1979-08-15NAugust 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 15, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Board Members Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; Robert W. Tucker Jr., Director of Planning; and Mason Caperton, Assistant Planner.
Age~da Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order at 7:~30 P.M., and requested
a..brief..moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-79-21. Stephen A. McClellan. Rezone 140 acres from A-1 to
RPN/A-1. Property located on northeast side of Route 743 approximately 1/2 mile southeast
of the intersection of Routes 660 and 743. County Tax Map 3~, Parcels 26, 27, 28 and 29.
Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 1 and August 8,
1979)
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of ~Planning, read the staff's report:
Requested Zoning:
Existing Zoning:
Acreage:
Location:
RpN/A-1
A-i, Agricultural
140 acres
On the north side of Route 743, southeast of Earlysville
Character of the Area
The site is bordered by the Charlottesville/Albemarle A~rport to the east and the
Deer Run Subdivision to the west. Across Route 743 are~several lots which appear to
be in the two to five acre range. The site is largely Wooded with evergreen trees
and deciduous trees. There are many permanent streams ~n the site which feed into
Chris Green Lake. The topography is gently rolling. The steeper slopes do not appear
to restrict building sites.
Existing Zoning in the Area
The Deer Run Subdivision is zoned R-1 and there is some M-1 Industrial property to
the southeast bordering the site. Ail other land surrotnding the site is zoned A-1.
History
SP-16?: The applicant applied for a planned unit devel~
withdrawn without prejudice on May 1, 1972.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation
Agricultural/Conservation Area with a recommended densit of 1 du/5 acres.
Soils
According to the United States Soil Conservation Service, there should be few soil
problems on the ridges, however, in the drainage areas, the soils tend to be wet and
are subject to overland flow.
~ment and the application was
Comparat. ive Impact Statistics
Existing A-1
RPN/A-1
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips/Day
School Children
approx. 67 66
207.7 204.6
469 462
38.19 37.62
Land Use Data
Number of lots
Total area
Est. Total Lot Area
Est. Total Open Space
Proposed Gross Density
Proposed Net Density
Range in Lot Size
66
140.0 acres
97.0 acres
36.0 acres
0.47 unitsZacre or
0.67 units/acre
60,000 square feet to
RPN Proposal
The applicant proposes 66 single family lots to be serve
wells and septic systems.
du/2.12 acres
95,000 square feet
~ by private roads, individual
Staff Comment
The 1978 traffic count on this section of Route 743 is 3
and is currently listed as non-tolerable. Although the ]
significantly different from what is allowed by right, ti
appears to protect the sensitive areas, such as streams
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Approval is for a maximum of 66 lots. The location
shall comply with the aPproved plan. Open space sh~
with the number of lots approved in the final subdi~
,355 vehicle trips per day
)roposed density is not
he open space designation
~nd steeper slopes.
and acreages of land uses
~!1 be dedicated in accordance
~ision process;
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
No grading shall occur until the final subdivision process;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to include
the use of open space for septic fields, where permitted and where necessary, and
approval of private road maintenance agreements;
Health Department approval of two septic field locations on each lot;
Fire Official approval of dry hydrant;
Ail lots shall have access on interior roads;
County Engineer approval of road plans;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances,
including deceleration lanes on the eastern and western entrances and approval of
frontage improvements;
School bus shed shall be located along the western deceleration lane and pedestrian
trail be extended to serve it;
Access easement be granted over the farmland parcel for the use of Lots 32 through 66
prior to final approval;
Provide boundary survey showing no more than 140 acres.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the
addition of a 13th condition: "Easement to be granted over farmland parcel for access to
and installation and use of dry hydrant." Mr. Tucker then read the following letter from
Mr. C. M. Boggs, Manager of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport:
"August 13, 1979
In reference to Mr. Stephen A. McClellan's proposed development, Happy Valley Farm,
relative to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, I have the following comments:
Airport Master Plan: The airport's current Master Plan was adopted in 1974. A
Master Plan Update is now in progress and due to be completed in February 1980.
Crosswind Runway: The reali.zation of the crosswind runway mentioned in the
Master Plan Appendix C-1 will depend on updated crosswind component information
and cost-benefit analysis being developed in the Master Plan Update. It is
reasonable to assume, judging from the numbers of light aircraft accidents
associated with crosswinds and the number of pilot complaints about crosswinds,
that the new crosswind component information will justify an additional runway
based on the FAA wind component criteria. Such a runway would be oriented east-
west and be designed to accommodate light aircraft, probably in the 12,500 Lb.
and below category. These aircraft would require no more than 3000 feet of
runway for operations. A runway of this size and orientation would require the
acquisition of property within the area shown on Phase II of the proposed
development.
Naturally, a project of this magnitude is going to be extremely expensive. Once
the updated information contained in the Master Plan is in hand, a determination
will be made by the Federal Aviation Administration, Virginia Department of
Aviation, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board as to the feasibility
of this project.
Noise: The proposed development is outside the 30 Noise Exposure Forecast
contour line shown on the existing Master Plan. The Master Plan Revision, when
complete, will redefine the airport noise contour lines. However, the new convour
lines will be quite similar to the existing lines and may be somewhat less. If
the crosswind runway mentioned in B does become a reality, the noise generated
by the light general aviation type aircraft utilizing this runway will not
affect the residents in Phase I, but may be outside acceptable tOlerances for
the residents in Phase II.
With the exception of a possible requirement for land acquisition associated with the
mentioned crosswind runway, the proposed development should cause no problems related
to airport development, utilization or protection. Some of the residents of this
development will, of course, be exposed to the usual annoyances associated with
living under the flight pattern of an airport. It would be prudent to reserve
approval of Phase II of this project until the new information contained in the
Master Plan Update has been evaluated and a determination made on the crosswind
runway. This short delay in approval of Phase II would protect the developer, future
landowners, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport from additional costs.and
complications if the crosswind runway is determined to be a requirement.
Please give me a call if I can be of further assistance on this matter.
Sincerely,
(signed) C. M. Boggs
Airport Manager"
Mr. Boggs, Airport Manager, was present, and he indicated on a map approximately
where a crosswind runway would be constructed if required.
Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, described the characteristics of the
property. He indicated the Phase II area of the plan, and requested the Board's approval
for the entire development, including Phase II, with the possible condition that no building
permit be issued until the Airport's new Master Plan is issued indicating the final decision
on the crosswind runway or one year whichever is first. Mr. Parks said the density was
based strictly on the 140 acres, and did not include the farm area. He also noted that
due to the comple~ homeowners agreement, he felt assured that the trees shown on his plan
would remain undisturbed.
49O
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
r
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened at 7:56 P.M.. No one wished to speak
either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the plan presented was a good one4vhich made good use of the
land available. He said if the road entrances are properly placed, it could improve the
traffic situation in that area. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve Phase
I and give a preliminary approval of Phase II subject to review after the completion of
the revised Airport Master Plan. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. St. John if a preliminary
approval for Phase II could legally be interpreted as a final approval no matter what the
outcome of the Airport Master Plan. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if there
were some way to avoid this problem. Mr. St. John said a condition could be placed on the
rezoning approval, stating that no subdivision or final approval of any section effected
by the proposed runway be given until the Airport Master Plan is received. Mr. Roudabush
then revised the wording of his motion stating Phase I and II be approved as shown on the
plan, subject to conditions set out by the Planning Commission, plus a 14th condition
reading "final subdivision approval of Phase II shall not be given until such time as the
Airport Master Plan has been approved." Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. There being
no further discussion, roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-79-23. Frank C. McCue and Alan Dillard have petitioned the
Board of Supervisors to rezone 71.26 acres from A-1 to RPN/A-1. Property is located on the
southwest side of Route 677 (Ballard Road), and northeast of West Leigh Subdivision.
County Tax Map 59, Parcel 6, Samuel Miller Magisterial District; (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 1 and 8, 1979)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning staff's report:
Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1
Existing Zoning: A-I, Agricultural
Acreage: 71.260 acres
Location: On the southwest side of Route 677 (Old Ballard Road) north of Route 250
west and adjacent to West Leigh.
Character of the Area
The site is bordered to the south and southwest by West Leigh. Flordon and Farmington
are about a mile east of the site. Also, the Westwoods and Ballard Woods ~Subdivisions
are to the west.
Exis't'in.g Zoning in the. Area
West Leigh, Flordon, Farmington, and Ballard Woods are zoned R-1 Residential.
Wem~woods is zoned A-1. An adjacent parcel to the northwest is zoned RS-1 and other
adjacent lands are zoned A-1.
C'om~rehe'ns'i've 'P'l'an Recommendation
Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended density of ione unit per five acres.
SOils
Soils in this area should cause few problems. Meadowville loam located along streams
are subject to overland flow. Erosion problems may occur on steeper slopes, if
disturbed.
Comparative Impact Statistics
Dwellings
Population
Vehicle Trips/Day
School Children
Existing A-1 RPN/A-1
approx. 33 35
102.3 108.5
231 245
18,81 19.95
Land Use Data
Number of lots
Total Area
Gross Density Permitted
Gross Density Proposed
Net Density Proposed
Open Space
Range in lot size
35 lots
71.260 acres
0.5 du/acre
0.49 du/acre
0.75 du/acre
18.502 acres
42,000 square feet to 2+ acres
RPN Pr'oposal
The applicant proposes 35 single family lots to have access on state maintained roads
(off Route 677) and to be served by public water.
Staff Comment
The 1978 traffic count on this section of Route 677 is 558 vehicle trips per day and
it is listed as non-tolerable.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Relocation of the easements serving parcels 7E and 6C on Tax Map 59 to the
satisfaction of the County Attorney, prior to final subdivision approval;
Approval is for a maximum of 35 lots. Location and acreage shall comply with
the approved plan. Open space shall be ded~a~t~ ~ ~n~~ ~*~ *~ ..... ~
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
3. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to
include the use of open space for septic facilities, if necessary;
4. Compliance with Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances;
5. No grading shall occur until final subdivision approval;
6. Health Department approval of-two septic field locations on each lot prior to
final subdivision approval;
7. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations prior to final subdivision approval;
8. Ail units shall be served by a public water supply system and approved by appro-
priate agencies prior to final subdivision approval;
9. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of road plans prior to final subdivision approval;
10. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and frontage improvements prior to final subdivision approval.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of several letters from neighboring property owners, four
letters supported the rezoning if road improvements were made to adjacent property, and
one letter stated opposition. (Letters are on permanent file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors).
Mr. Frank Kessler, representing the applicant, said there was a need for homes in
this area. He described the character of the land and the type of RPN he hoped would be
developed. Mr. Kessler said a meeting took place between his firm and adjacent property
owners to find out their concerns regarding this development. Some concerns were, seepage
from septic fields entering the creek, traffic on West Leigh Roads, and disturbance of the
natural buffer near the streams. Mr. Kessler said he assured the property owners that all
means would be taken to protect the streams following all Health Department requirements
for septic systems, and a road system which would be independent of West Leigh roads will
be developed.
Mr. Tom Lincoln presented the detailed map of the proposed RPN, indicating lot
locations, roads, entrances, etc. Board members asked questions regarding placement of
roads, size of the lots, problems caused by location of VEPCO transmission towers across
the property and steepness of the slopes.
At 8:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open. First to speak was Mrs.
Howard Cromwell who said she was a resident of West Leigh. She said she was concerned
about the location of the open space being beneath the transmission~ilines. Mrs. Cromwell
said a stream runs through lots 16, 17 and 18, and would cause problems in drainfield
location. If a common drainfield were located in the open space, then she suggested a
homeowners' association should be formed to be sure maintenance of the septic system is
kept up. Lastly she voiced her concern about increased traffic on West Leigh Drive.
Mrs. Julia Broome requested improvements to roads in the area before the RPN is
approved, and questioned approval of such an increased density. Lastly, Mrs. Broome asked
the Board to consider other development in the area which would ~also increase traffic on
West Leigh Drive, and whether or not construction vehicles would be allowed to use that
street to get to the construction site. She noted that there are bridges along that road
which have a very low tonnage capacity.
Mrs. Virginia Hilton said she wished to echo what Mrs. Broome stated.
Mr. Kessler defended his planned density by. saying that the increased density will
allow him to bring in public water instead of relying on individual wells, will allow for
less stripping of the road, and a better road system can be built within the development.
Ms. Page Roman said approval of this RPN should not be decided without taking the
c~nstruction of a new Meriwether Lewis School into consideration~
Mr. Ed Bain defended the plan and the roads proposed. He felt the RPN was a better
use of the property rather than stripping the road and placing crowded lots. He also felt
the non-tolerable status of Ballard Road was in the maintenance of the road, not its
ability to safely handle traffic.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and at 9:06 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared
the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher then read the following statement issued by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
"Both entrance locations can have adequate sight distance through the clearing of
vegetation and some minor grading. Some of th~s may be accomplished through work
done in common with Ballard Meadows Site Plan. We recommend that the frontage of the
property be improved placing the ditch line at 18 feet, and the shoulder at 15 feet
from the centerline of the existing road. The eastern entrance should be designed
utilizing a 100 foot, 12 foot wide turn lane with a 175 foot taper and the western
entrance a 125 foot, 12 foot wide turn lane with a 175 foot taper. Ail the work
along the roadway and the entrances may be accomplished under a permit."
Mr. Fisher said it is clear that Ballard Road can not accommodate any more traffic in
its present condition, and that all three bridges are too narrow. Mr. Lindstrom commented
that without a workable Zoning Ordinance, there is nothing the Board can do to insure
improved roads, and proper density for a location. He said he felt the proposed RPN plan
was better than if the applicant used the available A-! zoning.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker's opinion of the usage of lands under the transmission
wires as open space. Mr. Tucker said it did not matter who owned the land (either fee
simple or common ownership) only that it would not have a structure placed on it. Mr.
Tucker said he felt it would be suitable for open space, even though it only allowed
limited uses. Mr. Henley said he has transmission wires over portions of his property,
and uses the land for farming. Mr. Roudabush noted that the area under the transmission
lines would have to be included in the square footage if figuring the area of a lot, and
would therefore, have to be included in the figuring of open space for the RPN.
August ~15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom suggested no homes be built or septic systems installed on lots with
slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Fisher said he was in favor of this rezoning request, but
suggested a rewording of condition #3 to read as follows:
County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements prior to final approval to
include the use of open space for septic facilities if both approved septic
fields on any given lot shall have failed to operate properly; provided also
that no septic field shall be located within the 100 foot. septic setback;
Mr. Lindstrom suggested the addition of two conditions to read as follows:
11.
The report of a qualified soil scientist shall be required prior to final sub-
division approval, and location of septic fields shall be governed thereby.
12. No septic field or home construction shall occur on slopes of 25% or greater.
Motion was then offered for approval with the conditions presented by the Planning
Commission, the word change in condition #3 and the addition of conditions 11 and 12.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier said he supports Mr. Lindstrom's
remarks about 25% slopes. Mr. Roudabush said in reference to condition 12, in order for a
home to have a good walk-out basement a home must be built on a slope of about 25%. He
said he has seen it done where people have graded their property to create a 25% slope.
He felt such a condition causes a loss of use of good land, and creates destruction of
other lands. He said he did not want to make an issue out of it, but did not want the
County to make it policy. Dr. Iachetta said he would support it, and that he felt the
developer is making a better use of the land than the present zone offers.
There being no further discussion, roll was called, and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 9:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a five minute recess.
P.M.
Meeting reconvened at 9:49
Agenda Item No. 4. Five Year Capital Improvements Program and the Planned Use of
Revenue Sharing Funds. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 1 and August 8, 1979).
Mr. Agnor summarized the Five Year Capital Improvement Program, (set out in full in
minutes of August 1, 1979) detailing the type of project, costs, county share of the cost,
prior year's funding, additional local funding, and the approximate time frame for funding.
the project.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and requested public comment by categories
as presented by Mr. Agnor.
There were no public comment on the first two programs, Administrative & Court Renova-
tions, and Airports. Under the category of Education, first to speak was Mrs. Julia
Broome, who said she supported the School Board's decision to construct a new school to
replace Meriwether Lewis instead of renovating.
There were no public comments on items IV--Fire, Rescue & Safety; V--Highways; VII--
Libraries; and VIII--Other.
Under category IX--Parks and Recreation, an unidentified women asked what and where
was the Rann Preserve. Mr. Fisher informed her as to its location, and said this project
requires minimal funding as it is intended for passive recreation.
Mrs. Barbara Jo Jones, Chairperson of the Parent Advisory Committee for the Hollymead
Elementary School, read the following letter which was mailed to Dr. Iachetta:
"July 26, 1979
Dear Dr. Iachetta:
It has come to the attention of the Hollymead Parent Advisory Committee that there
are some priority needs for our school that we cannot handle financially.
After. careful evaluation and discussion with Mrs. Mary King, principal, and some of
the members of P.A.C. a~d the playground committee, the following list of needs with
estimated costs will be formally presented at the August 1, 1979 Board of Supervisors
work session-
Gate - at the east rear door to block off the classrooms in order to provide use
of the restrooms for the public.
Walks - to complete the. present walk system and provide clean and dry access to
the play structures when the ground is soft.
Plaza Area - to provide a suitable area for other activities such as jump rope,
jacks, and marbles.
Metal Benches - to provide adequate seating for those using the facilities.
3 Trees - tq~he placed according to the master Plan* to provide shade for the play
~ structureS, plaza and blacktop areas.
*Note: A Parks Department Master Plan has not been approved Go date.
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
Expand the Blacktop Area - to better facilitate the physical education classes
in their outdoor activities when grass is wet or ground soft and muddy.
Obstacle Course - to encourage development of children's motor muscles.
Backstops - to provide a more realistic atmosphere and protect spectators watching
farm and little league ball games.
As you consider the budgeting and distribution of our tax dollars, please include
these requests so that Eot only Hollymead students but many other county residents
using the grounds can feel comfortable and see the effective use of their taxes.
For the past three years the Parent Advisory Committee has invested a large percentage
of its money in play structures and landscaping. Our efforts are merely a drop in
the bucket when you look at what remains to be done to create a practical and safe
environment for our children. We sincerely hope you will be able to help us in our
endeavors.
Yours truly,
(signed) Barbara Jo Jones, -Chairperson
Parent Advisory Committee, Hollymead Elementary"
Mr. Agn~or presented a request from the Northside Little League regarding the Hollymead
Playfield, as follows:
3.
4.
6.
7.
A new backstop for the little league field.
A new backstop for the farm league field.
Refreshment stand with built-in rest rooms.
New fencing surrounding the field.
Field lighting.
Enclosed dugouts for the home and visiting team.
Stationery waste containers with a regular schedule for trash collection.
There were no comments on category X--Solid Waste and XI--Utilities. There were also
no comments from the public on any of the non-county funded projects. No one else from
the public wished to speak, and at 10:32 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed.
Dr. Iachetta commented on the commitment of funds to renovate and enlarge certai~--~
schools in the County. He said he is not convinced about the economics of building one
large school rather than two smaller schools which has been explored in the case of Meri-
wether Lewis. Mr. Fisher said he and Mr. Lindstrom met with members of the School Board,
the Planning Commission and the school board staff regarding a location for Meriwether
Lewis School and improvements to Red Hill School. He said he was not convinced that a new
school in the vicinity of Meriwether Lewis is the right thing to do, but he felt funds
should be allocated for the project and allow the details to be worked out later. Mr.
Lindstrom said he is mostly concerned about planning for growth in the area near Meri-
wether Lewis School when the School is not in the Proposed~Ivy Village. He said he agreed
with Mr. Fisher that the money should be allocated for the building project but r~garding
not appropriated utilities, Mr. Lindstrom said he hoped there would be some type of policy
for utility growth to accompany the new zoning ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier said he visited Yancey School last week and spoke to the people regarding
the upgrading of the playgrounds.. He said it was his opinion that the people were in
favor of those improvements.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the proposed Capital Improvement
Budget as presented by the County Executive (and is set out in full in the minutes of
August 1, 1979). The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta said he would vote for the motion only because he is not voting on
specifics, but the entire program in principal. Mr. Dorrier said he also would vote for
the program, although he feels the extension of utilities to the Scottsville Shopping
Center should be done immediately. At this point, roll was called, and themotion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Agnor then reviewed the list of proposed special appropriations - Capital Improve-
ment Program from the General Fund Unallocated Balance. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend
appropriating all shown on his list with the exception of 19.3A, Data Processing, in the
amount of $300,000. He said this could wait until it is decided whether to lease or buy
the necessary equipment. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
that $900,548 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and transferred to the following codes:
Code Description Amount
19Z
19-18A.4
19J
19.12
19.17K
19.19A
19.19B
Juvenile Court Building $ 5,000
Court Square Building~Existing County Office - - -100,000-Building & Court
Airports (Taxiway & Master Plan) 53,513
Scottsville School 340,000
Miscellaneous School Repairs 35,000
Albemarle High School Track Renovation 130,000
Albemarle/Burley Renovation 50,000
louse)
/ 4
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
19.7-215c Fire Hydrants and Lines 39,750
19.7 Radio Relay Tower 20,000
19G.2 Bookmobile 10,000
19.4A Microfilm - Clerk's Office 19,285
19.t0L.1 Chris Greene Comfort Station 18,000
19.10L.4 Chris Greene Tot Lot & Parking 11,500
19W.1-600 Ivy Creek Natural Area 12,500
19.10L.5 Walton School Tennis Courts 15,000
19.10L.6 Albemarle High School Tennis Courts & Lights 10,000'
19.10L.7 Hollymead School Recreational Facilities 10,000
19.10L.8 Yancey School Recreational Facilities 10,000
t9.10L.9 Other Schools Recreational Facilities 1!,00.0
AYES:
NAYS:
TOTAL $900.~54.8.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Request from State Air Pollution Control Board. Mr. Agnor noted
receipt of a questionnaire dated July 13, 1979 requesting the opinion of local governments
regarding the indirect source regulation which became effective on January 1, 1975. The
questionnaire requests Board opinions on the effectiveness of the regulation and any
improvements which could be made in it. Mr. Agnor said indirect pollutant sources were
mainly automobiles, and levels from cars have dropped in recent years due to improved
exhaust systems. There was a brief discussion, and Mr. Agnor said the questionnaire would
be completed by his office and returned by the required date.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: April 11, May 16 and May 23, 1979. Dr.
Iachetta reported no errors or corrections for the minutes of April llth. Mr. Lindstrom
and Mr. Roudabush reported they had not had the opportunity to read the minutes for"~ay'~
16, and May 23 at this time. Motion was then offered for approval of the minutes of April
llth by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointment: BOCA Code Board of Appeals. Motion was offered by
Mr. Roudabush to .reappoint Mr. Henry J. Browne of 404 -- 8th Street N.E., Charlottesville,
to the post for another term of five years beginning August 15, 1979 and expiring August
21, 1984. MOtion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriations. Mr. Agnor presented a request for appropriation
for the Title IV-C Adopter Grant. He said it is a Federal Grant applied for by the School
Division. A second request is for the reappropriation of a request made in October, 1976,
which was never dispersed, and cleared at the end of that year. This reappropriation was
for the County's share of the Human Resources Assembly. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that
the following be, and the same hereby is appropriated:
From Code Descript.ion Amount
School Fund to 17.1 for
Title IV C Adopter Grant
(Secondary Learning Disabilities)
$6,644.00
General Fund to 18B.14 for Human Resources Assembly
2,000.00
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
(NOTE: Agenda Items 3A and 4 which follow, were held over from August 15, 1979 afternoon
session.)
Agenda Item No. 3A. Agreement: Soil Survey. Mr. Fisher said he wished the Board's
approval for him to sign a one year extension on an agreement between the County and the
Soil Conservation Service to continue with the soil survey. (Original Agreement, Minute
Book #9, Pages 220-222, Meeting of July 20, 1972) The extension for Cooperative Agreement
No. 58-33A7-9-11 is from October 1, 1979 through September 30, 1980. Motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta authorizing the Chairman to sign the extension. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. VACO: Land Use Task Force. Mr. Lindstrom reported that the
Virginia Association of Counties has appointed a Land Use Task Force to analyze the present
state of the law regarding land use. This study will aid Counties to make decisions
consistent with the law, and to get some idea where State enabling legislation needs to be
4.95
growing counties in the State, and likely to benefit from such a study. He suggested the
Board consider a commitment of $1,500. Mr. St. John said an analysis of this type would
be of use to his office, and the County. Mr. Fisher said he would support the commitment,
as he had been trying to get the Virginia Association of Counties to conduct such a study
for a number of years.
August 15, 1979 (Night Meeting)
Several Board members were not sure such an a~a~ysis of land use rulings w.ouid be
beneficial to Albemarle County. Following a brief discussion, motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom for the County to commit $1,500 for a Land Use Task Force study. Mr. Lindstrom
emphasized this was not an appropriation, only a commitment, and that he would be attending
a meeting during the upcoming week, which would detail exactly what the study would consist
of. He noted that he would gladly bring back minutes of that meeting to this Board for
their further evaluation before appropriating the money. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor reported the Virginia
Office of Housing and Urban Development in Richmond wish~ed the County to make an appointment
to the Community Housing Resources Board which has no power or ability to sanction activities
of local real estate firms, only serving local realtors in complying with affirmative
marketing agreements. Mr. Agnor suggested Mr. RUsse~0tis, County Housing Coordinator, be
appointed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, appointing Mr.
Otis to the Community Housing Resources Board. Roll was called, and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 11:37 P.M., motiOn was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn to 7:30 P.M. on August 16, 1979 in the Albemarle
County Courthouse. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vo~e:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
C'hair~ -