Salary Range
08, Code 115. Change Planning Technician Code to 116. Bob Tucker currently
has two positions under the Planning Technician Title (Salary range 10).
He has found through experience with the two positions a need to separate
certain tasks and responsibilities. The job with the lesser responsibility
should carry a lower salary range. My staff agrees with Mr. Tucker's
recommendation.
a~ Plan to change salary range - Director of Parks and Recreation, Salary
from 22 to 29. It should be pointed out that the preliminary draft of our
Plan recommended a range above 18. However, we felt at that time that it
should be lower, due mainly to the difference in experience when compared
with other department heads and the functions of the department. The
Parks Department has expanded and the Director has exemplified a thorough
knowledge of his field. We now feel this position should be brought in llne
with other department heads.
(4) Amend Plan to change salary range - Eligibility Worker, Salary Range 10.
Our Director of Social Services feels the salary range of eligibility workers,
in view of work load, should be more in line with that of social workers.
In addition, the pay scale of the City of Charlottesville for eligibility
workers is higher than the County scale. Since both must hire from the
State Merit System, the City naturally gets the applicant when there are
vacancies in the two offices at the same time - which does happen.
The change in salary range would bring the County to within $100 of
the City's starting salary in this category.
The above changes are recommended for approval after careful review and ~
consultation with department heads."
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, to approve the above
amendments to the Pay and Classification Plan, effective July 1, 1979. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 22. Request from Parks Department.
On June 14, 1978, the Board approved a request from the Parks Department to offer
reduced rates for special groups on a trial period during the 1978 season. A report on this
was to be made to the Board. Mr. Agnor said during the 1978 swimming season, five groups
totalling one hundred and eleven persons, used the reduced rate entry. Mr. Earl Sudduth,
Director of Parks and Recreation, has experienced no problems with this policy and requests
it be approved as a permanent policy. Motion was then offered by Dr. Zachetta, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush, to approve the reduced entry rate for special groups at the County parks as a
permanent policy. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No..23. Statement of Expenses'for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, and
Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of MaY 1979 were presented. Salary statements for the
Director of Finance and the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of May 1979 were presented.
Salary statements for the Sheriff for the months of February, March and May 1979 were presente~
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the statements as
presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Zachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None..
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24. Statement of Expenses for the Regional gall for the month of May
1979 was presented. Salary statements for the months of February, March and May 1979 were
presented. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the
statements as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 25. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of
the Regional Jail for the month of May, 1979, along with summary statement of prisoner days,
statement of jail physician and statement of salaries.of the paramedics and the classification
officer, were received. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the statements as presented.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 26.
received as information.
Report of the County Executive for the month of May, 1979, was
Claims against the County., which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of April, 1979, were
also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account $=~51'952'16~,.o ~
General Fund
357
~?~¢' aune 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund ~
McIntire Trust Fund
Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Esorow Fund
Debt Service Fund
Total
:67~64
l~a~O~8.oo
400.00
5,020.18
138,096.55
5,694.00
177~514 30
$V,6'4'5,5 115o
Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by
the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of May, 1979, were
also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria~Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
T~xtbook Rental Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
General Operating Capital Outlay Fund
Region X Mental Health Fund
Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund
Total
$ 75,074.23
411,659.50
1,231,705.90
95,094.37
10,712.56
~335.04
55,896.29
186.63
85,802.11
450.00
134,423.33
14~.952.00
$2,116,291.96
Agenda Item No. 27. Report of Social Services for the month of April, 1979, was
received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 28. Request for Financial Assistance: Seminole.Trail.
Mr. Agnor said request from the Chairman of the Seminole Trail ¥olunteer Fire Department
Finance Committee for financial assistance was received May 28, 1979. Mr. Agnor then presented
his memorandum~dated June 8, 1979:
"The Fire Company has sought financing with local banks and the Farmers
Home Administration. In general, banks will.finance up to 70% of the project,
and the Farmers Home Administration does not have funds available at this tima.
Ail permits and approvals were completed in December 1978, the project
has been ready for construction for a number of months, the 1979 construction
season is passing by, inflation is increasing the project cost with each week's
delay, and the building currently available for storage of their engine is
subject to being sold.
The~project is estimated to cost up to $250,000. The company needs $100,000
to get the project under way. The financial and legal staff have examined the
alternatives available to the County to respond to the need. It is recommended
that an agreement be drawn between the County and the company ~for fire protection
services in consideration for $100,000 which will be available as a drawing account
during construction and will be in lieu of the annual appropriation to the
company over a five-year period. Since the company is in need of the $20,000
appropriation for FY 1979-80, and since the building will not be-available fom
use until late 1979 or early 1980 it is proposed the $100,~000 reco~very period
begin in July 1980.
Attached is a draft of a proposed agreement to accomplish this. It is written
in as simple terms as possible. In effect, it provides the Seminole Trail
Fire Company building construction money in 1979-80 when they have a critical
need for it, rather than waiting five years to receive it in $20,000 increments.,
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT made this day of , 1979, by and 'between
Sth~o~ou~t~ZbF Albemarle, Virginia, (the "County") and the Seminole Trail
Volunteer Fire Department, !nc., ("Seminole"),
W I T N E SS E T H:
Factual Background: (a) There is a need for increased fire protection
services in the vicinity of Rou~e 29 North and surrounding area of Albemarle
County.
(b) Citizens of Albemarle County have organized a Volunteer Fire Company
under Virginia Code Sections 27-8, 27-8.1, and 27-9, designated the Seminole
Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., which currently is providing fire
protection services in Albemarle County, particularly the Route 29 North area and
its adjacent territory.
(c) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~wants to insure that
essential fire protection services continue to be provided to citizens living in the
vicinity of Route 29 North and surrounding area of the County.
NOW,_~_ ~_~THEREFORE'~~+~f°r and in consideration of the premises and the mutual ~~ nn~tained, the County and Seminole agree as
June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
(1) Services Provided. Seminole agrees, beginning July~l, 1980, and
continuing thereafter for a period of five years, through June_30, 1985, to
construct a firehouse and operate a fire department equipped with apparatus for
fighting fires and protecting property and human life from loss or damage by fire.
Seminole shall provide fire fighting services for the County, particularly the
Route 29 North area and adjacent territory. But Seminole shall be available to
provide services to any area of Albemarle County, as the need may arise.
(2) P. ayment for Services Provided. In consideration of the services to
be provided by Seminole pursuant to this agreement for the fiscal years 1980-81
through 1984-85, the County shall pay to Seminole the sum of $100,000. Such
payment shall be in lieu of future annual payments to Seminole of $20,000 for
the fiscal years 1980-81 through 1984-85. Payment of the $100,000 shall be made
as needed by Seminole from a draw down account held by the Director of Finance of
the County.
(3) Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional
appropriations by the County to Seminole, at the discretion of the Board of
Supervisors of the County, to augment the services to be provided by Seminole."
Mr. Roudabush felt prior discussions of this matter indicated that Seminole Fire Company
would accept $20,000 per year as the limit they would receive each year for five years. The
last paragraph of the agreement seems to indicate that if any other fire company receives
more, Seminole also will. Mr. Fisher also felt the paragraph could be misinterpreted by
Seminole Trail and other fire ~companies to mean that there may be additional funds. Mr.
Roudabush did not feel the paragraph was needed and suggested it be deleted. The Board
concurred.
Dr. Iachetta noted that Seminole has had opportunities to get new apparatus during the
year and with their present housing situation the way it is, they have no place to put it.
Since this type of action is new, Dr. Iachetta suggested assistance of this type be limited
to fifty percent of the project which involves buildings and real estate for the fire company
and not involve equipment. He then offered motion to approve the above agreement deleting
paragraph (3) and adding the words "effective this date" in the last sentence of paragraph
(2) between the words "Seminole" and "from" with the Chairman authorized to execute same.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher noted that the agreement is not limited to
buildings and improvements to real property. Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion to also
include "which shall be limited to construction of a firehouse and improvements to real
property" at the end of the first sentence of paragraph (2). Mr. Llndstrom accepted the
amendment and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier,~ Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 29. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Clyde Gouldman was present on behalf of the Charlottesville Tennis Patrons. He
requested the County join with the. City and the Tennis Patrons tm help fund the mobile
tennis program which is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization. The program has been operating
for three years in the community and has served about five hundred children each year. The
program is offered in about twelve locations; six in the City and six in the County. Mr.
Gouldman said the program is designed to help children_ that _are di_sadvantaged, particularly
those with transportation problems. He noted that Pepsi Cola donates the in-kind equipment
for this program. He explained that a request for funding had been made to the City and the
County in February. However, he was informed that the request was made too late to meet the
budget requests. Therefore, Mr. Gouldman requested the County approve $1,600 for this
program.
Mr. Agnor said upon receipt of the request in February, he had submitted it to Mr.
Sudduth of the Parks Department for his response. Mr. Sudduth supported the program but did
~not have enough funds in his budget to cover the request. Therefore, Mr. Agnor had suggested
that the request be included in the next budget year. The Board agreed that the program was
needed and motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the
request in an amount of $1,000 for the Mobile Tennis Program with the appropriation of the
funds to be made after July 1, 1979. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1979 from Mr. Jack Williams, Coordinato
for the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee thanking the Board for the Jack Jouett Commerorative
Stamp Resolution adopted by the Board on May 9, 1979.
Mr. Fisher said request has been received from the Virginia Association of Counties
concerning proposed amendments to the Constitution and the By-Laws of the Virginia Association
of Counties. He requested that this be placed on the June 20, 1979 agenda for action.
June 13, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then requested action from the Board to appoint him as the County's representa~
on the NACo Credentials Committee for the NACo Annual Conference to be held in July. Dr.
Iachetta then offered motion to this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Dr. Iachetta requested that the School Board respond to recent discussions about the
employment of minorities within the School System. He understood that an HEW study had been
made of the employment practices and he felt such study should be made public. Mr. Fisher
then requested a letter be prepared for his signature to the Chairman of the School Board
requesting the results of such study.
Mr. Agnor noted that the Probation Office of the Juvenile Court system has worked out
an agreement with Parks and Recreation for a work program in the County Parks for juveniles
to work off their punishment.
Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney has been requested to work with the City Attorney to
examine the capital funding needs for a temporary expansion of the terminal building at the
Airport. A contractural agreement with Piedmont Airlines and the Airport Board for a payback
period of five years has been worked out but the Airport Board financing same has involved a
lot of legal "kinks." He noted that this will be temporary and will not necessarily match a
revision of the long range capital improvements of the airport itself, but will help some.
Agenda Item No] 30. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.
ire
360
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
June 20, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta and C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:35 P.M.)
Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush.
June 20, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting)
Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,, County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M. by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79,28. Floyd R. Shifflett. To locate a mobile home on 8+ acres
zoned A-1. Property is located on the south side of Route 649 across the road from the
Springfield Subdivision. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29(0)1. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 15, 1979).
Mr. Ron Keeler said this request has not been acted on by the Planning Commission and
recommended that the petition be deferred to July 18, 1979. 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 and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-25. Viola Irene Turner. To locate a mobile home on 4.98 -
acres zoned A-1. Property is located west of .Route 627 in Esmont~approximately 0.5 mile
north of the intersection of Routes 6 and 627. County Tax ~Map 128A-1, Parcel 33. Scottsville
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 15, 1979).
Skipped temporarily because the applicant was not present.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-79-12. Cushman Realty and Building Corporation. To rezone
157.41 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/A-1. Property east of Route 678 and on the north
side abuts West Leigh Subdivision; property is also approximately one mile northeast of the
intersection of Routes 678 and 250 West. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 81V (part thereof) and
81 (part thereof). Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 5 and
June 12, 1979).
Mr. Keeler read the following staff report:
"Character of the Area
The site is bordered to the east and south by the West Leigh Subdivision, to
the southwest by Meriwether Hills, and to the west and north by Lewis Hill.
The topography is gently rolling with the steeper areas near the designated
open space. The site is generally open with some scattered wooded areas.
Existing Zo'ning ~i~n the Area
zoned~RS-'l;--Sectlona l~and 2 .o~
West-Leigh 'is.zoned R-'l; Me'riwether Hills is
LeWiS ~11 and Le'Wi~SH~ll'.~est 'are zaned' A-1 Agriculture.
History
ZMP-282 - request to rezone 214+ acres from A-1 to RS-1 was withdrawn on
December 3, 1973.
ZMP-307 - request to rezone 113+ acres from A-1 to RS-1 was withdrawn on
J~-ly 24, 1974.
Lewis Hill, Section 3 Preliminary Plat - Proposal for nineteen, two plus acre
lots With individ~ual wells and septic systems; approved October 18, 1977, with
conditions.
LewiS. Hill'~' Sec~t~ion 3 Preliminary and Final Plats - Preliminary proposal for
30 lots with an average size of 5.2 acres with 10 five-acre lots shown on the
final plat; lots proposed to have individual wells; approved on July 25, 1978,
with conditions (not including provision of public water).
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
The site is located just north of the Ivy Village and is recommended for
agricultural/conservation area.
Existing A-.%. RPN/A-1
- '74 60
229.4 186
518 420
42.1 32.4
Comparative Impact Statistics
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips/Day
School Children
6o
155.54 acres
99.5 acres
51.5 acres
1.65 acres
0.38 du/acre
or 1 du/2.59 acres
0.5 du/acre
40,000 sq. ft. to
approximately q ~w~
Land Use Data
Number of lots
Total area
Estimated total lot area
Estimated total open space
Average lot area
Proposed gross density
Gross density permitted
Range in lot size