1979-02-21 Mr. Fisher then suggested that two members of the Board draft a policy statement on
economic development and bring same back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Henley felt the
entire Board should be involved in the drafting. With no further discussion, Mr. Fisher
thanked the Commission for the presentation made today. ~.~ ~. ..... _ ....... .~
The Board recessed at 3:45 P.M. and reconvened at 3:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Review of Lane Building (County Office Building) Drawings.
Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this review is to present for comments what i.s contained
within the Lane Building and the general land use. Mr. Agnor said the architect is ready to
proceed specifically with the mechanical system. Mr. Agnor said he has received a cost
estimated for the preliminary stage and after reviewing, will present same to the Board.
Mr. Byron Sample, Architect, was present and presented the site plans for .Phase I and
II as well as Phase II of the lower parking lot. He noted that the plans will go to the
City Planning Commission for their review on March 14, 1979. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his
concern if the Planning Department had sufficient space for expansion. Mr. Agnor said the
Planning Director has said it is sufficient but they will reexamine it with him. Dr. Iachetta
asked when the project would go to bid. Mr. Sample said it should be ready by the end of
the summer. Mr. Sample suggested the Board take a walking tour of the building and then
decide how they felt about the plans.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Collection of Delinquent Taxes. Mr. Fisher said it
has been requested that this matter be discussed in executive session since it deals with
personnel. At 4:37 P.M., Mr. Roudabush offered motion to adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal and personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 5:15 P.M. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn
to February 21, 1979 at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office BUilding. Dr.
Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
February 21, 1979 [[Afternoon-Adjourned from February 16, 1979)'
An adjourned meeting of the Noard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on February 21, 1979, beginning at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 16, 1979.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 1:53 P.M.~ and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Agenda Item No. I. The meeting was called to order at 1:36 P.M. b~yMr. Fisher who said
he had attended an emergency meeting of the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board
~n RichmOnd on Monday to discuss annexation bills now before the Gen~al Assembly. It is
likely that Governor Dalton will sign the annexation package of bills if House Bill 603
is either deleted or substantially changed. (House Bill 603 is special legislation ~6r the
City of Richmond.) Mr. Fisher said if these bills are signed into law, Albemarle County will
be faced again with-annexation; the earliest datebbeing July 1, 19.80. Partial immunity
measures and the prefiling of suites before a non-judicial body are improvements to the law,
but there are some measures which are worse. As the pending legislation now reads, a City
would be allowed to amend any annexation ordinance at any time it is before the count. Mr. Fit
said he is pessimistic about the future. Although the present City Council has said they are
not interested in annexation at this time, he feels the County will be faced with an annexatio~
suit at some time in the future.
Mr. Dorrier agreed partially with some of Mr. Fisher's ~omments, but said he had talked
to one member of City Council who feels that if the City can broaden its financial base within
the present City limits, there will be no fiscal reason to annex in the foreseeable future.
Also, if the County can provide services in the urban ring, Mr. Dorrier said he feels the
County can forestall any annexation attempt by the City.
Dr. Iachetta said he has always felt that annexation ~s legalized stealing of one locality
tax base by another Jurisdiction. The whole concept is wrong and he will fight any annexation
attempt by the City. From what he understands of the new legi~lation, providing services in
the urban ring will not be a defense against annexation. This fact raises a serious planning
problem for the County and changes priorities t~emendously.
Mr. Roudabush said it is the same old game with a new set of rules.
.er
s
February 21, 1979 (Afternoon)
Agenda Ztem No. 2. Work Session: 1979-80 Education Budget. (School Board members
present were: Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman, Mr. Ronald Baurele, Rev. Peter way and Mr. Dean
Strong.) Mr. Fisher expressed his appre~ation for the work rendered on this budget by the
SchoQ1 Board and its staff. He said from the draft received, it appears t~O~be a good attempt
to follow the guidelines suggested by the Board of Supervisors last year.
Mrs. Haden said the School Board had questioned every part of the budget presented by
their staff. The School Board also invited comments from the public at all of their work
sessions on t'he document. Their public presentation of the budget last night was attended
mainly by employees. Mrs. Haden mentioned Code 17F2, Maintenance-School Plants, and said
although this category shows a large increase, it is one of the areas which in the past years
has been decrea~sed many times. The School Board feels that the increase shoJwn this year
will help get some of the school buildings in shape. Since a number of schools bu~l~gs
ar~e being studied at this time, no money was included in this category for any repairs to the
buildin~eing studied. Numerous items were discussed and voted on and would have been
beneficial, but did not get into the budget. The School Board feels that the budget presented
will keep education in Albemarle County at the level which citizens expect and at the level
they desire. (Mr. Lindstrom arr~ed atoll:53 P.M.)
M~. Clarence McCiure, Division Superintendent, said the ~~Board ~made one
adju~Stment at ~ast night's meet±ng; this being to put student~bus drivers on the same ~alary
scale as adult drivers. This increases the School Budget by $~,78~ ~or a grant total of
$1~,~19,~03. Mr. McClure then proceeded to re~±ew the School Board's budget. The only item
~iscussad in detail was under 17K-601, Improvements to Sites. This category of the budget
carries a zero request. Mr. McClure said he furnished a list of improvements to Mr. Agnor
and requested that they be considered for the County's Capital Improvement Budget. The projec
are as follows:
Roof on Burley Middle School. $81,000. Mr. McClure said normally one or
two roofs are replaced aach year at a coat of $70,000 or less. (This $70,000
has been carried in the budget, split $35,000 i~ Code 17F2-290a and $35,000
in Code 17K~03. The roofs at Broadus Wood Elementary and Rose Hill
Elementary will be replaced using these funds.) This coming year the roof
at Burley must be replaced and is estimated to cost $81,000.
Library Security Systems at Albemarle High School and Western Albemarle
High School. $20,000. These systems will pay for themselves in a short time
by cutting down on book losses.
Fences at Henley, Jouett and Stony Point. $7,100. At Henley and Jouett,
fences are needed to protect the grounds against cars driving over them and
cutting into the soil, espacially when the ground is wet and for crow~ control
and admissions at athletic events. At Stony Point the need relates to the
safety of children playing near theh~hway.
Hollymead walks and hard-surfaced play area. $4,000. This is a school
community plan for improving the grounds for school and community uses.
5. Tennis court lights at Albemarle High School, $6,000.
Wa~er system at Broadus Wood Elementary.~$4,500. The low y~ld of the well
requires that a large storage tank be installed.
Burley renovation expenses. $15,~00. The fire marshal has ordered that all
the acoustical tile in the school be replaced because it is not fireproof.
M¢Intire steps and walks. $1~,500. The walks at the front of McIntire School
are eroded and ~he steps are ~pa~ting:From the building,
Parking lots at Jouett and Woodbrook. $14,000. These lots have needed
resurfacing for several years. Any further delay would not be wise.
Mr. Agnor said # 4 and #5 are projects which should be considered under Parks and
Recreation projects. The security system for library books is a one-time, non-recurring item.
He felt these three projects should be sonsidered separately from the other six which are an
on-going part of school maintenance. He recommended that roof repairs be funded from the
General Fund carry-over balance. He also recommended that items of a me.curring nature be
funded each year ~rom the carry-over balance rather than from current revenues. He said~M2~.i.
McClure has already agreed to find funds in the current budget to fund installation of the
water system at Broadus Wood. Mr. Agnor said if the Board wished to restore these funds to
the School Budget, Ray Jones, Director of Finance, M~. McClure and himself would work out the
funding sources ~ince what goes into the school budget has an effect on the amount of money
received in Revenue Sharing funds. The Board felt funds should be restored for these purposes
Mr. Lindstrom also asked if school bus drivers are covered by the School Board's health
insurance plan. Mr..McClure said that any school employee who works 20 hours a week is eligib!
for insurance. If the coverage is extended to other employees (and it has been discussed by
the School Board], there will be additional funds needed to cover that additional cost.
Mr. Lindstrom s~id he would still encourage the School Board to work on a merit ~2y
system for ~eachers. Mr. Fisher agreed.
At 5:18 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by ~r. Iachett~, to adjourn
into executive session to.~iscuss personnel mattens and land acquisition. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The ~oard reconvemed at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.
.e
February 21, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on February 21, 1979, beginning at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse,
~h~lott~s~l~_ 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: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:45 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Tucker said on January 17, 1979, the Board of Supervisors resolved to amend the
Residential Planned Neighborhood (RPN) District to provide for agricultural uses, owned
and operated either privately or commonly. The Planning Commission, at its meeting
February 6, 1979, by unanimous vote, recommended that the RPN District be amended to
include the following:
Add Section 19-3-1(m).
Agriculture.
Amend Section 19-5-1 to read: Not more than seventy-five percent of the
site shall be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street parking.
The remainder of the site shall remain open space and shall be dedicated to
public use or reserved for the benefit of the residents of the development,
except as hereinafter expressly provided. In the case of any such open specie
which is not to be dedicated to public use,-the developer shall record appropriate
instruments, satisfactory to the county attorney, effectuating the reservation
as aforesaid and providing for the use, ownership, maintenance and other particular
incidents of such open space.
Add Section 19-5-2 to read: The foregoing notwithstanding, in the case of
any application for a parcel of not less than 100 acres, the entire site may
be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street parking; provided
that at least one such lot shall be devoted solely to agriculture, Such lot
shall be so designated on the approved preliminary plan and on all plats of
subdivision of which such lot is a part. Such lot shall in no event contain
less than twenty-five percent of the entire site. For purposes of this section
only, the term "devoted solely to agriculture" shall be deemed to include not
more than one dwelling unit to be occupied by a person actively employed in
farming such land, together with his family, and together or developed with
such additional dwelling units, if any, as the Commission may approve on the
preliminary plan, subject to the provisions of Section 19-4 of this ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission felt the minimum acreage under this
amendment had to be 100 acres. Mr. Tucker said in order to use an area for agricultural
purposes, they felt it must be 100 acres minimum, with 25% of that acreage devoted to the
agricultural purpose. Mr. Fisher then asked about Section 19~5-2 where it states "include
not more than one dwelling unit to be occupied by a person actively employed in farming
such land, together with his family, and together or developed with such additional
dwelling units, if any, ..." He said this language sounds as though on this one lot that
is to be reserved for agricultural purposes, there can be any number of residential
dwelling units. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission was trying to provide for any
tenant type dwellings that such an operation might necessitate.
Mr. Roudabush asked if this amendment would eliminate the requirement for any other
open space in an RPN. Mr. Tucker said no, but it does not require any additional open
space. The farming operation would act as the open space for the RPN, but the other
property owners could conceivably not have any interest in the farming operation.
Mr. Dorrier asked how an agricultural use can be reconciled with high density
development. Mr. Tucker said an RPN is not high density zoning. Also, the Planning
Commission and the Board do not have to approve any RPN. Dr. Iachetta felt that the
problem in this amendment lies in the fact that the developer can have as many units on
75% of the property as he is allowed on 100% of the property. Mr. Tucker said the gross
density could not be increased.
Dr. Iachetta asked if he applied for an RPN/A-1 on 100 acres and wanted to put 30
acres into an agricultural operation, if he would still be allowed to have 50 dwelling
units on the 70 remaining acres. Mr. St. John said that was possible, but neither the
Board or the Planning Commission has to approve any RPN.
Mr. Rou~abush asked if a person could have 25 acres designated as a farm, apply for
49 units on 75 acres, one unit on the 25 acres, and at some future time come back to put
one dwelling unit per two acres on the farm property. Mr. Tucker said it would require
an amendment to the RPN plan. Mr. Lindstrom mentioned the second-sentence in Section 19-
5-1 which calls for the recording of appropriate instruments for reservation, ownership
and maintenance of the open space. Mr. St. John said if a developer came to the Board
and asked for release from these stipulations and he had recorded instruments declaring
...... ~ ~ *~ ~~ t~ ~ment of every
Agenda Item No. 2. Public hearing on resolution of intent to amend the Residential
Planned Neighborhood District to accommodate agricultural uses within an RPN and to give
density credit for that common space that could be in a farm use provided that the farm,
although it might be privately owned, be maintained within the RPN and subject to all
uses under the RPN District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 7 and February
14, 1979.)
170
every purchaser to unite in his request for a change.
At this time, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mr.
John Manzano, Director of Christian Retreats. He said this zoning text amendment would
permit them to maintain a large portion of their property as open space, privately maintained.
It would ~ermit property owners to develop their land in a responsible way and yet maintain
the general integrity of the property by having a minimum acreage dedicated to a farming
operation. It would also assure the people buying property that the land around them
would not be further developed.
Mr. Fisher said this zoning text amendment is on the agenda tonight primarily because
of problems Mr. Manzano had encountered with ZMA-78-09. He asked how much land was shown
on Mr. Manzano's approved plan for a farming operation. Mr. Tucker said it is 64% of the
parcel. Mr. Manzano said he felt a 100-acre minimum is a wise choice to make sure that
it is an actual farm and not just a little parcel of land. Mr. Fisher felt the Board
should consider whether 25%, as a minimum, is reasonable or whether it should be a larger
area.
With no one else present to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Roudabush thought the County had adopted the RPN District as a way to allow for
innovative division of land ~smaller lots, a lesser amount of streets, a reduction in
utilities and a general economization on development). This amendment chan~es that
concept if, in an A-1 zone, you still have to have at least two acres, whether it is in
your lot or in common ownership. Mr. Roudabush said he is not convinced it is the right
thing to do.
Dr. Iachetta was not sure 25 acres is a large enough parcel of land to be a viable
agricultural operation in Albemarle County. He asked Mr. Henley his opinion. Mr. Henley
did not think that more than one dwelling unit should be allowed on the 25 acres, but did
feel that some people use a small farm for supplemental income purposes.
Mr. Lindstrom said as long as the agricultural use is tied in perpetuity to being an
agricultural use, he had no problem in allowing the lots that are a part of the original
tract, to be smaller than two acres. Mr. Dorrier said he thought the Board was hung up
on the farm aspects of this amendment, when really it should be designated as open space.
Mr. Lindstrom said the real question is whether this agricultural use can be owned privately
So long as it is held in perpetuity as part of the plat.
Dr. Iachetta said the original concept behind an RPN was that the Board would allow
a certain density, but the lots could be smaller than two acres individually, but the
ownership of whatever is left of the residue is common open space. By doing this, the
person who buys has an interest in a two-acre lot no matter the actual size of his lot.
Mr. Roudabush was afraid this amendment would trigger a developer wishing to retain
ownership of all of the open space in his development.
Mr. Lindstrom said an RPN is an opportunity for a landowner and the County to agree
on an unusual approach to developing a piece of property. One of the most important
things in the County is the preservation of open space and agricultural land, yet this
was eliminated as a possibility in the RPN District by the way this section was originally
drafted. It seems to be a serious oversight. Dr. Iachetta said the RPN concept was
never intended to preserve agricultural land. It was intended to create common ownership
in the open land. There is a difference in the concepts.
Mr. Henley said he did not see much difference in one person owning the farm, if it
is tied down in some way, than all of the purchasers owning it and calling it open space.
Mr. Lindstrom said all of the purchasers would still have to agree to a change in the
covenants before that parcel could be redivided. Dr. Zachetta said he was not convinced
that the area in the farm operation could be legally tied down.
Mr. Roudabush said the Ordinance, at present, is based on a density zoning concept.
This amendment will change that and create an opportunity for someone to take advantage
of the density requirements. Mr. Henley did not feel there was that much wrong with the
amendment. Mr. Roudabush said all of the discussions the Board has ever had about the
RPN District have been about density. He said he could remember three applications where
density was the critical factor. Now, the Board is saying that density does not really
matter. Mr. Fisher said the difference is that under the standard RPN, the people who
own an undivided interest in all of the open space can say what is going to happen on
that land. Dr. Iachetta said they can't do that under this amendment. Mr. Roudabush
noted that with this amendment, any of the agricultural uses listed in the zoning ordinance
would be permissible anywhere within the entire subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom felt those
uses could be limited and suggested adding the ~words "it shall be maintained substantially
in the condition in which it was when it was approved." Dr. Iachetta said the flaw in
the proposed amendment is that control of the farm area is removed from the people who
buy into the RPN. Mr. St. John said the. Board was right back to where this discussion
had begun. This is the reason the County Attorney's office would not approve the homeowners
documents submitted on ZMA-78-09.
Mr. Roudabush said he had another point. If at some future time, the RPN category
were stricken from the zoning ordinance, the owner of the so-called 25 acre tract could
apply for a different type of zoning on that parcel. Mr. Lindstrom felt the covenants
would prevent this. Mr. Roudabush said the covenants can be removed. Mr. Dorrier felt
the Board would either allow houses to be built on that piece of property, by right, or
grant an RPN and preserve the open'space. There cannot be an RPN without the open space.
This way, the open space will be tied up with one person. Mr. Fisher said he had done
some research while the Board was talking. Section 19-4 mentioned in 19-5-2 is the
density permitted in a RPN, and the ordinance states that in an RPN/A-1 the density is .5
dwelling unit per gross acre. If that is true, the 25% of the land could be developed in
a two-acre density. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Henley was right in suggesting that only one
February 21, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
Dr. Iachetta said if this amendment requires that there be 100 acres with 25 acres
in agriculture and the standard R?N requires 25% open space, the only difference is that
in the standard RPN the open space would be commonly owned, but under this definition it
would not be commonly owned. Mr. Lindstrom said that did not bother him because he feels
the County will get a substantial benefit from this amendment. The property owners will
be in no worse shape than they would be in any subdivision in an agricultural zone. Mr.
Dorrier agreed. He did not feel it will be a big problem as long as the property owners
know what they are buying into.
At 8:50 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:00 P.M.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance
as follows:~
Add Section 19-3-1(m) Agriculture.
Amend Section 19-5-1 to read as follows: NoB more than seventy-five percent ~?_
of the site shall be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street
parking. The remainder of the site shall remain open space and shall be
reserved for the benefit of the residents of the development, except as
hereinafter expressly provided. In the case of any such open spabe which is
not to be so reserved, the developer shall record appropriate instruments,
satisfactory to the county attorney, effectuating the reservation as aforesaid
and providing for the use, ownership and maintenance of such open space.
Add Section 19-5-2 to read as follows: The foregoing notwithstanding, ~e ~Dire
site may be developed with lots, buildings, streets and off-street parking;
provided that at least one such lot shall be devoted solely to agriculture.
Such lot shall be so designated on the approved preliminary plan and on all
plats of subdivision of which such lot is a part. Such lot shall, in no event,
contain less than one.hundred acres of contiguous land. For purposes of this
section only, the term "devoted solely to agriculture" shall be deemed to include
the establishment of not more than one dwelling unit which shall be included in
the determination of residential density for the entire RPN.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Roudabush asked if this amendment
required any minimum acreage for the entire development. Mr. Lindstrom said no, but it
does require that a 100-acre farm be part of the entire development. ~r. Fisher said that
is only if the farm is to be held privately. The RPN can be smaller if the farm is going
to be reserved for the use of the people in the RPN. Mr. Lindstrom felt the 100 acre
requirement made the RPN big enough to rule out most abuses although it is impossible to
rule out all abuses which might occur. Mr. Fisher said he had been struggling with this
amendment, but felt he was going to take a chance and hope he was right.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item' No. 3. ZMA-?9-01. Christian Retreats. To amend their RPN/A-1 plan of
236.54 acres. Property is located on the north side of Route 637 west of the intersection
of Routes 692 and 637. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 39 and County Tax Map 71, Parcel 22A.
Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 7, and February 14
1979.) '
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
"Request: Amendment of approved RPN Plan
Acreage: 236.54 acres
Existing Zoning: RPN/A-1
Staff Comment: This requested amendment results basically through problems of
understanding and communication. Originally, the farm area was entitled "Common
Open Space - Farm Operation." During review of the homeowners' agreements and
subsequent discussions, it became apparent that the applicant did not intend to
extend rights of enjoyment on the agricultural land to lot purchasers. Under the
requested amendment, the "Farm Operation" area would be owned and operated
exclusively by Christian Retreats, Inc.
Other Amendments Include:
1. The deletion of the '400-seat community center, and
2. The addition of one lot around an existing single-family dwelling (Lot 14A).
The total number of dwelling units would not change.
Staff recommends approval subject to conditions of ZMA-78-09 (Note: In condition
No. 8 delete the wording "or the community center.")
Mr. Tucker said that on February 6, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of ZMA-79-01 with the following conditions:
1. Compliance with the conditions of ZMA-78-09 (Note: In Condition No. 8,
delete the wording "or the community center").
2. Applicant may record pedestrian easements linking residential areas
in lieu of construction of pedestrian trails. This shall be accomplished
prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. John Manzano, the applicant, said
he had received an.~.estimate·, of from $40,000 to $60,000 to build roads to the highest
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the additional vehicular trips on a road which
needs improving. Mr. Henley said no resident in the area has complained of the additional
traffic at either hearing before this Board. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-79-02. Christian Retreats. Rezone 236.54 acres from RPN/A-1
to A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on the north side of Route 637 west of the intersecti¢
of Routes 692 and 637. County Tax Map 70, Parcel 39 and County Tax Map 71, Parcel 22A.
Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 7 and February 14,
1979.)
Mr. Fisher noted that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of this petition.
Mr. Tucker said he felt it would be appropriate to allow the applicant to withdraw the
application. Mr...Manzano so requested. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom, to allow the applicant to withdraw this petition without prejudice.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Water Systems Improvements-Canterbury/Hessian Hills.
Mr. Agnor said that in January 1977 the County Engineer's Office produced a report
entitled Comprehensive Fire Hydrant Syst'em from which the Board approved the location of a
number of fire hydrants in various subdivisions. In that report, it was pointed out that
the high pressure system from the Rivanna Filter Plant is not being fully utilized as a
result of~the County system being integrated with the City system, in other words, fire
protection available in the County water system is not available because of the way the
connection to the City system was made. The County Engineer has examined the problem of
how tQ make fire protection accessible from the Barracks Road area north to the densely
populated areas of Canterbury Hills, Hessian Hills and Four Seasons. The way to correct
the problem has been discussed by the Rivanna Authority and the Albemarle Service Authority.
Mr. Agnor then asked the County Engineer to proceed with the report.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said the Comprehensive Fire Hydrant SyStem report called attention
to the service area of the Canterbury Hills Pump Station and to the deficiency of flows
for fire suppression purposes which result therefrom, especially in the Four Seasons
Community. The measured flow is 750 gallons per minute compared to the theoretical requiremen'
of 2000-3000 gpm. In this report, it was recommended that the North Rivanna system be
completed and put into use as designed so that it would be fed by gravity from the Piney
Mountain and Stillhouse Mountain storage tanks which are on either end of the waterline.
This report was turned over to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for its consideration.
The Rivanna Authority considered the differential in cost of water between the North
Rivanna and South Rivanna water treatment plants too great to allow the expanded use of
Paul Krebs was engaged to study the use of the Canterbury Hills Pump Station in
conjunction with the Stillhouse tank to improve the fire flows. This information was
given to the Board on June 7, 1977, at which time the Comprehensive Fire Hydrant System
report was updated. It was later supplemented by a further report from Mr. Krebs dated
October 7, 1977. The improvements considered in this report were included in the County's
Five-Year Capital Improvements Program for fiscal year-1978-79.
Mr. Bailey said there are two valid alternatives to the problem of water system
improvements in the Canterbury Hills/Hessian Hills system:
Alternative 1. Use the Canterbury Hills pump Station to fill the Stillhouse
Mountain storage system and supply the area by gravity from storage.
Alternative 2. Isolate one portion of the area from the other so that
Canterbury Hills, Hessian Hills, Old Salem and certain other smaller
developments continue to be served by the Canterbury Hills Pump Station
and the Montvue, Albemarle Schools, Four Seasons, and certain other areas
are supplied by gravity from Stillhouse Mountain storage, which in turn
is dependent upon an in-line booster pump that is supplied by the
Canterbury Hills Pump Station. This latter system would be at a somewhat
..... g~hm~he~Dressm~ tha~ ~h~hw~ich is served directly by the Canterbury Hills
Pump Station.
The details of these two alternatives are given in Mark Obsorne's report entitled
Urban Hig~ Pressure Water System.
Certain advantages go with the inclusion of the whole area on the Stillhouse Mountain
storage. Service by gravity has four distinct advantages:
1. More constant flows and pressures.
2. Service during power outage at the pump station.
3. Adequate supply to serve normal usage and fire suppression requirements
simultaneously.
4. Efficient use of pumps.
These advantages would accrue to that portion of the second alternative that would be
fed by gravity. However, the entire area would be so benefited under Alternative No. ]-
~Febru r 21 ~ Re ular--Ni ht Meetin ~
In order to connect the Canterbury Hills Pump Station to the Stillhouse Mountain
tank, a section of 12-inch water main must be laid along Barracks Road. To further
augment flows in Hessian Hills, an 8-inch line is to be laid from 01d Salem to Hessian
Hills.
Mr. Bailey recommended that Alternative No. 1 be the plan adopted since there are
additional benefits to be realized other than the ones cited. The original plans for thc
joint use of the Piney Mountain/Stillhouse Mountain high pressure system could be put into
use at any time a situation might require it. The North Rivanna treatment plant could be
fully used during emergencies which might require it. Much additional flexibility would
thereby be given the total urban system. Pressure control valves are already in place
beyond the South Rivanna.
(Note: E~e~pted from the Urban High Pressure Water System Report prepared
by M. F. Osborne of the County Engineering Department, Dated 12-6-78)
"Alternative I: This office has been aware of the potential ability of the
Canterbury Pump Station to fill the Stillhouse Mountain storage tank. Adapting
the pump station poses no problem; however, the resulting pressures would
exceed those allowed unless specific provisions were made to the distribution
system. This alternative deals with the improvements required if the pump
station is to be used to fill the Stillhouse Mountain tank. The improvements
required would consist of the following:
1. Install individual pressure reducing valves in Montvue and at the
Albemarle Schools (Albemarle High School, Jack Jouett, Greer).
2. Install 668 feet of 12 inch DI along Barracks Road.
3. Add a 40 horsepower pump with 7-inch impeller to the Canterbury
Hills Pumping Station.
4. Install telemetry from the storage tank.
5. Construct three pressure regulating valve stations.
Zn order to utilize the Stillhouse Mountain storage tank with Phase I of the
North Rivanna water system, individual pressure reducing valves (PRV's) must be
installed i.n Montuve and in the Albemarle Schools which include Albemarle High
School, Jack Jouett, and Greer Elementary School. Since this must be done
sooner or later, it would cost less to make the installations now, due to inflation~·
When the North Rivanna line is adequately protected, Stillhouse Mountain and
Piney Mountain may be connected and operated together~ if production at the Camelot
filter plant is found to be economical. However, at this time, it is not expected
to be economical. Therefore, this mode of operation remains an alternative.
A currently more realistic mode is to serve Stilihouse Mountain tank with South
Rivanna produced water. This is accomplished by constructing 668 feet of 12-inch
DI along Barracks Road. Without any Other appurtenances, this line could be
charged directly by the Canterbury Hills Pump Station. Note that the existing
pump station unassisted is not expected to fill more than half the tank and~should
realistically not fill much more than it did before the Montvue booster pump was
installed or about one tenth of the tank capacity. However, the addition of a
40 horsepower, 7-inch impeller pump at the Canterbury Hills Pump Station would
easily fill the tank.
Also, to fill the tank by the Canterbury Hills Pump Station, the Montuve booster
pump may be relocated to the new 12-inch DI along Barracks Road. This would
utilize t~he booster pump since it would no longer be needed at its Montvue site.
The relocated pump has a design flow Rapacity of 125 gpm and is expected to meet
the requirements of peak daily flow i£ Stillhouse Mountain tank is empty for any
reason. To meet fire flows under these conditions, a check value should be added
at the booster pump site. This would permit the Canterbury Hills Pump Station
to assist.
This alternative of relocating the booster pump and adding a check valve assures
gravity service, which provides reliable fire protection and pressure stabilization
throughout the day on Phase I of North Rivanna. Some of the areas benefited
would be Four~ Seasons, Whitewood Apartments, the Albemarle Schools, and Montvue.
West Leigh, Flordon, and Cotthurst would continue to enjoy gravity service as they
do now.
Areas remaining on the Canterbury Hills Pump Station would be Hessian Hills,
Canterbury Hills and Old Salem Apartments. This group comprises some of the
highest intensity development in the region and also experiences some of the
highest domestic water use. These areas would still have the water problems they
now face, however, only the Old Forge Road area would have severely limited fire
flows.
To protect the 01d Forge Road area, an 8-inch DI line could be constructed to
connect Old Salem with Old Forge Road. This would form a loop in the water system
which generally allows a range of flows four times better than a deadend system,
which is now there.
As stated before, the best fire protection and water service in general is obtained
from a gravity system. To make the Canterbury Hills system a gravity system, a new
PRV could be located on the new 12-inch DI which could be housed in the same vault
as the booster pump. This could be used to serve either the entire water supply
(provided the Camelot plant was operating) or fire flows only."
Mr. Bailey said he had been informed that the'Albemarle County Service Authority
............... ~ ~^~ ~e~ ~ ~ fu~ishin~ of pressure regulating
high pressures at the low elevations. Secondly., if there were a malfunction of the PRC
valve furnished and maintained by the Albemarle Service Authority which resulted in damage
to a customer, the Albemarle Service Authority could be held responsible. The Albemarle
Service Authority Board's consensus of opinion is that the responsibility for protection
against damage by reason of high pressure must be assumed by the individual customer.
Before establishing this as a policy, the Albemarle Service Authority desires the concurrence
of the Board of Supervisors.
Alternative No. 1 of the report was adopted by the Albemarle County Service Authority
with the deletion of the PRC valves and with the elimination of the Old Salem-Old Forge
Road connection. If this line section and the valves are omitted, the estimated cost will
be .reduced from the $57,235 shown in the report to $40,035. The omission of these valves
calls' for a program on the part of the'Albemarle County Service Authority to identify and
inform each individual customer who must install a protective device.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if by expanding the system beyond the capacity of the pump, if it
changed the system from one that could provide necessary pressures for fire protection to
one that could not. Mr. Bailey said no, the high pressure system that was designed to
furnish fire flows.has never been gut into use. Mr'. Lindstrom asked if by connecting all
of these systems, any government agency had done anything to reduce the quality of service.
Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Lindstrom said in one sense that makes a difference as to who
should bear the responsibility. Mr. Bailey said if the County and City had not formed the
Rivanna Authority, and the County had operated this high pressure system, the County would
have been faced with the same question as to who would bear the cost and obligation of
protection.
Mr. Fisher said he was not sure of the question. Who installs the valves if the
second alternative is choosen? Is a letter written to the customer and the customer in
turns has a plumber install the valve, or does the Service Authority install the valve and
bill the customer. Does the Albemarle Service Authority install and pay for the valve?
Mr. E. rE. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said
because of the change necessary to provide fire flows, it will increase pressures about 12
pounds. This increase may cause some people problems in their homes. Individual pressure
reducing valves installed in the home and maintained by the homeowner, as opposed to
pressure reducing valves that would protect large segments of lines is the question. If
large pressure reducing valves are installed, they would be. the responsibility of the
Albemarle Service Authority. The Service Authority Board requested a legal opinion on the
question of installing individual pressure reducing valves and was advised that they have
a responsibility to provide at least 20 pounds pressure to a residence, but have no
obligation to protect the consumer from high pressures. There are problems in installing
large pressure reducing valves. Areas would have to~solated and not all areas could be
protected by these valves. The Service Authority might also become responsible for installatic
of small individual pressure reducing valves within the home and for the private service
line to each customer that cannot be protected by a large valve. If any of these valves
should fail, the Service Authority might be ~egally liable for any damages.
Mr. Fisher asked if the valves would go inside or outside of the meter. Mr. Thompson
said they could go in either place, but he would recommend that they be installed at the
meter so the valve would then protect the service lines which have probably been installed
for a number of years. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible to notify the individual
customers that line pressures are going to be increased and this poses a potential problem
to customers in low elevations; that the Service Authority will install these valves, but
thereafter they will be the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain. Mr. Thompson
said there are several options. 1) The Service Authority could provide the valve at cost
and the homeowner have it installed. 2) The Service Authority could provide and install
the valves and then tell the homeowner it is his responsibility to maintain same. Since
the Service Authority does not have the work forces to install a large number of these
valves in a short period of time, the work would have to be let out to private contract.
Mr. Fisher asked if the people who would be responsible for maintenance of the valves will
receive additional benefits. Mr. Thompson said they will in the way of fire protection.
Dr. Iachetta asked if there would not be the additional advantage of having water flow
when the power is off. Mr. Agnor said yes.
Mr. Dorrier asked what damage would be done if no pressure reducing valve is installed.
Mr. Thompson said water tanks can blow or the pressure can cause ruptures in service
laterals. Mr. Dorrier asked if every customer in this area would need a pressure reducing
valve. Mr. Thompson said no. The BOCA Code requires that a pressure reducing valve be
installed when there is 80 pounds pressure. Any new connection on the lines would already
be protected since the entire area is already at greater than 80 pounds pressure.
Mr. Fisher asked the price of the valve. Mr. Thompson said, without installation,
the hardware is between $25 and $30. Dr. !achetta asked what the Service Authority has
done in Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Thompson said they have been telling the customer in
that subdivision that they must protect themselves from the high pressure.
Mr. Roudabush said if the Service Authority is upgrading service, he feels the
responsibility is the homeowners. Mr. Fisher suggested that some reasonable cost estimates
for installation be compiled and this matter be included on the March 14th agenda for
further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 6. Appropriation: Chris Greene Lake Parking Lot. Mr. Agnor said
the parking lot at Chris Greene Lake is inadequate. The staff needs approval of an appropriat
in order to employee a surveyor to make a topographic survey so the County Engineer's
Office can develop a site plan for expansion of same. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $1,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
on
February 21, 1979 (Regular--Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation: Contractual Services, Parks. Mr. Agnor said
it had been estimated that fees collected from the newly formed recreation programs for
the fiscal year 1978-79 Would be $2,000. Due to the success of these programs, over
$6,000 has already been colleCted. There are a number of programs still to be offered
in this fiscal year which require payment for instructors, custodial services and
officials, namely; tennis classes, basketball league-adult and youth, spring fee-based
classes and softball. In order to continue with these classes, an additional appropriation
of $7,000 needs to be made from fees collected or expected to be collected within
this fiscal year. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $7,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and coded to 10L-252, Contractual Services - Parks
Department.
The fomegoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes.
Mr. Henley reported no corrections to November 1, 1978. Mr. Dorrier had not read the
minutes of November 15, 1978. Mr. Roudabush reported no corrections on November 29, 1978.
On the December 13, 1978 minutes, Mr. Roudabush asked that on Page 77, the word "liens" be
changed to "easements". Mr. Henley reported no corrections on either December 20 (afternoon)
or December 20 (night) meetings. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier, to approve the minutes of November 1, November 29, December 13, December 20
(afternoon) and December 20 (night), as corrected. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabmsh.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher said the Virginia Association of Counties is in the process of notifying
the 20 counties that are still subject to annexation suits that the Governor is about to
sign' the annexation bills recently enacted by the General Assembly. VAC0 has
suggested that those counties which are subject to annexation make their feelings about
these bills known. Mr. Dorrier said before making any comments he would like to see the
bills since he did not feel he could oppose this legislation without suggesting some
alternative legislation. Dr. Iachetta said the Michie bills are a disaster for Albemarle
County since they open the County to threats of annexation again. Mr. Fisher said the
Joint Task Force on Annexation, on which both a representative from City Council and
himself participated, both voted for the legislation recommended by this committee, but
none of that legislation was supported by the General Assembly. Mr. Fisher said he:did
not think he would have voted for the current County Comprehensive Plan if he had thought
the County would be faced with annexation again. Dr. Iachetta said the County has been
targeting all available highway funds for the improvement of Hydraulic Road. He will b%
very upset if the County is annexed in the next three years because that money could be
spent in areas of the County that are not annexable.
After some further comments, motion was~offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following
resolution to be forwarded immediately to Governor John N. Dalton: '
Albemarle County recognizes, that House Bill 603 does not protect it from
annexation. This legislation will make it difficult, if not impossible,
for Albemarle County to rationally plan for land use and future growth as
mandated by the General Assembly and this County urgently requests your
support of the amendment proposed by the Joint Task Force on Annexation and
supported by the Virginia Association of Counties and Virginia Municipal
League; failing that, your veto of the entire package.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 10:33 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting to February 26, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. i-n the Board Room
of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Chairman