1979-05-09May 9, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) -
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
May 9, 1979, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Oharlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney, and Mrs. June Moon, Administrative Assistant.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher. He announced that the' Youth' in Government participants would be arriving soon.
~ February
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: February 14, 1979, February 16, 1979,
21, 1979 (Afternoon) and April 18, 1979.
Mr. Lindstrom noted the folloWing COrrection For April 18,. 1979: Page 5, Agenda Item
No. 10, the sentence "The Board shall cooperate with the City of Charlottesville · . . "was
stated by Dr. Iachetta. Motion was then offered by Dr.. Iachetta to approve the minutes of
April 18, 1979 with the above correction. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The minutes of February 14, 1979, February 16, 1979 and February 21, 1979 (Afternoon)
were deferred until May 16, 1979.
Agenda Item No. Bb.
State Secondary System.
Highway Matters:
Request to have road. in Ivy Farms taken into the
Mrs. June Moon, Administrative Assistant, presented letter dated August 22, 1978 from
Mr. James M. Hill requesting that Foal Lane in the Ivy Farm Subdivision be taken into the
State Secondary System.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of-Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is here~y.
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final in-
spection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in
Phase One of Ivy Farm Subdivision:
Beginning at Station 0+11 of Foal Lane, a point common to the centerline
of Foal Lane and the northern edge o.f pavement of Ivy Farm Drive Sta2e
Route 1015; thence with Foal Lane in a northeasterly direction 952.16
feet to Station 9+63.16 the end of Foal Lane.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right o[ way
and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 6'36,
Page 108.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Appointment of Road Viewer. Mr. Henley offered motion to appoint
Mr. Bernard C. Ward as a road viewer. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and the same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Discussion: 1979-80 Construction Allocations-Secondary System.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, reviewed the following letter dated May 3, 1979:
"Dear Mr. Fisher':
Reference is made to Mr. Harold C. King's letter of April 27, 1979, addressed
to the Boards of Supervisors of all counties, concerning the 1979-80 construction
allocations for the Secondary System. - - ~
As Mr. King's letter indicated, Albemarle County will receive an allocation of
$1,601,740 for secondary improvements in the 1979-80 Fiscal:YearJ This is
considerably more than we anticipated when the Board adopted the budget priority
list in March of this year. The Board must, therefore, indicate how they Wish
*~ =lln~[~ the additional funds now available.
May 9, 1979 (Re ular Da Meetin ~
for the use of these funds. We must, therefore, revise our existing priority list
to make available $313,842, and then add to this list projects which qualify as
hard surfacing improvements. Attached is my recommendation which accomplishes
this.
I am recommending that the allocation to the Hydraulic Road improvement be re-
duced significantly and that three qualifying hard surface improvements funded
in previous years be added to the budget. As you will remember, I have said on
previous occasions that State Forces are not available to undertake additional
hard surfacing improvements not already financed. In addition, any new im-
provements financed in the 79-80 budget must be included in the approved Six-
Year Plan. I believe sentiment is strong to replace hard surfacing improvements
in the current Six-Year Plan with projects for which right of way is available.
This cannot be accomplished until the Six-Year Plan is revised. It would seem
inadvisable, therefore, to fund new hard surfacing improvements not already
financed which could not be built this year and which could delay construction
on other more desired projects.
As I indicated above, the three hard surfacing improvements recommended for
inclusion in the 79-80 budget have already been fully financed in previous fiscal
years. In order to not over finance or double finance these three projects, funds
previously allocated to these improvements will be transferred to the Hydraulic
Road improvement, thus more than compensating for the reduced allocation in this
year's budget.
Budgets are due in Culpeper on May 21, 1979. I am, therefore, requesting that
the Board consider these recommendations and recommend a priority list at the
Board meeting to be held May 9, 1979. I will, of course, be available to answer
any questions concerning this matter."
RECOMMENDED ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SECONDARY IMPROVEMENT BUDGET
1979-80
Project Allocation
1. Route 676 - Plant Mix ~ 45,300
2. Route 614 - Plant Mix 31,300'
3. Rural Additions 20,000
4. County Wide Items 17,000
5. Route 631 - McIntire Extension 145,100
6. Route 631 - Park Street Bridge 130,000
7. Route 656 - Georgetown Road 40,000
8. Route 631 - Rio Road West of 29 40,000
9. Route 6~Q - Railroad Crossing 45,000
10. Route 665 - Buck Mountain Creek Bridge 83,000
11. Route 601 - Mechum River Bridge 157,500
12. Slurry Seal Schedule 52,000
13. Route 601 - Plant Mix 70,000
14. Route 728 - Spot Improvements 25,000
15. Route 743 - Hydraulic Road 386,698
16. Route 601 from 810 to Greene County Line 125,000
17. Route 708 from 710 to 1.3 mi. north 710 100,000
18. Route 719 from 715 to 716 88~842
TOTAL ~,601,740
Mr. Roosevelt said the three projects he recommended to be added to the budget are 16,
17 and 18. He said that these three items were all financed in previous years and meet the
requirements as stated in Mr. King's letter of April 27, 1979. Mr. Roudabush asked if the
Highway Department had the personnel available to do the work. Mr. Roosevelt said ways are
being explored for having the work done - such as contract work, which means scheduling the
work two to three years before it actually starts. It is hoped that with the use of hired
equipment and more advanced planning, these gravel road improvements can be started. He said
that everything that can be done by hired contractor is being examined and the hand work will
be done with State Forces. Mr. Roosevelt also noted that by going to full contract work, the
cost of each project will almost double. (To be continued)
At this point, Mr. Fisher recognized Sheriff George Bailey. Sheriff' Bailey reported
problems encountered with traffic lights not working on Route 29 North. He said this creates
danger for the officers working traffi,c and it takes four officers to direct traffic. He
asked if it was possible to install hand-controlled devices for these lights since the
Highway Department maintenance crew has to come from Fairfax and it takes them several hours
to get here. Mr. Roosevelt did not feel the hand signals could be used on the lights. Mr.
Fisher requested the Highway Department to report on the feasibility of installing such
manual controls for the lights on Route 29 North.
Mr. Fisher brought the discussion back to the Secondary Roads Improvement Budget. He
stated it is his understanding that the $313,842 for the hard surfacing of roads is an
increase of about $83,500 in the total budget, but is a reduction of about $230',000 in funds
~that are available for general use without restrictions, so there is really no new work that
will be done. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct. The additional money will be available
for Hydraulic Road if the suggestions as outlined in the priority list are approved. Discussio]
llowed on the work force available to do the increased work. Mr. Roosevelt said due to the
fo ....... ~ --~ ~ .... * ....tion nro~rams have been behind schedule and ther_e has
ara wmnvers mn _a~o ~nu ~, ~~ ~ o
~h ...... =~ ~This is wh~' he has asked that no additional state for~_
~been a moratorium on s~a~ ~-~. : ~ ........ ~- ~ ~--*~ 6~8 and Route bZ7
[~ ork be scheduled for this year. Mr. Dorrmer as<em aoouv house t~, ~ ..........
~w ............... e not in the current Six-Year Plan but could be considered
{~Mr. Eoosevel~ saim vnese roa~ w~.
~}~when the Plan is revised next year.
287
May 9 1979 (Re ular Da Meetin )
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iache~ta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None. ~
Mr. Fisher was concerned that the state work force is down in numbers from what it was
a few years ago. He said the Governor has said there is really no freeze on hiring, just
fewer people working. He remarked that this is an unusual circumstance and feels that it
should be discussed so the Board members understand fully what action may be taken to alleviate
the situation. Mr. Roosevelt replied that if someone is to blame, it would be him because he
had anticipated milder winters and then had to use his forces in the spring and early summer
clearing up from the cold winters.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Abandonment Of road off of Route 602 in Howardsville.
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, attorney for the applicant, Mr. Paul Stacy, was present and requested
a deferral for three months. Mr. Henley then offered motion to defer this matter until
August 8, 1979. Dr. Iachetta 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. la. Introduction-of Youth in Government Day participants.
Mr. Fisher announced the presence of the students from Albemarle High School who were
participants in the Youth in Government Day Program. The students were Chuck Morrison a~d
Melissa Compton, Jack Jouett District, Alex Hafer, Samuel Miller District, Rebecca Sile~and
Amy Walton, Scottsville District. Mr. Fisher then introduced the Board and staff.
Agenda Item No. 3e. Discussion: Route 743 (Hydraulic Road Project).
Mr. Roosevelt referred to the following letter dated May 3, 1979:
"The Department's staff has been reviewing the transcript of the public ~hearing
on the Hydraulic Road improvemenv, as well as the escalating cost on this project.
We feel that certain changes in the design will decrease the cost of the project
without substantially reducing the service expected from the improvement. At the
Board's November 8, 1978 meeting, they endorsed the Hydraulic Road project as pre-
sented at the public hearing. I believe it is, therefore, in order for the Board
to be consulted concerning major design changes in the plans or changes which in-
volve County cost participation. The purpose of this letter is to advise the Board
members of changes recommended by the Department's staff so that we may discuss
them at the Board's May 9, 1979 meeting.
The changes recommended by the Department's staff are as follows:
1. Eliminate the sidewalk proposed along the east or ~ight side of
Hydraulic Road from the south property line of Sperry Rand to the
south property line of the Logan Property.
2. Construct sidewalk along the east or right side of Hydraulic
Road from the Whitewood Road intersection to Rio Road, and
eliminate the sidewalk along the west side or left side of the
road between these same two points.
3. Right of way and grading for future sidewalk would still be
accomplished throughout the curb and gutter portion of the
project except along the east or right side of the project
between the Logan property and Georgetown Road. This remains
the same as onthe original project.
4. Eliminate the right turn lanes at all intersections except
Georgetown Road and Whitewood Road. The four lanes and low
speeds ~hould allow vehicles to make right turns along the project
without disrupting the flow of traffic. The two intersections
mentioned above are existing or potential traffic signal locations.
As such, right turn lanes would facilitate the movement of traffic
under the right turn on red law.
5. Purchase right of way to allow a straight-through movement from
Hydraulic ROadinorthbound to Rio Road northbound. This recom-
mendation is based upon the proposed connection of Greenbrier
Drive at this location. This revision will require some additional
right of way from the property owned by the Union Ridge Church. It
will have no effect, however, upon the church building itself.
6. Widen Hydraulic Road from just south of the entrance to Georgetown
Green to just north of the intersection with Whitewood Road to a
55 foot curb to curb cross section. This revision would allow for
a left turn lane at the intersections with Georgetown Green, the
high school, Lambs Road, and Whitewood Road. Any additional widening
required would be along the west or left side of the roadway. Most
of this property is owned by the Albemarle School Board and will ~-
cause minimal additional damage, since the widening is in an area
where three right turn lanes are being eliminated.
I will bring the public hearing plans and the proposed revisions with me to the
meeting on May 9, 1979 and will be prepared to answer questions concerning these
revisions at that time.
Yours truly
188
May 9, 19~9 (Re ular Da Meetin )_
Mr. Fisher felt the members of the Union Ridge Church should be apprised of the additional
right of way needed and be give~ a chance to respond before any action taken. Mr. Roosevelt
requested a resolution supporting the changes proposed with the stipulation that the Board
of Trustees for the Union Ridge Church be contacted about the additional right of way needed.
Dr. Zachetta then offered motion to endorse the Hydraulic Road Project with changes Nos.
1 through 4 and 6 as outlined above, but that approval of No. 5 be delayed until the church
trustees have responded to the revised proposal. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Agnor arrived at 10:00 A.M. with Youth in Government Day students, Kara Wood,
Charlottesville District and John Hughes, Rivanna District. Mr. Fisher welcomed these
students and introduced the Board membemm~
Agenda Item 3f. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter dated May 4, 1979:
"At the Board meeting held November 8', 1978, the Board requested the Department
to post 45 mph speed limit signs along Route 22 from Route 250 to Route 231.
The Department has reviewed this request and does not feel reduction of the
speed limit throughout this section is necessary or enforceable. We do feel
that additional signing would improve the safety of this section, and we are
taking steps to upgrade this signing.
For your information, I have included a copy of the District Traffic
Engineer's report on his study of this section. (Copy on file in Clerk of Board
of Supervisors' Office.) I believe it explains in
some detail the Department's findings and recommendations. I believe this
report would be of interest to the Board of Supervisors.
You will note that this study does recommend a reduction of the posted speed
limit to 45 mph in the area from Route 1-64 to Route 250~ This recommendation
is being reviewed by the Traffic and Safety Engineer's Office and hopefully
will be recommended to the Highway Commission for approval. With the ex-
ception of this recommendation, all other recommendations are being implemented.
Z will advise you concerning the reduced speed limit recommendation once I
have been advised.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Dr. Iachetta requested that a copy of this letter be sent to Mr. James G. Carswell,
resident of the area, who brought this to the Board's attention.
Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, said in reviewing road bond files,
a check in the amount of $806.00 drawn on the account of Robert Blodinger, Trust Account, was
discovered.. After investigating this, it was determined that the check was part of the
original Four Seasons Road Bond. The Deputy County Attorney recommended that the check be
cashed and the proceeds applied against the County's claim for road repairs in Four Seasons.
The check has been cashed and is currently being held in the County's Revolving Fund (action
was taken by the Board on April 13, 1977 to use $10,000 from the General Fund to have these
roads accepted in the State's Secondary System.) Therefore', Mr. Breeden requested action to
deposit this in the County's General Fund.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to deposit the $806.00 back into the County's General
Fund. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher~ Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Agnor read the following letters received' from Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commi
and Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
"May 1, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated February 14, 1979, the following addition
tO the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective May 1, 1979.
WESTMORELAND SUBDIVISION
Nottingham Road - From:
S. Westerly 0.03 Mi.
End of Maintenance, Rte. 1~40
April 20, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated March 14, 1979, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective May 1, 1979.
Mr. Agnor read the following letter dated March 29, 1979:
"Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
After discussing our plight with the Highway Department, we have been advised
by them to write this letter concerning an investigation of the road on which
we live. The upkeep of this road is very poor. The entrance is so bad we
cannot let our children catch the bus there. Since the speed limit is 55 mph
on 250 East, we are forced to give our turn signal at least 100 feet in advance of
making the turn, as the banks are so high making visibility poor. This road
is located on Route 250 East, first right after the Moose Lodge.
There is a 50 foot right of way on the road and currently is being used by
seven families. Anything your Department can do to help us improve the condition
of this road will be greatly appreciated.
Please advise me at the above address of your intentions after you have made a
full investigation.
Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Mr.. J. A. Shelton
Route 1, Box 26A
Keswick, Virginia"
Mr. Roosevelt did not think this road was in the State Secondary System. It was agreed
that Mr. Roosevelt review this matter and if appropriate, thereafter, have the Road Viewers
examine same.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Highway Department use brushes instead of sprayers for
painting bridges since paint is polluting the water in streams that feed into the Rivanna
Reservoir.
Mr. Fisher noted that several matters r~garding transportation have been brought to his
attention recently. The Board has been requested by JAUNT to provide local funds for their
operation and to provide representatives from the governing body for their Board of Directors.
Also, the gasoline situation is becoming more critical throughout the nation each day.
Although, he has not heard of any major problems in this area, he feels some will exist
sooner or later. A letter has been received from the Department of Highways and Transportatior
Coordinator of State Public Transportation, indicating that the 1979 Session of the General
Assembly appropriated capital and operating assistance funds to initiate an experimental
mass transportation or ride-sharing projects in the Commonwealth. Proposals are being solicite
for innovative projects to assist communities in preserving or revitalizing public or private
mass transportation services. Approximately $500,000 for each year of the 1978-80 biennium
is available as a financial'incentive to improve mass transportation. Based on the fact that
bus lines are not available in the County, Mr. Fisher felt it is time to study the possibility
of using school buses to transport people to employment, particularly from the Crozet and
Scottsville areas. Therefore, he felt a committee should be appointed to examine transportati¢
alternatives and whether or not a proposal should be ~ade for the funds set a~ide by the
Highway Department. He felt this committee should work with the School Board on the possibilit
of using school buses. After a brief discussion, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lindstrom, Dr. Iachetta
and Mr. Agnor to study transportation, ways to conserve energy and discuss possible alternatiw
with the School Board.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appropriations.
Mr. Agnor presented a request for an appropriation in the amount of $11,400 to completer
contractural payments to the consultants who worked on revisions, to the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $11,400.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and coded to 10E-252, for Contract - Professional Services, Planning Department.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudab~sh.
None.
Mr. Agnor then presented a request for an appropriation for the Resource Recovery Study
Commission in the amount of $21,547. He noted five small grants have been received without
any appropriation being made. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resoluti
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $21,547 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and coded to 18A.13, Resource Recover~ Study Commission.
)n
290
Mr. Agnor then presented a request for $5,616.00 'for the purchase of a Postage Machine.
The machine was to be purchased with Capital Outlay funds. However, the Capital Outlay
budget is not to be approved until August and based on the old machine's condition, a replacem,
is needed immediately. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $5,616.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and coded to 14-405a, for the purchase of a Postage Machine.
vote:Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor presented a request for transfer of funds under the Title XX program in the
Welfare Department. In a recent review of the expenditures, the necessity to make these
transfers was revealed due to a trend to purchase service under Title XX programs. This trend
has resulted in under-expenditures in some programs. Therefore, the request is primarily a
bookkeeping correction since an unexpended balance of $30,000 is anticipated on June 30, 1979
after the transfers are made.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the transfer of funds in the following
amounts:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
that the following transfer of funds in the Department of Social Services'
budget are hereby approved:
$19,000 from 80C-706A to 80D-Title XX
7,000 from 80C-706B to 80D-Title XX
24,000 from 80C-707 to 80D-Title XX
9,000 from 80C-799 to 80D-Title XX
6,000 from 80C-799A to 80D-Title XX
7,000 from 80C-799F to 80D-Title XX
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
~AYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor then presented a request for an appropriation in the amount of $2,520 for the
hiring of one additional employee in the Planning Department. This amount is needed
for the remainder of the fiscal year. (Salary for this new employee was approved by the
Board during work sessions on the 1979-80 budget). Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $2,520 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and coded to 10E-109, Compensation of Assistants, Planning Department.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: ..Messers. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: .,None.
Agenda Item No. 6. AHIP Quarterly Report.
Mr. Mike Bremmer presented slides of the projects undertaken by AHIP during the third
quarter of Fiscal Year 1978-'79. He noted that Farmers Home Administration funds were used up
in JanuarY and families are wai~ing for available funds. ..... -~
The Board recessed at 11:20 A.M. and reconvened at 11:23 A.M.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher announced receipt of a letter of resignation from Mr. Tom
Hill, who has worked with AHIP from its beginning. He then requested a resolution of sincere
appreciation be adopted to Mr. Hill along with a letter thanking him on behalf of the citizens
of Albemarle County for the outstanding job he has done. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion
to this effect. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Commemorative Stamp for Jack Jouett, Request for Resolution.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Dorrier said the requested resolution for the issuance of a commemorative stamp for
Jack Jouett came about through the efforts .of Mr. Ed. McCue and the Commemorative Stamp
Committee. This started in 1968 when the Jack Jouett Chapter of the DAR sought to get a
commemorative stamp issued in 1971, the 190th anniversary of Jack Jouett's ride. Mr. McCue
has been working on this for the past year but has been unsuccessful in getting any guarantee
that a stamp would be issued. Mr. Dottier then offered motion to adopt the following resolut~
~t
WHEREAS, June 4, 1981 is the 200th anniversary of Jack Jouett's famous ride
from Cuckoo to Charlottesville to warn Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia
General Assembly of the approach of the British; and
WHEREAS, Jack Jouett's ride prevented the capture of Thomas Jefferson and
the Virginia General Assembly and hastened the end of the American War for
Independence; and
WHEREAS, the bravery and ability of Jack Jouett has never received the
proper recognition, although his feat, that of riding forty miles through
the night, across open fields and through woods, with only the moonlight
to guide him, is unequalled in the annals of American history;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
endorses the proposal for the issuance of a stamp by the U. S. Postal Service
commemorating Jack Jouett and his ride, to be issued on June 4, 1981, the
200th anniversary of Jack Jouett's ride.
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher said he has been appointed to a committee to work on a reenactment of this
ride. Mr. Ed McCue said, in addition to the above mentioned committee, there is a group that
has been directed by the State Independence Bicentennial Commission to plana significant
event commemorating Jack Jouett's ride. Tentative plans are for events to be held at Cuckoo,
Castle Hill, and Staunton on June 3rd and June 4th, 1981.
Mr. Dorrier requested that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Postmaster
General and Lieutenant Governor Charles Robb.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79-05. John W. and Elizabeth Carter.
1979 in order to allow the applicants to file an amended proffer.)
(Deferred from May 2,
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, read the following staff report:
"The applicants at last Wednesday's (May 2, 1979) meeting amended their request to
proffer the following:
Tax Map 61, Parcels 124C and 124D - R-3 with a maximum density of
12 du/acre
Tax Map 61, Parcel 124B - to remain under present zoning of R-2
Under this amended proffer, the total number of units which could be developed
on these three parcels would be 115 units or a density of 11.5 dwelling units
per acre.
This amended proffer closely approaches the neighborhood plan's recommendation
of 10 dwelling units per acre. This increase in density would have a negligible
impact, in staff opinion, over the neighborhood plan's recommendation."
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Tucker if he had had an opportunity to review the zoning for
this area. Mr. Tucker said the zoning would permit some transition from the north, (Northfiel~
Woodbrook and Westmoreland) to a medium density of 10 units per acre. Lower than that is low
density. Dr. Iachetta said the concern of Mr. Boblitz (a resident of Brookmere Road in
Woodbrook who opposes this rezoning) is the overall plan for this area. Mr. Tucker said
there is no overall plan except as noted above where some transition is provided from the low
density in the Northfields/Woodbrook/Westmoreland area to a higher density closer to Rio
Road. Mr. Lindstrom's concern was the other undeveloped R-3 land in the area. He felt
approval of this request will place the Board in an awkward position to deal with other
tracts of land in the area. Mr. Roudabush felt the Board should look at zoning the way it is
and not speculate on the future. Dr. Iachetta's concern was that the zoning is being reviewed
because someone wants to make a change and there is no overall plan for the area. He felt
action on this request should be made with the overall area in mind and was not convinced
this is consistent with that overall area.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-05 as proffered by the applicant and
noted in the staff report dated May 4, 1979, the proffer being for Tax Map 61, Parcels 124C
and 124D, R-3 with a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre, and Tax Map 61, Parcel
124B to remain under the present R-2 zoning. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what uses would be permitted under this zoning category. Mr.
Tucker said multifamily housing, townhouses, detached single family and apartments. Mr.
Lindstrom said he felt the type of building had more impact on the area than the density.
Mr. Fisher could not support the motion because he felt the entire area should be dealt
with as a whole and not done piecemeal. Dr. Iachetta agreed but said that without a definite
date in mind for adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, this applicant could be sitting and
waiting a long time. Mr. Dorrier did not feel 12 units per acre is that high a density,
particularly when there are 21 units per acre on land across Rio Road. Dr. Iachetta did not
think that the Charlottesville District should end up with all apartments and the other
districts have lots of open spaces. He does not feel that all the high density development
should be in this district Just because it has a sewer line and better roads. Mr. Dorrier
said that if the County would "bite the bullet" and put utilities in the outlying areas,
there would be apartments going up in those areas. Dr. Iachetta remarked that the financial
aspects·, of outlying areas and utilities do not match up very well. Mr. Dorrier said that
........... ~ *~ ~a ~ a~m~leted, hooefully that will take some of the
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
Messrs. Dottier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of work on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said initiall
it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was going to give the Board the text
when finished and then complete the work on the map. It has now been decided to wait and
present the entire ordinance at once. Mr. Linds~rom disagreed with this approach because he
felt it was playing politics. He felt the Board's ability to deal intelligently and rationall
with the text of the ordinance will be "muddied" by each individualrs feeling about his
property. Mr. Dottier disagreed and felt that before this Board can make a decision on the
text, the map is also needed.
Mr. Fisher asked if the text work had been completed.
completed in the next week or two.
Mr. Tucker said it will be
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to request the planning staff and Planning Commission
to present an updated plan on the Northfields/Rio Road area with amendment of the Comprehensiw
Plan in mind. Mr. Tucker said doing that would mean amending the Comprehensive Plan piecemeal.
Work on the neighborhood plans should be completed in two to three weeks. BaSed on that
information, a public hearing will be advertised to amend the Comprehensive Plan Dr Iachett~
then withdrew his motion. ' '
Mr. Lindstrom said that he wanted to remark on his earlier statements about politics and
the~Planning Commission. He said he feels that the way they are considering handling the
zoning ordinance makes it much more of a political issue. He knows that the Planning Commissio
has worked long and hard but he is disappointed that they have decided to handle the ordinance
in this way. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission felt that if the Board received the
text before the Planning Commission held their public hearing, the Board would be asked to
comment on the ordinance while the Commission is still working on the map. These comments
would most likely be in the press and could bias what the Planning Commission has already
done. The Commission felt that this could create a lot of problems. Mr. Fisher said that he
does not know where the Planning Commission is with the text amendments and that the lack of
information puts the Board at a disadvantage in being able to deal with the questions.
The Board recessed for lunch at 12:20 P.M. and reconvened at 1:37 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion Oak Hill Water System.
Mr. Dorrier said he has asked that this matter be discussed today. Zn March, the
Planning Commission had before them a final plat for Forest Lodge which was to plat off a
well lot of 10,000 square feet for well #5 on the Forest Lodge (Oak Hill) Well system. After
the appeal date had passed, three farmers in his district (Charles Yost, Charles Beegle and
David Taylor) called to say they felt that water is being siphoned off of their properti.es by
the Oak Hill Well System, Mr. Dorrier said he then requested the Engineering Department to
make an updated report on the request of Oakhill Water Company (filed August 30, 1977) to
operate a central weI1 system to serve 456 connections.
Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, said in August, 1977 there was an
application made for approval of what is known as the Oak Hill Water System.
In late November, 1977 he met with a representative of the applicant and ran tests on Wells
No.-i, 2, 4, and 7. Those wells were all in operation at the time and serving Southwood
Mobile Home Estates and Oak Hill Subdivision. The four wells produced 150. gallons per minute
which ~as not sufficient (by State Health Department regulations) to serve all of the connections
to their system. In January, 1978, the Health Department, told the owners that something
would have to be done to supply more water. Wells No. 1, 2 and 4 were the only ones serving
this area, having been cut off by a valve from Well No. 7. In August, 1978, Mr. Williams was
asked to look at Well No. 5, ~which was tested for 72 hours and produced 102 gallons per
minute. Submitted to the State Health Department was a request to hook up Well No. 7 and
Well No. 5 to a 100,000 gallon storage tank to serve the Oakhill/Southwood area. At the
present time, Well No. 2 and Well No. 4 have been closed down. Well No. 1 has a 30,000
gallon storage tank that is used as an equalizer for pressure because there is a difference
in elevation from Well No. 7 with a 6,000 gallon storage tank. What they have now is Well
No. 7 putting out 138 gallons per minute and Well No. 1 producing four gallons per minute
with 30,000 gallon storage. The Engineering Department has never received-information
requested in 1977 showing where lines are laid, line sizes, etc., therefore, has made no
recommendation as to the adequacy of this system.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the installation of Well No. 5 has increased the consumption of
water or if approval has been given by the Health Department for expansion of the system.
Mr. St. John said no. What was before the Planning Commission was a plat for subdivision of
a well lot for Well No. 5. The lot had to be subdivided and platted before the Health Departme t
would give any further approvals. This plat was approved with a condition that the Board of
Supervisors first approve a permit for the central water system. That application has been
pending before the Board for over a year. It has never been~approved or disapproved because
the Board wanted the Engineering Department to test the wells and also wanted an inventory of
the pipes and actual distribution lines as they are laid under the ground. Mr. St. John
noted that the owners of the well system have stated in their application to the County, that
they are applying to the State Corporation Commission for a Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity to make this a public service corporation. Sooner or later the Board will have to
itake a position on whether they oppose this application. If such a Certificate is granted,
lit would give the Oak Hill Water Company the power of eminent domain and the power to compete
ilwith the public water system in this area. Since the Albemarle Service Authority now services
SherwoodManor and Country Green, the two systems would possibly be competinx wmth each
~other. '
May 9, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
to supply the water. If it was decided that the Albemarle County Service Authority would
supply water, the question would then be whether the Service Authority would negotiate to buy
the system or condemn the system, but until it is known exactly what facilities are in the
ground, there is no way to know what the system is worth.
Mr. Dorrier said this area is in the front line of any type of growth to the south of
the City. The Board has been discussing the possibility of expanding utilities and he feels
this area should be studied. He feels that if any money is being sunk in the ground out
there, the Board should make sure it is done correctly because what the Oak Hill Water Company
is doing may not fit in with what the Albemarle Service Authority has in mind and this area
is in the Albemarle Service~Authority's jurisdictional area. The main thing that the farmers
are concerned about is that Well No. 5 and Well No. 7, which are located miles away from Oak
Hill Subdivision and Sou'thwood Mobile Homes, are being used for water which is being shipped
all the way to the City line for urban water needs. Mr. St. John replied that under the 1973
Groundwater Act, a locality has no power to prevent a person from digging a well on his
property and has no power to control what he does with the water. The only way the Board can
refuse to approve the application is to say that this area is in the jurisdiction of the
Service Authority and it is not feasible to have a water supply at that location. Then the
area would have to be supplied water from the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said
he could not say whether transfer of water from the wells would have an affect on the water
level of the farmers in that area. He did remark ~that the wells in question are in the
jurisdiction of the Albemarle County Service Authority and felt that they should be part of
the Service Authority's system. Mr. Fisher asked if the Service Authority was prepared to
serve bhat area. Mr. Thompson replied that they were. He said the Service Authority line
only goes to Sherwood Manor and Country Green at the present time, but there has been a study
made to determine the cost of extending the lines; it would, coat approximately $110,000. Mr.
Henley asked if the Service Authority was willing to run the lines to this area. Mr Thompson
said yes. '
Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board does not have any say-so about a person putting in this
sort of system, and all they have to do is get a permit from the State Corporation Commission,
there could be intensive development in this area far beyond what the Comprehensive Plan
recommends. '
Mr. Roudabush remarked that what he meant earlier was that approval had been given by
t~he State Health Department for a certain number of connections to this well system and that
the addition of a new weI1 will not generate any new customers unless approval is obtained.
If the Service Authority is willing to serve the area, and the Board approves a central well
permit, a limit can be put on the number of customers that can be served as the nUmber presentl
being served and note that no permits will be given for any more connections to that well
system. Mr. Williams reported that there are presently 286 connections approved by the
Health Department.
Mr. Thompson said that if it is in fact a situation where the Service Authority may take
over the system, it may or may not be in the best interest of the applicant to have a new
storage tank installed. It may be a waste of money to have the tank installed since the
Service Authority could not use this storage facility.
Mr. Fisher said there was nothing before the Board on which to act today. Mr. Dorrier
said that was correct, but if the Board is seriously interested in getting the Service Authorit'
involved, the Board should set it on another agenda for discussion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the Service Authority had within its jurisdiction an area that they were not actively serving
and someone came in with an application to start a public utility~ if the Service Authority
would have to serve that area in order to defeat the application. Mr. St. John said the
Service Authority would have to show that they were going to serve the ~area within a reasonable
time and that the area is shown in the Comprehensive Plan as an area to be served with public
utilities. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if this particular area is shown in the Comprehensive
Plan for such services. Mr. St. John said that was another reason for delaying approval of
the application. The question of whether the jurisdictional areas should be brought into
compliance with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan was discussed by the Board last
year, but no action was taken pending adoption of a new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said he did not see this as a pending matter before the Board at this point.
Mr. St. John brought to Mr. Fisher's attention the followin~ letter:
"August 30, 1977
The Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
RE: Oakhill Water Company, Inc.
Dear Mrs. David and Gentlemen:
Z am writing on behalf of Oakhill Water Company, Inc. to request the
Board's approval for the corporation to operate and maintain a central
well and water delivery system with 456 connections to serve Oak Hill
Subdivision and Southwood Mobile Home Estates. Those areas are currently
being served by I. J. Breeden, Inc., tho"parent corporation of Oakhill
Water Company,f Znc. Z. J. Breeden, Inc., has recently conveyed its well
system to Oakhill Water Company, Inc., a public service corporation formed
for the express purpose of operating the Oakhill-Southwood central well
system. As part of Oakhill's application with the State Corporation
Commission for a Certificate of Public Convenience to operate the well
system, it is necessary to obtain approval of the well system from both
~A o~ ~~ ~o~.~=~ ~ ~h~ l~n~l ~-ove~nin~ bod~. The corporation
By this letter the corporation would request that the Board grant its
approval for 456 connections at the Southwood-Oakhill water systems with
the understanding that no expansion of the existing system will be made
without further approval of the Board.
OAKHILL WATER COMPANY, INC.
By: (Signed) Sue B. Minor, Vice-President"
Mr. Fisher said it appears that there is sufficient evidence that the Oakhill Water
Company is trying to create a public utility in this area. He asked Mr. Thompson if the
Service Authority has taken any position on this question. Mr. Thompson replied that he had
seen no formal request to grant a Certificate of convenience. Mr. Dorrier said he felt this
was all being done very quietly and felt the governing body may be caught in a bind if some
action is not taken. Mr. Fisher felt the Service Authority should discuss this at their next
Board meeting and the Board of Supervisors would discuss it again in June to see w~at position
the County will take on this request. Mr. St. John said the applicant should be informed not
to grade or install a new 100,000 gallon storage tank until final approval for a central well
system is given by this Board. Mr. Dorrier said the applicant had started grading, found out
they had to get a grading permit from the County and stopped. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. ~Agnor his
recommendation. Mr. Agnor said since the central well permit has never been granted Oakhill
Water Company should certainly not expand, extend or put another-well in service until that
procedure is completed. Mr, Dorrier then offered motion to advise the applicant that any
installation at this time will be at the applicant's risk until the permit procedure is
completed. He also stated that he had talked to Mr. David Kudravetz, Attorney for Oakhill,
advising him that the Board would be discussing this subject today. Mr. Kudravetz said he
could not be present, but would be out of town. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and
Commonwealth's Attorney were presented as follows:
Director of Finance - Expenses for April, 1979 and salary statements for
February, March and April, 1979.
Commonwealth's Attorney - Expenses and salaries for April, 1979.
Sheriff's Office - Expenses and salaries for April, 1979.
Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved
as presented. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of
April, 1979, was received. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, this'~
statement was ~approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. ll. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of
the Regional Jail for the month of April, 1979, along with summary statement of prisoner
days, statement of jail physician and statement of salaries of the paramedics a~d the' classification
officer, were received. On motion by Mr. Henley~ seconded by. Dr. ~achetta, these statements
were approved' as read. The mot~ion carried' by the' following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 12. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1979 was
received as information. Mr. Agnor also presented a memorandum from the Director of Finance
entitled "Fiscal Year 1978-79 Financial Status Report"; said memo dated May 8, 1979. (Copy
on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of
March, 1979, was received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appeal: AAMCO Transmission Service Site Plan. This matter was
brought before the. Board by Dr. !achetta's concern that this operation was not proper in a
BI zone. Mr.. Tucker read the sta'ff's report:
Locat'iOn: On Route 29 North,
Acreage: 27,873 square feet
Zoning: B-I, BusineSs
Proposal: To locate an automobile transmission repair shop.
Topography'of Area: Relatively flat with a steep bank at the rear'of the site.
Co~prehe'nsi've 'Pl'an Re'c'ommen~dat'iOn: Urban and community land use.
TyRe oil 'Uti'%i't'iSS:" Pu'blic water, individual septic system.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 17, 1979,
approved' the 'site plan subject to the following conditions:
c) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval with
the appropriate changes made on the site plan, if needed.
d) County Engineer approval of drainage facilities such that water
will not run across adjacent properties.
e) Grading permit.
f) Note building height on the plan.
g) Note that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or
its location at this time.
Mr. Tucker said he had asked the Zoning Administrator to reply to Dr. Iachetta's question
Mr. Fisher then read a letter from J. Benjamin Dick, Zoning Administrator, dated May 8, 1979:
"Some time age, the question arose as to a proper zone for the above business. Aamco
Transmission's use encompasses, I believe, the repair and sale of motor vehicular trans-
missions.
Their market place reputation is one of expertise on automobile transmission and
repairs.
The B1 zone, Section 7-1-2, provides for Automobile sales, service~ and rental. ~
The Code of Virginia and Division of Motor Vehicles recognizes
"automobiles" as "motor vehicles." The provisions are not entirely different,
if any difference can logically be ascertained.
In any event, the intent of these provisions appear to be broad enough to
allow dealerships, auto parts, stores, muffler stores, custom stores and
transmission stores consistent with the B-1 zone. I believe it is reasonable
to regard Aamco Transmission as an allowable use under either SeCtion 7-1-2
or 7-1-42. Specifically, Section 7-1-42 applies to the proposed use."
Dr. Iachetta said his main concern is that this business will become an assembly line
manufacturing operation which is an M-1 operation. Chris Healy and William Healy, the applicar ~s,
were present, and explained that essentially their business is to repair transmissions.
There would be a few transmissions in stock which could be used to replace bad transmissions
in cars, but that there would be no stockpiling of transmissions and no assembly line rebuildir .
Dr. Iachetta said with this clarification, he would agree with Mr. Dick that this is a B-1
operation and he had no further objections. No action was taken by the Board.
Agenda Item No. 19. HUD-Evaluation of Preliminary Proposal for Housing Ass~stance--
Hollymead Square Section II.
Mr. Agnor said that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has asked the
County to review an application for financing under the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program
for New Construction for apartments in Hollymead Square, Section II. Although it is not
required that this be brought to the Board, Mr. Agnor said since this is the first time the
County has been asked to review such application, he thought the Board should be made ~ware
Of the response that will be given. This application has been reviewed by the Housing C0ordina or
and it has been determined that the project is consistent 'with the Housing Assistance Plan
approved by HUD. The Director of Planning has also reviewed the application and notes that
the number of units the applicant is requesting exceeds the number of units on the approved
PUD plan for Hollymead, Phase I. In order for the project to be approved by the County, an
amendment to the PUD plan must be requested. Dr. Iachetta felt that Mr. Agnor's letter to
HUD should make it clear that approval of an amended PUD plan may or may not be forthcoming
and that such.an .amendment must~be approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 2:55 P.M. and turned the gavel over to Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 20. Employee Handbook Amendment.
Mr. Agnor stated that the employee's policy manual states that a permanent part-time
employee is eligible for health insurance, does not participate in the retirement and life
insurance, program, and earns annual leave and sick leave at rates corresponding to the hours
worked. The policy is silent on holidays, except to state that "full-time" employees are
allowed eleven paid holidays per year. Zt has been called to his attention that employees
paid on the basis of one-fourth or one-half of monthly salaries are paid for holidays in the
months that holidays occur because their salaried ~hecks are not changed, while employees
paid by the number of hours worked are not paid for holidays because the jobs are not available
to them on holidays and the hours are therefore not recorded.
Discussions at staff meetings have resulted in a recommendation that the policy be
amended to include holidays for permanent part-time employees on the same basis that annual
leave and sick leave, is earned. There are a number of employees who fill a part-time County
need on a permanent basis, and being permanent employees, it is only equitable that they be
togranted the handbook: holidays similar to full-time employees. Mr. Agnor recommended the following amendment
PART-TIME
A part-time employee shall be defined as a County employee who is scheduled
to actually work less than the prescribed work week for full-time employees.
Permanent part-time employees earn annual leave, sick leave, and holidays
at rates corresponding to the number of hours worked. They are eligible
for the current health insurance plan; however, they are not eligible for
life insurance or retirement benefits under VSRS.
HOLIDAYS
Ail permanent employees are allowed eleven paid holidays per year.
Mr. Dorrier moved approval of the foregoing amendments.
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 21. Resolution: Water Awareness Week.
Mr. Agnor reported that the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority has been drafting for
several months a water conservation plan. It is still incomplete, but a portion has been
extracted from it and presented to City Council and to this Board requesting the adoption of
a resolution recognizing May 20 to 26, 1979 as Water Awareness Week. This will be an annual
event and the water conservation plan will ultimately be brought to the Board for approval.
Mr. Agnor read the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the maintenance of a clean, safe and adequate supply of water is
basic to the welfare and development of any community; and
WHEREAS, citizens need to be aware of the effort and expense necessary to
provide this vital resource, and of conservation measures which they can take
to insure continued maintenance of adequate water supply at a reasonable cost;
and
WHEREAS, to heighten such public awareness, the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority has asked this Board to designate May 20 - 26 as Water Awareness
Week;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, that May 20 - 26, 1979 is hereby officially designated as Water
Awareness Week; ~and citizens of the County are urged to participate in the
activities sponsored by the Rivanna Water and Sewer AUthority during such
week, and to practice water conservation measures throughout the year.
Mr. Ei~trom offered motion to adopt the foregoing resOlution.
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Dr. Iachetta seconded
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said in the Capital budget there is an appropriation for
completion of renovations to the basement of the Juvenile Court building. The City of
Charlottesville has recently appropriated their share Of the cost, so the project can now
proceed. Mr. Agnor said he needed authority from the Board to jointly sign with the City a
contract with Tom Wyant, Architect, to complete the drawings on the basement so there can be
an up-date on the costs. That cost will be brought back to the Board and City Council before
proceeding with the work.
Dr. Iachetta moved that the Board give authority for Mr. Agnor to sign this contract
jointly with the City Manager for the architect to begin his work. Mr. Roudabush seconded
the motion and same carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Agnor mentioned that the County Extension Service must move out of the Post Office
building by August 1, 1979 so that renovations can begin. They have found space in the
McIntire School building and will request the Albemarle County School Board to allow them use
of this space until renovations are complete on the Lane Building.
Mr. Agnor also mentioned that Ira Cortez, County Fire Official, has, on occasion, been
requested to get to a fire site in order to relieve volunteer firemen so they can return to
their stations. Because of traffic congestion, he has found the need to have a siren and red
flashing light on his car. There is no way he can have a siren or red light unless he is a
member of a fire company, which he is not. The County can request such identification through
an order to the Circuit Court Judge. Mr. Agnor said he has asked the County Attorney to
prepare such an order for Judge Berry's approval. The order will set out the Fire Official's
duties.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve this request being made to Judge Berry.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr.
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr~ Fisher.
Dr. Iachetta said the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company is trying to obtain financing
so they can begin construction ona firehouse. They filed an application with F.H.A. for a
loan, giving a great deal of documentation and have now been informed that they are ineligible.
He said he could not understand the problem. Mr. St. John said he has talked with Mr. Newbill
of F.H.A., who said that the concept of a service agreement through which the County would
agree to pay annually an amount equal to what the County is presently pa~ing to the company.
sounds like it would be sufficient to make tb~m
May 9, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
at F.H.A. by the end of the week. It will then be up to them to act. Mr. Agnor remarked
that the staff has not been involved in any of the financial aspects of the company's trying
to find financing. Due to the fact that they are now dealing with a Federal agency that is
slow-in making decisions, the staff will push to expedite the application.
Mr. Fisher returned to the meeting at 3:14 P.M. and took his seat as Chairman.
Agenda Item No. 22a. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. Mr. Henley offered
motion that Mr. John W. Burns and Ms. Christine A. Walker be reappointed to the Advisory
Council on Aging, for two year terms ending on June 1, 1981. Dr. Iachetta 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. 22b.
Agenda Item No. 22c.
Agenda Item No. 22d.
Agenda Item No. 22e.
Agenda Item No. 22f.
Appointment: Community Action Agency.
Appointment:
Appointment:
Appointment:
Appointment:
Industrial Development Authority.
Mental Health & Retardation Services Board.
Rural Transportation Advisory Group.
Sign Advisory Commission.
Ail of the above appointments were deferred.
Agenda Item No. 22g. Appointment: Welfare Board. Mr. Henley suggested that Mr.
Robert S. Black be reappointed as a member of the Welfare Board for a term ending on June 30,
1983. Mr. Roudabush also suggested that Mrs. Josephine M. Blue be reappointed to the Welfare
Board for a full term ending on June 30, 1983. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to reappoint
these persons. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None .' ....
Not Docketed: Appointment: Library Board. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to recommend
Mrs. Helen L. Wienke to serve on the Board of the Regional Library to replace Mrs. Anne
Johnson who does not wish to be reappointed. He felt that Mrs. Wienke would make a good
representative and serve the needs of the Library and County in a meaningful way. Mr. Dorrier
then offered motion to appoint Mrs. Helen L. Wienke to the Library Board for a term beginning
July 1, 1979 and ending June 30, 1983. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush
None. ·
Appointment: Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to reappoin'
Sheriff George W. Bailey to this Board and Mr. James L. Higgins as the alternate; terms to
end on. June 30, 1980. Mr. Dottier seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Appointment: Soil Erosion Advisory Board. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to reappoint
Mr. Stifling L. Williamson, Jr. to this Board for a term which will end on July 1, 1980. Dr.
Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush
NAYS: None. ·
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Economic Development Commission.
Mr. Fisher said he had requested County representatives of the Economic Development
Commission to be present today after discussing certain matters with Mrs. Marjorie Jordan, a
County representative to the Commission. (Present were Mrs. MarJorie Jordan and Messrs.
Henry Maclin and Roy Patterson). Mr. Pisher said he had received a letter from the President
of the Chamber of Commerce and read the letter into the record:
"April 26, 1979
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman
County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Gerry:
By resolution of its Board of Directors, the Charlottesville and Albemarle
County Chamber ?f. ~C°mmerce has voted to discontinue its participation in
-~ ~ .... ~ ~''~*,T ~nmmm~e Development Commission
This will bring to an end the relationship that has existed for almost two
decades and began when the city and county asked the Chamber to provide
appointees and staff to a body whose purpose was to attract new business to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle area.
In recent months, the City has determined that formation of its own Charlottes-
ville Development Group would be a more effective way to promote economic
development within the City. The County has adopted an economic policy which
indicates that the County similarly believes the subject of economic growth
should be addressed by the County itself. Both Of these actions have indicated
to the Chamber that the older Economic Development Commission has become
obsolete.
The Chamber believes that it will be more effective for the economic develop-
ment and betterment of the entire community to assist in the creation of a
Local Development Corporation. One of the purposes of the new Corporation
would be to seek business prospects and attract them to our geographic area
without regard to whether the eventual location be within the City-or the
County.
We agree with both governing bodies that we should strive to enhance the beauty
of our area and the academic environment that already exists here. Likewise,
we know you share our concern that in order to provide new and better jobs for
our young people that healthy business development is an essential element to
progress in our community. We are confident that you will assist the Local
Development Corporation in providing those opportunities.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Charles H. Smith, Jr.
President"
Mr. Fisher said with this action by the Chamber, the question to be answered is whether
there should continue to be a Joint Economic Development Commission between the County and
the City. He has received a letter from the Director of the Planning District Commission
expressing interest in providing staff for research the County has indicated should be done
by adoption of a County Industrial Policy. Mr. Fisher said he feels there are two distinct
functions for an Economic Development Commission. One function is what has been done in the
past, showing prospective customers around the City and County. The other function is the
one outlined in the Industrial Development Policy, that of researching and identifying types
of unemployment and types of businesses to fill those unemployment needs. He has talked with
a representative of the University about their continuing to participate and it was indicated
that they wish to continue as members.
Mr. Maclin compared his experiences as a member of both the Charlottesville Development
Group and the Economic Development Commission. 'He said the Development Group is more in
agreement, more interested, better organized and better supported by City Council and its
staff. This Group has been broken into seven committees with chairmen for each and each
committee goes into some depth on problems assigned. Mr. Maclin said the Economic Development
Commission was structured in such a way that the members had no input and really were not
involved in any decisions. He felt as though the Commission was working for the Chamber of
Commerce. He feels the County should have a Commission to work for its benefit. Specific
goals and policies should be set for this Commission since a really dedicated group of people
with the right support can take on and solve any problems in the County. Mr. Dottier asked
if Mr. Maclin thought an economic planner hired by the County could accomplish the same thing
as a commission. Mr. Maclin was not sure, but suggested that the Supervisors appoint a
commission of from 12 to 15 members and provide a paid, staff member to act as coordinator
for the various committees.
Mrs. Jordan disagreed with the idea of a separate County commission, but felt the City/Cow
should continue to work together through a Joint commission. Mr. Maclin said he would like
to see an executive committee of the two commission's working together and discussing various
problems, but he feels more can bme accomplished with two separate Commissions.
Mr. Patterson said that after June 30, the existing Commission will have no place to
meet, have no files, and no staff. He agreed with Mrs. Jordan that there should be a unified
effort; he could not see how three different groups can work toward one goal. Mr. Lindstrom
asked Mr. Patterson about the loss of staff, office space and files. Mr. Patterson said the
files are in the offices of the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Fisher said the Commission has lost one member (the .Chamber of Commerce) but no
action has been taken to dissolve the Commission. Er. Iachetta said it is important for the
Board to have a group to work for the benefit of the County, but he does not see why it
cannot be coordinated with the City.m Mr. Fisher said Mayor Brunton had indicated to him that
the City would like to study this question with the County.
Mr. Roudabush said he has served on this Commission for a number of years, and he feels
the County government does have a role to play in economic development. He also feels it
should continue as a joint group and the Board should continue to fund its operation. Dr.
Iachetta said the Chamber has been providing office space, Janitorial service, secretarial
service and so on, and if the Commission is to continue, this will have to bet provided by the
Board or City Council, or both. Mr. Fisher said the staff function is an immediate and
critical need. In addition to this need, there also needs to be work done on identifying
types of unemployment. He feels that information from the Virginia Employment Commission is
unreliable from the standpoint of showing true unemployment patterns. This is primarily a
research function so he feels the Planning District Commission is one instrument that the
City/County could use to do this research. 'He asked Mr. Agnor what other possibilities were
open for this staff position. Mr. Agnor replied that the City and County share a staff
position; that of a halftime Coordinator of Emergency Services. Ms. Linda Peacock fills thiso.
position and is very capable. This person~could function in thin ~11D1 ~al~ ~ ......
the City and ~~ r~ ~^ ~ .......
.ty/University
May 9, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley said he has consistently voted against appropriations for the Commission
since he has been a Supervisor, and feels this would be a good time to disband it entirely.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it was a good idea to have someone that prospective developers and
businessmen could go to to find out about County plans and' ordinances. Mr. Dorrier said that
without the Commission these prospective customers would be calling the individuaL~:members of
the Board.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to continue this discussion but have City representatives
present. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion for Mr. Fisher to set up a meeting with
the Mayor and the appointees from both the City and County to discuss this question and .
return alternatives for consideration. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried~by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
(At 4:15 P.M., Dr. Iachetta left the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Overall Economic Development Plan, Planning District X.
Mr. Agnor said in 1977, the Federal government declared several jurisdictions in the
Planning District eligible for Economic Development Grants. The eligibility required the
formation of a committee in each jurisdiction, and the development of a plan with priorities
assigned to projects for the Planning District. The plan is scheduled for an update at a
meeting of all the jurisdictional committees on May 24. Each jurisdiction has one project in
the plan, with Albemarle's being last for water and sewer line extension to the Scottsville
Shopping Center. The update requires revised cost estimates and affirmation or revision of
existing priorities. The rationale for the existing priorities with Albemarle being last was
that Nelson County and Charlottesville had unemployment rates that made the district eligible
for grants, which placed them in priority 1 and 2, and the other counties had a greater need
for Federal assistance with economic development than Albemarle County. It is recommended
that~the Economic Development Committee be requested to retain the existing priorities. Mr.
Fisher said he would not be able to attend the meeting on May 24, but felt that if some of the
other jurisdictions have received money, they should go to the bottom of the list.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Jim Elmore has asked if the Board would be
willing to'~.~_meet with the Jefferson Area Board on Aging to hear a discussion on elderly
needs. Also, Mr. Sample from Stainback and Scribner needs to discuss the Lane project with
the Board before he proceeds with the final design stage. Mr. Fisher suggested that the
Board hold a meeting on May 23, beginning at 1:30 P.M. to hear these matters.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Fisher meet with the Chairman of the Planning Commission
to discuss the Planning Commission's work schedule on the Zoning Ordinance.
(Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 4:24 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: JAUNT. (This item w.as deferred from the April llth
meeting pending receipt of certain materials from JAUNT in reference to their request for a
subsidy from the County).
Mr. Fisher noted that since the last meeting on this subject, the Board had been furnished
with several pieces of information relative to JAUNT's request; namely, a memorandum dated
April 20th on the organization of JAUNTj Letter dated April 26, 1979 commenting on JAUNT
budgets for Fiscal Years 1979 and 1980; and Letter dated April 27, 1979 entitled "JAUNT
Operations Report". Mr. Fisher noted for Mrs. Karen Morris, President of the JAUNT Board of
Directors, and Mr. Lloyd Wilson, Executive Director of JAUNT, who were present, that the
Board had discussed several matters concerning transportation during the morning session.
Mr. Fisher appointed a three-member committee to look at several aspects of transportation
not dealing with the automobile, including JAUNT, such as where existing bus systems might be
extended in the event the fuel crunch does become acute. Also, the Board has received a
letter from Mr. Edward W. Pigman, Jr., State Public Transportation Coordinator for the V~bginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, in which Mr. Pigman states that the 1979 Session
of the General Assembly appropriated capital and operating assistance funds to initiate
experimental mass transportation or ridesharing projects in the State. The Department will
administer the program and is soliciting proposals for innovative projects which will assist
communities in preserving or revitalizing public or private mass transportation services.
Proposals areZto be submitted by June 15th. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor's recommendation
on the JAUNT request for a subsidy.
Mr. Agnor said he has,met twice with Mr. Wilson to discuss the organization and operation
of JAUNT. Audit reports have been examined and it was found that JAUNT is in a healthy
condition financially. JAUNT has been able to meet its obligations on a monthly basis. This
will change, however, at the end of the grant program under which JAUNT has been funded.
YAUNT is at the beginning of a new Federally-funded program which will require that they have
local funds to cover deficits which will then be matched by Federal funds. Mr. Agnor said
his examination of JAUNT shows that the management of the system is sound and an effort is
oeing made to change the image of JAUNT from an agency which serves only social service
~gencies to one that willaserve any citizen. Mr. Agnor said he had three recommendations:
l) Appoint a representative to the JAUNT Board of Directors so there will be a liaison person
~ith the County government on a continuing basis (Note: Letter was received from Karen
~orris, dated March 7, 1979, requesting the County to appoint one person to the JAUNT Board);
2) Grant a subsidy in the amount of $6,000 for one year in order to be sure JAUNT can remain
in operation while examination of alternatives is made; 3) Albemarle County should consider
being the fiscal agent for JAUNT since in order for JAUNT to be eligible for Federal and
State highway funds they need a local sponsor. JAUNT is also interested in applying for one
~ t~e experimental programs with the Department of Highways, and Mr. Wilson would like to
....... ~ '.'~,,~ ~ke to have examined.
3OO
May 9, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting)
a relationship which might lead to a regional transportation system. Also, he has discussed
a number of alternatives with Mr. Agnor relative to the experimental mass transportation
programs and would like to submit a project. If the project were picked for funding, it
might make JAUNT eligible for a Federal mass transportation s~bsidy.
At this time, Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve JAUNT's request and to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $6,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and Coded to 18B.16, JAUNT; said appropriation effective as of July 1, 1979.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Henley said he had a funny
feeling about approval of this request because he had not seen very many people riding on
the JAUNT buses. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would have to think about who to appoint to the JAUNT Board.
He asked if any member of the Board would like to volunteer. No one volunteered, but Dr.
Iachetta said there were several people in his district who are interested in this type of
transportation and he would bring a name for the May 16th meeting.
Mr. Agnor said there are 10 areas of projects for which JAUNT can apply for State
funds. He asked if the committee appointed by Mr. Fisher earlier should examine those
projects and make a recommendation to the Board. It was agreed that the committee would
examine projects and make a recommendation.
Agenda Item No. 23. At 4:51 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting to May 10, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County
Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,~Virginia, was
held on May 10, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 9, 1979.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:40 P.M.S, and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher~ who announced that he had received a report entitled "Economic Assumptions for Fiscal
Year 1980" from the Virginia Employment Commission. He noted that the Commission's projections
for employment in the Commonwealth are interesting.
Mr. Fisher also noted the Bureau of Litter Control is sponsoring a series of litter
control seminars to be held throughout .Virginia during the month of May.
Mr. Fisher also noted that he received a copy of the proposed Capital Outlay budget
schedule for the Board, Planning Commission, department and agency h~eads. The Board's work
session ~will be held on July 11, 1979 with the public hearing on August 1st, and adoption of
!'the Capital Outlay budget on August 8th. There were no objections to this proposed schedule
ifrom the other Board members.
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Route 29 North Corridor Study - CATS Report.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3,
1979).
Mr. Fisher said this study was presented to the Board in February. The Board referred
the study to the Planning Commission for a public hearing to obtain views from landowners
ilbefore the study was considered for adoption by the County. Since ~here were no citizens
~!present at the meeting tonight, Mr. Fisher said there did not seem to be any interest one way
[!or the other.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportatio
said he would cover points involving impact and implementation of the plan. One point that
!needs to be emphasized is the obligation that this plan puts on both the Highway Department
iand the County. He referred to his letter of March 22, 1979, as ~follows:
"March 22, 1979
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Route-5, Sheffield Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901