1979-09-12065
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 12, 1979 at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., F. Anthony Iache~ta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:17 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, County Executive and George R. St. John, County
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher.
At 9:10 ~.M., the meeting was called to Order by
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: March 14, March 15, March 21 (afternoon),
April 18 (afternoon), May 16, May 23, May 30, June 6, and June 13, 1979.
a) Mr. Dorrier reported no errors or corrections for the minutes of March 14.
b) March 15, 1979 meeting, Mr. Fisher reported no errors or corrections.
c) March 21, 1979, (afternoon) Mr. Fisher on page 213, third paragraph asked to delete
word "can" and change word to "could". Also, in the next paragraph, line six, the word
"excused" should be "explained".
d) April 18 (afternoon) and May 16, 1979, Mr. Lindstrom was not present.
e) May 23, 1979, Mr. Roudabush reported no corrections or errors.
f) May 30, 1979, Dr. Iachetta reported no corrections or errors.
June 6, 1979, Dr. Iachetta reported no corrections or errors.
h) June 13, 1979, Mr. Henley said he had not completed reading.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the minutes of March 14, March
15, March 21 (afternoon), May 23, May 30, and June 6, 1979. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom
Agenda Item No. 3a. Abandonment of Route 668. (Deferred from August 8). Mr. Henley
offered motion to remove this item from the agenda, until such time as new information on
the subject is received. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9~'!7 A.M.) Motion was 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. -3b. Abandonment of Road off 602. (Deferred from August 8). Mr.
McCallum, said there are three groups interested in the abandonment of this road. He said
no final agreement has yet been worked out, and suggested deferring this matter until
November 14, 1979. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
'NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3c. Accept Road into State System - Loftlands. Mr. Agnor noted
receipt of letter of request from Mr. Kenneth Youel dated August 15, 1979~ and presented
the following resolution for the Board's consideration:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to
accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and appro-
val by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Loftlands Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+12 of Loftlands Drive, a point to the centerline of
Loftlands Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 660; thence with Loft-
lands Drive in a southwesterly direction 2053 feet to station 20+65, the end of
Loftlands Drive in Loftlands.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-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 658, pages 181-185.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the resolution
as presented. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
066
September 12, 1979 (Day Meetin_]) . ~
Agenda Item No. 3d. Request to abandon Route 9568. Mr. Agnor noted receipt Of
resolution from the Albemarle County School Board requesting this abandonment and then
presented the following resolution for the Board's consideration:
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the State Secondary System due to
relocation of Route 9568; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that no public hearings will be necessary in
this instance due to the fact that the road is the entrance road to the Scottsvi!le
Elementary School and the School Board temporarily does not need other access to the
school property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the following abandonment be, and the same is hereby approved:
Route 9568 for its entire length - 0.22 mile
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. J. Ashley Williams of the Engineering Department said construction at the Scotts-
ville sc~ooI site created the necessity for this action. Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation said when construction at the site is completed,
it is a very simple procedure to bring the new road into the State Secondary System.
Motion was th-eh offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the resolution
as presented. 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. 3e. Status Report - Westover Hills Road. Mr. Agnor said he had been
in communication with residents of Westover Hills Subdivision for several months, con-
cerning the extension, paving, and acceptance of the cul-de-sac into the State Secondary
System. Mr. Agnor reported the developer had great difficulty in obtaining a construction
contractor to do the paving job, but now has bids from two, and hopes to have the job
completed before winter.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Other Highway Matters:
Mr. Agnor pr.esented the following letter to the Board:
"August 7, 1979
As requested in your resolution dated June 13, 1979, the following addition to
the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective August 7,
1979.
ADDITION
From: Route 616
Sincerely,
(signed) Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy
Commissioner and Chief Engineer"
0.3 mile in an easterly direction.
LENGTH
0.30 Mi.
Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter with attached report; (Report is on
file in the office of the Clerk ~o the Board. Wording of this Corridor Study is somewhat
different from wording contained in report adopted by Board on May 10, 1979, and set out in
full on pages 302-306 of Minute Book 17.)
"August 28, 1979
On May 10, 1979, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution adopting the Route 29
Corridor Study prepared by the Department as the plan for the County. Attached is
a copy of the final corridor study and functional plan prepared by the Department
for the Board.
At this same meeting, the Board requested the County staff to prepare ordinances to
implement this plan for the Board's review. I believe that with submission of this
final study report and functional plan, the Department has met the formal request
of the Board of Supervisors. I believe that preparations of draft ordinances, as
requested by the Board, can now proceed. This office will certainly be available to
the County staff if questions concerning implementing ordinances should arise.
Yours truly,
(signed) .D.S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Mr.~ Fisher said it is now the responsibility of the County staff to submit appropriate
ordinance revisions. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Roosevelt about the "western bypass/eastern
residential collector". He noted that on the first page of the report that elimination of
either of these roads would create an unacceptable traffic condition. Mr. Roosevelt said
the problem stems from the fact that the Highway Department must work within the present
right-of-way, as no additional right-of-way can be obtained.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt exactly what could be expected in the way of a
067
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
of the CATS study. Dr. Iachetta, who is a member of the CATS Policy Committee, said both
bypasses have been approved in committee along with a lot of other improvements on roads.
However, transportation aspects ha~e yet to be finalized.
~ t~a~uEu~t~8~ 19?~,~Board~m~et'iaE,~Mf~dB~blC~llB2 a~e~ Dh~t the Board consider
changing the pike plan which is now a part of the Hydraulic Road improvement project· Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Douglas W. Eckel, Senior Planner, regarding
this request; such information being requested by the Board:
"Staff was asked to make a recommendation concerning the proposed bike path for
Hydraulic Road. Concerns with safety and the potential utilization of the pathway
led to consideration of three alternative actions: (1) the widening of the roadway
itself an additional eight feet to accommodate on street lanes; (2) the extension of
the proposed pathway north to Rio Road; and (3) the deletion of the proposed pathway
from the plans. For cost-impact reasons the staff has considered only the last of
the above alternatives.
Other alternatives include: (1) the deletion of the bike path and widening of the
sidewalk to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians; and (2) the further re-
finement of the existing plan in order to ensure to the extent possible safe use of
the pathway. Accommodation of combined use on one pathway is not a safe alternative,
however, and thus is not considered here.
After review of a number of recent publications and contacts with local, state, and
federal agencies concerned with bicycle planning, staff has a number of recommendations.
These are summarized as follows:
The County should build the bicycle path as planned between Georgetown Road and
Lamb's Road. Staff feels that the client group served by the pathway ~ill be
best protected by signalized access and path separation.
The County and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation should be aware
that safety problems will exist at the intersections and should take steps to make
each intersection as safe as possible. This entails the use of stop, yield, and
directional signing, the creation of adequate sight distance, and the provision of
adequate access ramps. Specifically, where bicyclists would have to cross traffic to
reach either the pathway or the opposite side of the roadway where no path exists,
they should be required to stop and should be provided with adequate signalization
for proceeding safely.
The County should require mid-block or intersection entrance and exit ramps in or.der
to ensure access to the bike path as it is completed north to Rio Road. As above,
cross traffic access should be signed and, where possible, signalized.
The County should support a program of safety instruction for school aged bicyclists,
specifically in the Greer-Jouett-Albemarle Schools. They should also encourage the
Education Department to provide bicycle parking impoundment areas for student use
during school hours.
Mr. Fisher suggested a copy of the entire memorandum be sent to Mr. Roosevelt of the
Highway Department for his information.
Other recommendations outside of the scope of the specific charge includes:
The County should revise and update the current, adopted Bike Plan. Areas that need
to be examined: (1) safety instruction and general education; (2) changes in accepted
design standards; and (3) the necessary elements for a comprehensive program encour-
aging bicycle use on the local level.
The County should look closely at plans for the proposed McIntire Road Extension for
ways Of accommodating bicyclists in this commuting corridor. Existing facilities,
including showers and lockers, at the Lane complex, and self-supporting r~ntal
bi~61e lockers are an inexpensive, easy method for encouraging this use by County
employees and others.
The County should co-ordinate all bicycle planning on the McIntire Road Extension
with planning by the City of Charlottesville in order to prevent creation of another
bicycle "barrier."
General comments: Albemarle County is not alone in meeting with resistance from on-
street, utility bicyclists during the implementation of their adopted facilities
plan. However, the construction of the Hydraulic Road facility will not directly
affect the use of the roadway by utility bicyclists, either legally or functionally.
The staff feels that the expressed interest of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Bicycle
Association is an indication of the existence of a well organized, knowledgeable
advocacy group that can assist in the encouragement of transportation alternatives to
the automobile. Bicycles will become as important in America in the future as they
are now in other nations around the world, where they are ridden primarily on-street.
Because the goals of efficient land use and energy use are served by supporting
planning for bicycles, they have become increasingly more necessary as a transpor-
tation option. The goal now is to make their use safer and more convenient.
Staff wishes to note; in support of its comments concerning the McIntire Road Extension,
that seven of thirty, or close to one-fourth of the speakers at the public hearing
spoke out for inclusion of bicycle facilities in the plans. This compares with one
interested party speaking at the public hearing on the Hydraulic project. Interest
in bicycle transportation appears to be on the increase."
Mr. "Dan Roosevelt requested that the Board of Supervisors have a work session regarding
revisions to the Six-Year Highway plan. Mr. Roosevelt said he hopes this revised plan
068
members were in agreement with the date and time, and Mr. Roosevelt agreed to be present.
Mr. Dorrier requested a blinking traffic signal at the intersection of Routes 6 and
627 in Esmont. He noted that there is a good deal of pedestrian traffic, and said many
residen.ts had made this request to him. Mr. Roosevelt said the data he has indicates that
a blinking signal is not warranted, and suggested meeting with Mr. Dorrier to discuss this
further.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to bring to_Mr. Roosevelt's attention that due to the
flooding which occurred this past week, many stop and road signs have been knocked down.
Mr. Fisher asked the condition of roads due to the storms. Mr. Roosevelt said four gravel
roads were severely damaged, and two sections of Route 810 need shoulder repairs. He sa±d
flood damage funds will be received, and that it will take approximately three to four
weeks of steady work to make all repairs.
Dr. Iachetta said he had received a complaint of an erosion problem from the residents
at 109 Bennington Road. He said the residents oomplained it was the result of sewer work
done in the area. Mr. Roosevelt said he would look at it, but felt it could not have
resulted from the sewer work, as he had already inspected and accepted the work. He
agreed to visit the site and report back.
Mr. Fisher reported a sight distance problem on Route 250 near Route 637. He said a
tree stump had sprouted and was now obstructing the view. Mr. Roosevelt said he had
looked at it several months ago, but would investigate the problem again.
Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roosevelt to check out a complaint of side ditches being
washed out on Route 784 just off Stony Point Road. Also, he said there is a severe erosion
problem at the Northside Industrial Park which has caused the drainage pipe at the entrance
to become buried and, in effect, useless. He requested Mr. Roosevelt's assistance in
getting this cleaned up.
Mr. Henley thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the fast work done to roads in his district
following the flooding in early June.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he could check into the laws governing the availability
of special emergency disaster loans to people whose property has been storm damaged. He
said it was his knowledge that only people living in areas officially declared "a disaster
area" by the Governor are eligible. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel anyone should be
denied these special interest rate loans because only theY, and not the entire county,
received damage. Mr. Agnor said he would research the laws involved and report back.
Mr. Lindstrom said he spoke with Mr. E. E. ~hompson of the Albemarle County Service
Authority, and asked about the County, the Highway Department, and the Service Authority
getting together on work being done on Georgetown Road. He felt if all departments worked
together, it would create less disturbance to traffic and residents in the area, and cause
disruption of the land for a shorter period of time. Mr. Roosevelt said he would get in
touch with Mr. Thompson about his work schedule for laying water lines, and then get back
to the County staff.
Agenda Item No. 4. Joint Services Committee Report. Mrs. Sally H. Thomas, Chairman,
was present to make the report. (Copy of Report #1 "Analysis of New Annexation Legislation"
dated August 15, 1979, can be found on permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Thomas Said this report has already been presented to the
Charlottesville City Council. Two-thirds of the report is a reprinting of the Division of
Legislative Services "Summary of House Bill 603" on Annexation. She said the Committee
studied the problems of annexation, the "side effects" of annexation, the communications
gap between City and County governments, tax base, revenue sharing, public transportation
situation, and joint services. Mr. Fisher said it was his 'opinion that the analysis of
the implications of the new law are basically correct. He said that instead of solving
the annexation issue, Albemarle County now has a threat of an annexation suit which can be
filed at any time after July 1, 1980. He said he felt it was impossible for two governing
bodies to share revenues from one tax source. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the entire
annexation concept was wrong, and is almost "legalized stealing of one community's assets
by another". Dr. Iachetta said the County must find a way to protect its assets and tax
base.
Mr. Agnor noted that the report contains a recommendation that in order to effect a
communication structure between the City and County, regular monthly meetings between the
City Manager, County Executive, and appropriate staff personnel. Mr. Agnor said monthly
meetings do occur on a regular basis between himself, the City Manager and Dr. Avery
Catlin, the Executive Assistant to the University of Virginia's President. He noted
though, that_in the event of litigation due to annexation, it is recommended in the
Committee Report that these lines of. communication remain open.
Following a lengthy discussion of the annexation problem, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Elizabeth
Rosenblum, also a member of the Committee, said a second report would be forthcoming which
would discuss possible solutions to such problems as public transportation, Joint Services,
etc. Mr. Fisher thanked the committee members for their report.
Agenda Item No. 5. Report: Garbage Disposal - Southern Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor
reported that the Sheriff, Zoning Administrator, County Attorney, a sanitarian for the
Regional Health Department and himself have examined the current County and State ordinances
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
the removal or covering of the trash. Enforcement is primarily a function of the Sheriff's
office, and not the Zoning Administrator or Health Department.
Section 16-2 of the County code prohibits the depositing of waste on private property
without the written permission of the property owner. In the absence of this permission,
a law enforcement officer can enter onto private property and make an arrest without being
requested to do so by the property owner or without the owner signing the arrest warrant.
The officer must of course witness the dumping taking place in order to make an arrest.
The property does not have to be posted for "No Trespassing" by the landowner. Sheriff
Bailey was advised of this by the County Attorney and agreed to so instruct his officers.
Past efforts to declare the act of dumping as creating a public health hazard in
rural areas has not been successful. Such a declaration is difficult to prove in uninhabited
areas. Zoning ordinance enforcement of "junkyards" has likewise been unsuccessful. Fire
official efforts to declare the depositing of trash as being the creation of a fire hazard
have failed in court. The enforcement of Section 16-2 by the Sheriff's department, which
has no relationship to zoning, public health, or public safety, has not been used, but
will be from now on. Enforcement by citizen's complaint and willingness to sign arrest
warrants is also, of cou'rse, a means to discourage the practice of indiscriminate dumping.
Coordination of complaints and enforcement efforts between the Sheriff, Zoning Administrator,
and Health Officer has been established.
Prohibiting a property owner from depositing their own~waste, or giving permission to
use their land for such purposes, or requiring the removal or disposal of the waste once
deposited, is not presently included in the County code. The State code has enabling law
that would allow the County to require the removal of trash from property when the health
or safety of other residents is endangered. Such a revision was considered by the Board
of Supervisors in 1975 and was not adopted. You may wish to reconsider this revision~.
Correct. ion of the complaint made by Mrs. Harris at the August Board meeting has
begun. In addition to accelerating patrols of the area by Sheriff's deputies, the landowner
has agreed to post the property, making possible a trespassing arrest in addition to
violation of the County code.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the local ordinance be rewritten to enable the Sheriff's
Office to assist property owners in apprehending violators. Mr. Roseberry of the Health
Department, said the property owner, Mr. Vance Wilkins, posted no trespassing signs, and
authorized the Sheriff's Department to place deputies on his property in order to catch
violators. He further added that he would try and convince Mr. Wilkins to remove the
debris from his property, but there is really nothing anyone can do to force 'removal of
the trash. Mr. Agnor said it is up to the Board if they wish to pursue legislation to
correct the problem. He said possibly the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community
Commission might get involved to help in problem areas. Mr. Roseberry said it is the
responsibility of the Director of the Health Department, Dr. Prindle, to determine if the
quarry is a health hazzard, and thereby have signs to that effect posted to protect the
public. Mr. Fisher noted that Dr. Prindle will be before the Board at 3:30 P.M. today to
discuss regulations governing septic systems and drainfie!ds, and the Board can further
discuss this matter with him at that time.
Agenda~ Item No. 6. Sign Variances - Farber Mall. Mr. Fisher noted that this item
was brought to the Board at the request of several citizens. He read the following letter:
"September 11, 1979
Re: Variances to Albemarle County Sign Ordinance
We would like to call the Board's attention to the recent sign variance given to four
stores being built at the Farber Mall. On August 14th, the Board of Zoning Appeals
granted a variance to these businesses granting them about twice as much signage as
our current ordinance permits.
We feel that this was an unnecessary variance for the following reasons:
Many of the adjacent businesses, inc!udingatl but two at Albemarle Square, have
chosen to use less signage than is permitted.
According to criteria from the State Highway Department, the Farber signs are
larger than is necessary for visual identification.
There is a national as well as local trend away from large signs.
Citizens for Albemarle and The League of Women Voters opposed this variance. Details
of their possitions are available in the minutes of the August 14th hearing of the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
While recognizing that many variances are routine and necessary, we would like to
alert the Board of Supervisors to the possibility that some variances are being
granted that are incompatible with the intentions of the ordinance and the wishes of
the citizens of the County.
Mrs. Daniel Mohler, Mrs. John Huckle, Mrs. Harold Morton, and Mrs. Richard Selden"
Mr. St. John said the County law allows 200 square feet for sig~s. Variances were
granted to four department stores which allowed sign sizes of ~7 square feet for Miller &
Rhoads; 400 square feet for Sears Roubuck & Co. ; Leggetts 594 square feet; and J. C.
Penny, 560 square feet. Mr. St. John reported that all signs will be wall signs, and
individual signs which were not part of a singa! complex. Mr. St. John said the Board Of
Zoning Appeals approved these variances on common business sense, stating that no where in
the County is there a shopping center of this magnitude, and therefore, these type signs
were never required before. Dr. Iachetta said he did not agree with this explanation, as
once inside the mall, customers would be walking and would not need such large signs to
locate store entrances. He added that he could condone a I0 to 20% variance, but felt a
300% increase from the law was too far out of line. Mr. Roudabush said there is nothing
070
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of Inspections, said there is nothing in the present
ordinance which covers mall situations. He added that all stores in the mall would be
entitled to 200 square feet of sign space, no matter what the exterior size of the building.
He gave an example of the largest store covering a three acre area and the smallest store
would still be entitled to the same sign size. Mr. Fisher noted that stores in the Albemarle
Square Shopping Center are set back further from the highway than Fashion Square Mall, yet
have complied with the 200 square foot requirement. Mr. LindStrom and Dr. Iachetta both
felt that if this appeal for larger signs is not contested it will leave the door open for
a larger shopping center to ask for even larger signs. Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush felt
the Board of Zoning Appeals heard arguments from both sides, had all the facts before them
and based their decision on those facts, and they would support those decisions. Mr.
Henley said he would not support an appeal to the Court. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion
to appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on the variances granted the four
signs in the Farber Mall. Motion was seconded by Dr~ Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he would
support the motion, as he felt the signs would be much larger than need be to be seen from
the road. Roll w~s called, and the motion failed by the following tied vote:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 10. Lottery Permit. Mr. Fisher said Mr. John Dezio, Commonwealth's
Attorney was'present to hear this item, but Mr. Fisher wished to read a letter pertinent
to this subj.ect which had just been presented to him.
September 12, 1979
Re: Lottery Permit of Children's Rehabilitation
I have been requested by the Director of the Foxfield Association and the Children's
Rehabilitation Center Director as Counsel for them. to officially withdraw the lottery
application.
I have been directed to do so simply because these charitable and community organizations
involved cannot financially afford to litigate with the ABC agent, Clarence Roberts, and
the Commonwealth Attorney, John Dezio, over their individual conclusions as to the eligi-
bility of the~Children's Rehabilitation Cent.er to acquire a legal lottery permit.
The legal costs alone to obtain the lottery permit if denied based on vague reports of th~
ABC agent and John Dezio would nearly exhaust the charitable funds they would gain from
lottery.
Please find enclosed a letter from the Director of Children's Rehabilitation Center revea~
their existence as a charitable, community and educational organization which is being
contested by Mr. Dezio.
Respectfully
(signed) J. Benjamin Dick"
Mr. Fisher said that this letter leaves the matter moot. Mr. Dezio said he wished
only to say that hopefully in the future, organizations would submit lottery applications
sufficiently in advance to allow for proper processing and investigation into eligibility
if necessary. He then thanked the Board of Supervisors for their cooperation with his
office during his te~m as Commonwealth's Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 11. Central Well Permit - Landon P. Birckhead. Mr. Roudabush said
he wished to abstain on this item. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Birckhead had applied for a central
~ell permit, but he felt this item has also become moot, and he requested Mr. Robert
Tucker, Director of Planning, to make a presentation to the. Board so they could decide.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Birckhead wished to construct a third dwelling unit on his property of
3.83 acres. Mr. Birckhead's home and one cottage are now being served by one well, the
new guest home-would be served by public water. Since the third unit will be on public
water, no central well permit is required.
Mr. Birckhead was present, and formally withdrew his application for a central well
permit. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, accepting the
requested withdrawal from the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 12. Appeal: Christian Mission Site Plan. Mr. Fisher read the
following letter from Edward H. Bain, Jr., Attorney for the Christian Mission:
"September 10, 1979
Re: The Christian Mission Site Plan
My client has appealed the Planning Commission action of 21 August 1979 because of conditi
l(e). We do not think that public water is available to this site, since it is approximat
3000 feet from the property. Other businesses in several places in the County have not be
required to connect to public water under similar circumstances. My client would be happy
to connect to public water when the Albemarle County Service Authority provides the water
service, but not until that time.
The second point of appeal is shown on the site plan itself and not as a condition, and
that relates to the requirement for 58 (parking) spaces -- 43 for the guest house and 15
r~ ~ ~~ ~~_ W~ ~k ~ ~b~ ~P ~a~ mow ~rov~de~ on the ad~acent site. wh
ing
~ly
~n
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
and vespers circle. Section 11-7-3(2) permits the Board of Supervisors to grant our requ~
and reduce the parking spaces to those already on the adjacent site. Though the-site is
adjacent and a separate piece of property, the use of the two parcels is basically for on~
and the same entity. Hence, cooperative parking is in order.
Sincerely,
(signed) Edward H. Bain, Jr.,
Attorney for The Christian Mission"
Mr. Robert Tucker then read the Planning Staff report:
Location: Property described as Tax Map 59, parcel 23G; located on the north side of Rout~
250~West, east of the intersection of Rts. 250 and 677.
Acreage: 9+ acres.
Zoning: B-I, Business
History: The original site plan on the adjacent parcel was approved in April, 1976 and al
amendment was approved in April, 1979.
Proposal: To locate a vespers circle, athletic field and 19-room guest house as accessory
to the main use.
Topography of Area: Rolling to flat.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The 1978 traffic count on this section of Route 677
is 129 vehicle trips per day and is currently listed as non-tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that rock is exposed near the surface in
areas. A diversion around the athletic field and seeding was recommended.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Located in the area recommended for low density
residential.
Type Utilities: Individual well and septic facilities.
Staff Comment: Public water is available about 3,000 feet from this site. Landowners in
area have indicated that they are interrested in working together to connect to
public water. However, at this time, no action has been taken. The Fire Offi¢
recommends that the Christian Mission and other landowners provide hydrants for
fire protection prior to future development. The Virginia Department of Hi
and Transportation has recommended that the applicant move the existing entra~
to-another location approximately 300 feet from the edge of pavement of Route 2
This recommendation was made because of the anticipated increase in the use of
the property in the future.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. A building permit will not be issued for the guest house until the following conditi
have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval;
b. Note building information for the guest house on the plan; i.e. square footage,
number of floors, number of rooms, etc.;
c. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
d. No'buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than 25%~
e. Albemarle County Service Authority and Fire Official approval of plans to conne1
to public water;
f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of relocation of
existing entrance on Route 677;
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have be~
met:
a. Fire Official approval of handicapped facilities;
3. Water diversion and seeding specifications for the athletic field to be approved by
County Engineer;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance
for the intersection of Old Route 250 and Route 677, if required;
5. Maintenance agreement for 01d Route 250 between landowners using the road, to be
approved by the County Attorney.
Mr. Fisher asked for the definition of a guest house. Mr. Tucker said that t¢ Mr.
Jessie Hurt, Deputy Zoning Administrator, indicated that a guest house falls Under the
same provisions of a motel and inn, and is allowed under the B-1 category. Mr. 'Tucker
noted that the parking requirements imposed are those for a boarding house, which require
spaces based on square footage rather than rooms for rent.
Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Marshal, was present, and said it was his opinion that 3,000
feet was a reasonable distance to require hooking up to the public water line. He said
the structures involved in this site plan are meant to house many people, and felt proper
fire protection should be required. He also indicated that adjacent property owners
indicated an interest in sharing the cost of running a water line across several properties
to the mission site.
Mr. Bain said he felt it was the responsibility of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to install the pipe line for water service. He also said the guest house was
not intended for rental, but strictly for use by guests of the Christian Mission for short
periods of time. He added that most of the guests would be from ot~er countries, and
therefore would not be driving cars or need the use of additional parking spaces. Mr.
Fisher suggested the two issues be separated for discussion purposes. Mr. Fisher said he
could not go along with a decreased number of parking spaces if at some time in the future,
the guest house allows rooms to be rented. Mr. Bain said the Christian Mission would
never rent those rooms, and if it were ever sold, the building would require a major
renovation before it could operate as a motel. It was the consensus of the Board that if
a condition were placed on the site plan approval restricting the guest house use to non-
paying visitors only, the Board would allow the decreased number of parking spaces.
Mr. Roudabush then said he felt it was a financially unreasonable request to require
the applicant to install a 3000 foot water line to the new structure. Mr. Fisher and Dr.
Iachetta said they felt it was imperative that such a line be installed, because in the
case of a fire there would be many lives involved, and a well could not provide the amount
of water needed to extinguish a blaze. Discussion ensued about the possibility of the
Service Authority or other property owners participating in the cost of installing the
water line. Motion was then offered bY Dr. Iachetta to defer ~a~ n~ ~h~ ~,~~, ~e
072
Sep_t_e~m eb _r ~177 1979 _(~a~y~ Me~
Service Authority in an effort to share the expense of ±nstal!ing the water line. Dr.
Iachetta added to the motion that the Planning Staff draft language lowering the parking
space requirement. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fish'r, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 12:48 P.M.,the Board recessed for lunch. Meeting reconvened at 1:43 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: To amend County Code Chapter 14 entitled "Parks
and Recreation." (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 29 and September 7, 1979.)
Mr. St. John said tht~v~sa~ ordinance was requested by the Parks Department in
'order to be able to control and deal with certain problems. He then proceeded to review
the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dorrier asked if this would aid the Sheriff ~n policing the
public parMs which presently do not have an attendant. Mr. St. John said the Sheriff
already has that power. He added that this ordinance would give that power to Park officials
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one from the public wished to
speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John if it were possible to add to Section
14.1-20, the part concerned with pets, an exclusion from the~beach areas. Mr. St. John
said the Parks Department did not ask for that provision, but it could be added. Mr.
Fisher suggested the ordinance be enacted as advertised, then if the Parks Department
wished a restriction of pets from beach areas, it could be amended at a later date.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to amend and reenact
Chapter 14 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Park and Recreation" by adopting the
ordinance as follows:
ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 14 OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED "PARKS AND RECREATION".
CHAPTER 14
PARKS AND RECREATION
Article I. In General.
Division 1. Parks Generally.
Sec. 14-1.1. Parks defined.
"Park" means any parcel of land owned by, or under the control of, the county or the
county school board, which is used or designated to be used by the public for recreationa
purposes, including any school the use of which for such purposes has been authorized by
the school board.
Sec. 14-1.2. Parks hours - generally.
The hours which the parks will be available for public use shall be posted at the
entrance of each park and may be amended by the county executive from time to time. No
person shall enter or remain in any such park after such hours without the specific
permission of the director of parks and recreation. No vehicle shall be parked or be
permitted to remain parked on any roadway, parking area or park property after park closi
hours, except in areas designated for such purposes, such as camping sites or other such
areas.
Sec. 14-1.3. Entering park when closed.
No person shall enter upon any part of any park which has been closed without the
permission of the park manager or the director of parks and recreation.
'Sec.' 1'4'~I.4. Enforcement by certain officials; expulsion.
The county executive, the director of parks and recreation or, in their absence, the
manager of any park, shall have authority to enforce the provisions of this chapter,
including the power to expel any person violating the same. The director of' parks and
recreation may, after hearing, forbid the reentry of any such person for a reasonable per
not to exceed 30 days for any such violation. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to
preempt the imposition of any applicable civil remedy or of any penalty imposed pursuant
to Section 1-6 of this code.
Sec. 14-1.5. Liability for use of facilities.
Any person using any county park shall do so at his own risk. The county assumes no
liability or responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property~
Division 2. Traffic Regulations.
Sec. 14-1.6. Generally; speed limit.
The traffic laws and ordinances of this county shall apply in and about all park
property.
The maximum speed limit within a park shall be as posted.
g
.od
0'/3
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
Sec. 14-1.7. Traffic to use regularly designated paved or improved park roads; exceptionr
Only designated park roads, driveways, and parking areas, shall be used by vehicular
traffic including trail bikes.
Sec. 14~1.8. Parking.
No person shall park a vehicle any place on park property', other than in the regular
designated facilities provided for parking, unless directed otherwise by the manager of
any suah park.
Division 3. Conduct Within and Use of Parks.
Sec. 14-1.9.
(a) Intoxication. No intoxicated person shall be permitted entry to any park and,
if discovered therein, any such person shall be ejected.
(b) ~arr. ying or discharging certain weapons. The carrying or discharge of any
firearm, air gun, gas gun, or B.B. gun is prohibited.
(c) Firew0rks~ explosions~ etc. Fireworks are prohibited in parks unless
authorized by the director of parks and recreation.
(d) Disorderly conduct or conduct calculated to interfere with use of parks. No
person shall, while in any park, conduct himself in a loud, rowdy, or disruptive manner
or otherwise act in such manner as to interfere with the reasonable use of such park by
any other person.
Sec. 14-1.10. Fires.
Fires may be kindled only in facilities specifically provided for the purpose.
Authorized fires must be attended at all times and fully extinguished before being left.
Sec. 14-1.11. Games.
Games or activities involving thrown or otherwise propelled objects, such as balls,
stones, arrows, javelins, golf balls, model airplanes or rockets, shall be played only in
areas set apart for such forms of recreation.
Sec. 1'4-1.12. Swimming~ wading or bathing.
No person shall swim, wade or bathe in waters in any park other than ~t such places
as are provided for such activities.
Sec'.' 1'4~I.t3. Protection and preservation of property.
No person shall damage or remove any property, including plants, on or from any park
Sec, 14-1.14. Hunting and trapping prohibited.
No person shall hunt or trap on park property.
Sec. 14-1.15. Dumping and littering.
No person shall deposit any refuse of any kind at or on any park property except in
the receptables provided for trash disposal. No person shall deposit any waste not ori-
ginating in the park, in park trash receptacles.
Sec. 14,1.16. Public meetings or parades.
Public meetings or parades shall not be held within parks without the written
permission of the director of parks and recreation.
Loudspeakers and amplified sound equipment.
No person shall operate any radio, tape player, or amplified sound equipment in any
park in such a manner as to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of such park by other:
'SEC'' !'4-1.18. Merchandising, vending, etc.
Nothing should be offered for sale or sold, rented or traded, in or upon park land o:
facilities, except by the parks and recreation department or through regularly licensed
concessionaires acting with the authority of the director of parks and recreation.
Sec. 14-1.19. Solicitation.
There shall be no commercial solicitation of any kind on par~ land or within park
facilities.
Sec. 14-1.20. Pets.
Ail pets shall be kept on a leash and under control while on park lands.
There being no further discussion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudahu.sh.
None.
074
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then read to the Board a note from Mrs. Patti Sudduth thanking the Board
of Supervisors and the people of the county for the resolution of condolence and contri-
butions to the Earl Sudduth Memorial Fund.
Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: To amend and reenact Section 15-1 of the County
Code, to declare Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company and the Western Albemarle Rescu~
Squad as part of the Official Safety Program of the County. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on August 29 and September 5, 1979.)
Mr. Agnor said members of organizations listed under this section of the Code are
eligible for death benefits under the State's "Line of Duty Act" Seminole Trail Volunteer
Fire Company and the Western Albemarle Rescu~ Squad are the last two eligible volunteer
groups to be organized in the County. The Board ordered drafting of the fol'lowing revised
ordinance at the August 8th meeting. Mr. Agnor then presented the following ordinance for
the Board's consideration:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 15..1 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY CODE DECLARING THE SEMINOLE TRAIL VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPAN¥ AND
THE WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. TO BE A PART OF THE OFFICIAL
SAFETY PROGRAM OF THE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
Section 15.1 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted ~as ~follows:
Sec. 15-1. Certain persons deemed part of county safety program.
The official safety program of this county shall be carried into effect by the
following organizations or departments whose membership shall be deemed to be an
integral part of the safety program of the county:
(a) The sheriff's department, together with all of its law enforcement personnel.
(b) Ail volunteer fire companies in the county, there presently being the
Earlysville VOlunteer Fire Company, the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.,
th~ Crozet Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., the North ~arden Volmnteer Fire Company, the
Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Company and the
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department.
(c) The Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.
(d) The Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, Inc.
(e) The Western Albemarle-Rescue Squad, Inc.
(f) Ail other law enforcement personnel of this county not included in sub-
section (a) of this section.
Mr. Fisher declared the public opened. There being no one present wishing to speak
either for or against this ordinance amendment, Mr. Fisher declared the public' hearing
closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the ordinance as wr±tten above.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Watershed Management Plan Committee Report. Mr. Fisher noted
receipt of the following letter:
"September 6, 1979
I am pleased to, present with this letter the report of the Watershed Management Plan
Committee, for its consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The committee trusts
that the Board members will find in it a document which will be useful to the Board
in its task of preserving the South Rivanna Reservoir to a long and useful life.
Having completed the task requested of it by the Board of Supervisors to the best of
its understanding and ability, the Watershed Management Plan Committee respectfully
requests that it be dissolved.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Edgar N. Garnett, Chairman"
(NOTE: Copy of the South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed Management Plan, Volume I (Executive
Summary) and Volume II (Technical Report), are on permanent file in the Office of the
Clerk to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.) Recommendations contained in the
report are set out in condensed form below:
A position of Watershed Management Official should be created to coordinat'e and
review all watershed management activities. The position should'be organized i~ the
Office of County Engineer. The duties of the Watershed Management Official sh°~ld
include coordination of all ordinances relating to watershed management including the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance and the Runoff Control Ordinance. Duties
should also include coordination of educational programs, integration of watershed
management programs, and coordination and review of best management practice imple-
mentation throughout the watershed.
a) Continue to treat the reservoir with copper sulfate as needed to control algal
blooms;
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
b) Continue to operate the reservoir aeration system until a full evaluat~o.n of its ef~
ectiveness is completed;
c) Continue the use of powdered activated carbon, potassium permanganate or chlorine
dioxide at the South Rivanna water treatment plant for the treatment of taste and odor
causing substances;
d) Should initiate detailed studies of the two supplemental water supply alternatives
presented in the 1977 Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., "Report on Alternative Water Supply
Sources". Special emphasis should be placed on the present and potential location of
development in the Buck Mountain watershed and its potential impact on water quality.
The wastewater discharge of Morton Frozen Foods should be eliminated from the watershed.
The Board of Supervisors and the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority should request the
State Water Control Board to assign a higher priority to the funding of the Crozet
interceptor and set aside grant funds for the interceptor prior to December 31, 1983.
Existing ordinances relating to control of development and construction activities
should be reviewed and revised, i-f necessary, to conform with the watershed management
plan.
Basin-wide stormwater runoff management plans should be developed for the watershed.
These plans would indicate the feasibility of providing regional runoff control
facilities such as ponds or grass storage areas for several developments located in
the same area.
Cluster development, as provided in the Zoning Ordinance, should be encouraged in the
watershed.
Developers should be encouraged to use "natural" engineering techniques in the selection
and design of best management practices for development.
8. The Virginia Highway and Transportation Department should:
a) be requested to prepare or have their contractors prepare a written erosion and
runoff control plan for all construction activities in the watershed.
b) install and maintain erosion and sedimentation control measures as specified in
its Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual.
c) encourage the use of innovative erosion and sedimentation control measures for
construction activities in the watershed
d) include specific provisions for the implementation of erosion and sedimentation
control measures in all construction contracts
e) initiate a program to correct the severe and moderate erosion and runoff problems
observed at various stream crossings
f) initiate a program to correct the erosion problems at steep highway cuts identified
in Volume II of the Watershed Management Plan
g) have a task committee study roadway and drainage ditch maintenance practices to
determine whether existing maintenance practices can be modified to reduce erosion
and runoff problems.
The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District should develop and implement
a streambank erosion control program for the watershed.
t0.
a) The Board of Supervisors should send a letter to all agricultural producers
owning land or operating within the watershed pointing out the importance of protecting
water quality from agricultural pollutants and listing those agencies which provide
assistance to plan and implement conservation practices.
b) The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, in conjun'ction with
the ASCS, SCS and other agricultural groups, should conduct an annual Conservation
Field Day to show land users the importance and benefits of sound land treatment
practices.
c) The Board of Supervisors should assist the Soil and Water Conservation D'istrict,
ASCS and SCS in obtaining funds from the ASCS special projects program to promote
conservation practices.
d) The Board of Supervisors should place a requirement on recipients of land use
tax benefits to develop a sound conservation plan and seek assistance of local, state
and federal agencies to develop such a plan.
e) The Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, with assistance from
other agricultural agencies, should actively identify agricultural problem areas in
the watershed and volunteer assistance to these farmers. Farm activities in the
watershed should also be reviewed to determine fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide
application rates and practices.
f) Specific watershed management goals should be integrated into agricultural
technical and financial assistance programs to emphasize and give priority to problem
areas and conservation measures identified in the watershed management plan.
11·
Forestry personnel should implement the best management practices described in the
Virginia Forestry Manual developed under the Statewide 208 program.
Mr. Garnett was present, and said the committee worked many long hours with F. X.
Browne and Associates to prepare this report. He introduced Dr. Browne to the Board, who
gave a short briefin~ on the report. Mr. Ro~;~l~h ~h~ ~ *~ ~ ~
076
Se tember 12 1 ' Da Meetin
Board should take after the Watershed Management Plan Committee is dissolved. Dr. Browne
recommended that the first Step be to appoint a watershed management official. Mr.
Fisher suggested the Board receive the report, then ask the staff to begin work on the
concept of a watershed management official (job description, organization, and salary
ranges) and bring that information back to the Board with a recommendation on how the
Board should proceed. The Board should also encourage the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
to study supplemental water supplies on a long range basis, and in general work with other
agencies that have already begun their work to provide encouragement. Mr. Fisher said
this report provides the County with a base to persuade and educate various agencies to
support preservation of the County's water source, and this action_requires specific
personnel. Mr. Fisher said he wished to thank the members of the committee for the many
hours given and the assistance provided to the County in this effort. He said this report
represents one of the most important things to the future well being of this community,
ah~d He hoped the committee members had found satisfaction in their work, and that results
will be obtained through Board efforts in the next year.
Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Charlottesville City Councilor, hoped the office of watershed
management official will be made a part of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority organ-
ization rather than being a county position, as the reservoir has a large impact on the
city as well as the county.
At this point, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the report be received as
presented, with the gratitude of the Board, that the report be referred to the County
staff and various agencies that are recommended for implementation of parts of same, and
that the Wate~rshed Management Plan Committee be dissolved with the thanks of the Board.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 2:46 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 2:58 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report on Utilities - Zoning Study. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey presented
the report to Board members. (NOTE: Copy of this report dated August 20, 1979, is on
permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Bailey summarized
the report, and detailed the conclusions and recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom said he read
the report, and felt it did not answer the major question asked by the Board, that being
how to extend water and sewer utilities to induce patterns of residential development
consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Agnor said he did not feel this
answer is possible without the new zoning map and ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he did not
feel this report covered the areas requested by the Board. Mr. Agnor noted that more
information is needed to come up with location of water utility placement than can be
obtained presently. Mr. Agnor said all types of utilities need to be considered, and this
is not limited to just water or sewer. For this work the amended Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Map are necessary.~ It was the concensus of the Board and recommendation of Mr.
Agnor, to send the report back and have the information contained in it revised. Mr.
Fisher said he can see no way that a final conclusion can be reached regarding utilities,
until the Comprehensive Plan is completed.
Agenda Item No. 17. Health Department: Discussion of regulations governing septic
systems and dr.ainfields. Dr. Richard Prindle, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Re~gional
Health Department, was present. Mr. Fisher said he had hoped the Health Department would
be able to serve the county by conducting soil tests for septic drainfields at the subdivision
approval stage, and not after t~e plat is put to record, which would aid the consumer ih
selecting a property well before any substantial investment is made. Dr. Prindle said for
the past two years, the Health Department has required that subdivisions be reviewed by a
soil scientist and the results be checked by the Health Department. The fee of the soil
scientist is paid by the developer. Upon receipt of a report from the soil scientist, the
Health Department will issue a provisional permit for the whole subdivision, but specific
review of ~each septic system site is required as the system is installed. In many cases,
the Health Department is also requiring that two septic system sites be located in case
one should fail. Dr. Prindle said thins procedure is done on subdivisions of five or more
lots within the watershed area, and ten or more lots throughout the remainder of the
county.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the Health Department policy for location of septic fields on
slopes. Dr. Prindle said if there is sufficient depth~to the soil there usually is no
problem with placing a drainfield. Usually, though, because there is a slope, sufficient
top soil has been washed downhill. It has been the Health Department's policy to discourage
placement of septic systems or drainfields on slopes of 25% or more, but this is not a
legal policy. Mr. Fisher said the new zoning ordinance will recommend that lot sizes be
reduced. He is concerned that if this is done, there is even a more urgent need to have
soil tests. He asked how the County can be assured that the testing will be adequate.
Dr. Prindle said he did not realize ~here had been a problem the last two years. The
Health Department has tried hard to arrive at a workable solution. Mr. Fisher asked the
approximate cost per lot for s~il testing. Dr. Prindle and Mr. Roudabush both felt it was
between $50 and $60 per lot.
Mrs. Rappolt, a citizen of the County, asked if soil tests would have to be conducted
on a subdivision of only five lots even if other construction were already approved for
lots immediately adjacent. Dr. Prind!e said samples would ~e required because the soil
strata varies even in short distances. Mr. Fisher said it is his firm conviction that
soil samples should be done on every lot so that two drainfie!ds can be placed on each
lot. He emphasized that this is for the ultimate protection of the consumer, and that
costs for such testing would probably be passed on by the developer to the consumer.
Mr. Robert Vaughn~ Director of Inspections, said the procedure used ~y the Health
Department is excellent. He knows no testing is 100% pure, but feels the methods used are
very effective. He did ask how the Health Department tests the soil using a back-hoe.
Dr. Prindie said by digging a hole and visually observing the different layers of soil and
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
077
used by the HeaZth Department are better than those used two years ago.
Mrs. Treva Cromwell, a County citizen, asked Dr. Prindle if the Health Department
discouraged placing plantings over a drainfield area, paving over a drainfield, and whether
State regulations have changed the recommended depth of a drainfietd. Dr. Prindle~said it
is recommended that no planting of shrubs or trees take place over a drainfield, as the
root system could disturb the pipe system. Dr. Prindle also said that if the drainfield
pipes are located at a depth of 40 to 45 inches, paving has no detrimental effect.
Mr. Fisher requested that if the Health Department makes any changes in their inspection
policy, to inform the Board of Supervisors immediately because it may have a direct effect
on approval of lots, etc., given by the Board.
Mr. Fisher then asked Dr. Prindle his opinion of the dumping problem in the quarry in
Southern Albemarle. Dr. Prindte said it must be assumed that the water in such a dump is
contaminated, but unless it is public ground, he cannot declare it a public health hazard.
Mr. Fishar requested Dr. Prindte to check the quarry for possible contaminated water or
other health hazards, and report back to the Board, so that the Board can decide on a
solution to this problem.
Agenda Item No. 18. Mr. William Houchens: Nuclear Energy. Mr. Houchens, presented
to the Board a resolution which he asked the Board to consider adopting. Mr. Houchens,
who made a similar presentation to the Board at the night meeting on June 6, 1979 (Pages
334535, Minute Book 17) said he wished the County to develop a policy on nuclear energy in
the County. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Houchens for being the County's conscience, but added
he did not know what the County can reasonabl~ do as protective measures in this area.
Dr. Iachetta informed Mr. Houchens that there is.a nuclear facility connected with the
University of Virginia in Charlottesville, which has operated successfully for more than
20 years. He agreed that nuclear regulations should be stricter, but suggested to Mr.
Houchens that his efforts begin at the Federal level, which is where most nuclear regulations
originate. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attarney to look into whether or not the C~ounty
has any powers to deal with nuclear energy issues.
Agenda Item No. 19. Scenic Rivers Committee Report. The entire Scenic Rivers Committee
was present. Mr. Tim Michel stated that the committee had decided to recommend the Moormans
River for the following reasons: The Moormans River lies entirely within the boundaries
of Albemarle County. Its upper reaches, above the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, are already
protected by the Shenandoah National Park. It flows predominatly through forest land,
although it is adjoined in its lower reaches by some agricultural (primarily grazing)
land. It terminates at its juncture with the Mechums River just West of the South Rivanna
Reservoir.
The Moormans River is navigable by ~canoe through most of its length east of State
Route 810 in all but the summer months. West of Route 810 the Moormans, during periods of
high water resulting from intense rainfall, provides recreational opportunities for expert
canoeing and kayaking.
The water is of high quality running predominantly over a rocky bed. The river is
characterized by many small rapids, ledges, and several deep gorges making it the most
popular canoeing stream in the area.
For the most part, the banks are unspoiled and rise steeply on either side. In only
one area along State Route 676 has clear cutting destroyed the scenic quality of this
river.
Wildlife along the Moormans is abundant with evidence of beaver in the upper stretches
and numerous varieties of birdlife and water fowl. In its upper stretches, particularly
above the Sugar Hollow reservoir, the Moormans is considered an excellent trout stream.
V~getation a~long the Moormans is characterized by ash, beech, pine, hemlock, hickory,
sycamore, oak, poplar, wild azalea, mountain laurel and numerous varieties of wildflowers.
Overall, the Committee believes that the Moormans River is the closest example of a
pristine wild river presently existing in the county. It is one of the County's most
valuable natural assets. Accordingly, although the County may, and should study other
rivers for future scenic river status, the Committee unanimously recommends that the
entire length of the Moormans River, including the north and south forks which lie within
the boundaries of the Shenandoah National Park, be designated by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors as the County's first Scenic River. The Committee further recommends
that the County undertake the necessary steps to have this river included in the state
system of Scenic Rivers under Virginia Code Section 10-167, et seq.
Mr. Michel then made a slide presentation to the Board. Following the slide presentation
he proceeded to read the final report from the Scenic Rivers Committee. In summary the
report states how and when the committee was formed, and the formal charge given them by
the Board of Supervisors. In addition to their recommendation of the Moormans.River, they
also recommended the following four points:
Adoption by the Board of Supervisors of an ordinance for Scenic Rivers Overlay
District as a part of the proposed zoning ordinance.
Designation of the Moormans River as a County scenic river to which a scenic
river overlay district shall be applied, with appropriate amendments to the
County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
Consideration of the application of buffer zones to all county rivers to preserve
river bank integrity.
Institution of proper procedures to have the Moormans River designated a State
Scenic River.
O'f8
September 12, 1979 (Day,Meeting)
Wording for a proposed Scenic River Overlay District to be known as Section 30.5 of the
proposed zoning ordinance was also presented to the Board for its consideration.
Regarding the Overlay District, confusion arose over Section 30.5.5.3, regarding the
"immediate environs". Committee members were in disagreement on whether or not it should
read "~immediate environs shall include the bed of any such stream and the land on either
side thereof to a distance of fifteen feet or fifty feet." Mr. Lindstrom suggested this
question be put back to committee members and brought back to the Board upon resolution.
Mr. Fisher said the Board would officially receive the report, and he would expect the
committee back with a verbal recommendation regarding the language in Section 30.5.5.5.
Mr. Fisher thanked the committee members for a fine job. (Note: hat this point, Messrs.
Dorrier and Lindstrom left the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriations. Mr. Agnor noted that statements of expenses in
connection with United Land Corporation of America vs. George R. St. John and Hartwell P.
Clarke had been received in the amount of $1,689.95. A special appropriation is needed
before these statements can be paid. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$1,689.95 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Coded to IA-
103, Board of Supervisors; Professional Consultants.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and ~indstrom.
Mr. Agnor said in January 1979, the Board authorized the hiring of David M. Griffith
and Associates to develop a cost allocation plan on Albemarle County. The purpose of this
plan was to recover indirect local costs of welfare to be reimbursed by the State at 80%
of total. The study on Fiscal Year 1977-78 was completed in April of 1979 and the direct
costs were ~7,488.00. This amount was entered on Form 10 to the State of Virginia in
June. On July 17, 1979, the County received $10~,504.76 which included $29,990 ~80~ of
$~7~8~8~' direc.t cost recovery. Pursuant to the contract with David M. Griffith &
Associates, the fee for their services was $8,000, payable upon receipt of payment from
the State of Virginia. Therefore an appropriation is requested.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$8,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to
3-299.1, Consultants-Indirect Cost Study.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor requested the Board's authorization to execute an agreement
with the firm of Overman, Robinson and Brown, Inc. for a 1979 Central Services Cost
Allocation Plan. Mr. Agnor said estimates were taken from two firms for the job, and it
was his opinion that Overman, Robinson and Brown, Inc. offered the best service for the
best price. Mr. Agnor said results from the 1978 Central Services Cost Allocation Plan
resulted in a recovery of $29,990 less the consultant's expense of $8000, leaving a net
gain of $21,990. Although he anticipated the County staff would be able to handle this
recovery process this year, Mr. Agnor said it would require a computerized budgeting
system. He therefore, recommended the Board of Supervisors authorize the execution of an
agreement with Overman, Robinson and Brown, Inc. for developing a recovery plan for 1979
for a fee of 1/4 of the recoveries up to a maximum fee of $7,500. Motion was offered by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, authorizing the County Executive to proceed on
the basis of his recommendation. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Mr. Agnor said the County had received two invoices from the
City of Charlottesville for the County's share (1/2 of total) of Capital Improvements at
the Ivy Landfill totaling $27,147.19. The bills include costs of the scales and installation
plus the new fire pit. An appropriation in the amount of $Z5,000 was made two years ago
from Revenue Sharing for installation of the scales. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance
suggested that $12,147.19 be made available from .unexpended balances of other completed
capital projects by transfers. Based on recommendations made by Mr. Agnor, Dr. Iachetta
offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that
transfers be made from the following accounts to Code 47-19.4, Ivy Landfill Scales
and Fire Pit for the total amount of $12,147.19.
Co'de Description Amount
47-19.2 Maintenance Building - Ivy Landfill $ 258.09
47-19.10L.1 Totier Creek 329.47
47-19.10L.2 Beaver Creek 2,151.00
47-19Z Levy Opera House - Juvenile Court 9,408.63
TOTAL $12~147.19
07
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Unemployment Insurance. Mr. Agnor read the following memorandum:
"September 12, 1979
Two'proposals were solicited and received from consultants to examine the County's
coverage on Unemployment and Workmen's Compensation Insurance, and to determine the
advisability of self-insurance or pooling insurance. Subsequent to soliciting the
proposals, the Virginia Municipal League advised that their plans for a reciprocal
insurance company had been expanded to include workmen's compensation at the outset
in 1980. Having elected to examine the League's insurance program, the staff review
of the two proposals received has been limited to Unemployment Insurance only.
One proposal was from the Wyatt Company to examine whether to purchase insurance from
the State, reimburse the State on paid claims, or pre-fund claims by a truest fund.
Their study would forecast claims and costs, analyze cash-flow e~fects, and determine
which alternative has the best cost to risk relationship. Their fee is estimated to
be $2,500 to $3,500.
Another proposal was from the Gibbens Company, Inc. who would determine which alternativ~
was best for providing coverage and would add a risk management service for one year
at a cost of 35 per $100 of gross payroll, which would be approximately $3600. The
risk management would include workshops for supervisors to prevent unemployment
claims, review personnel forms and contracts to minimize potential liabilities,
examine all claims made against the County to validate the claim, calculate liability,
take exceptions to questionable ones, and attend appeal hearings representing the
County."
Mr. Agnor recommended that the Gibbens proposal be accepted. Mr. Agnor next presented
a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, as follows:
"The County of Albemarle elected to fund unemployment insurance on the taxable contri-
bution method instead of the reimbursable or self-insured basis two years ago. The
costs of unemployment insurance in Fiscal Year 1978-79 were approximately $95,000 and
I would estimate this fugure to reach $125,000 in Fiscal Year 1979-80.
To date, and since January 1, 1978, we have had only one qualified claim which is
estimated to cost approximately $3400. This claim was originally denied since the
applicant resigned from the School System to take a part-time job at VPI-SU and to
further his education. Due to the delay in relocating, the job was filled when he
got to Blacksburg. The claim was allowed on "good cause" based upon an appeal by the
applicant.
In my opinion, the County should elect to switch to the self-insured method of
funding due to the low claims, increase in annual premium from 1% to 1.4% on the
first $6,000 annual earnings per employee and a favorable change in State law. In
order to switch to the self-insured method, we must notify the Virginia Employment
Commission a minimum of thirty days prior to January 1, 1980.
County will not be required to provide any surety in the form of a letter of
credit, bond or cash. Once the County opts to go self-insured, it must remain so for
only one year."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the
recommendation of the County Executive, and authorize him to sign the contract with the
Gibbens Company, !nc. to provide cost control services or risk management to the County
for one year for a charge of 35 per $100 in payroll. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT.: Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request for employee - Inspections Department. Mr. Agnor reported
that due to increased construction activity in the County, coupled with four major projects,
staff is not able to meet inspection schedules and a serious backlog of final insPections
to clear temporary occupancy permits has developed. He recommended to the Board that an
additional inspector be employed as a temporary full-time position through June 30, 1980,
at which time the position will be reevaluated, and either continued or terminated if not
continued in the 80-81 budget. Mr. Agnor requested that a special appropriation in the
amount of $11,950 be made. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr.
Roudabush:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$11,950 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded as
follows:
Code Description Amount
10B-10~ Salaries $ 9,150
10B-214 Radio Maintenance 100
10B-215a Vehicle Operations 1,500
10B-400a Radio Purchase 1,200
TOTAL $11,950
08O
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
The motion was seconded ~!y Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9a) Appointments. Community Action. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a
letter dated September 6, 1979, from Mr. Charles Barbour, President of the Monticello
Community Action ^gency Board of Directors which states in part: "Since the resignation
of Dr. Vivian Gordon and Mr. Lindsay Dorrier earlier this year, we have had no one re
your county on the Board of Directors. This works to a great disadvantage both to the
county and to the agency. New guidelines have now been set for such appointments. One-
third of the agency's Board of Directors must be representatives of the municipalities
served. Since the agency serves Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna and Louisa, we are
required to have two board members from each municipality. The new guidelines state these
must be elected public officials or, if this is not possible, appointed public officials.
Each public official selected to serve on the board may choose one permanent representative
to serve on the board either full-time in his/her place or whenever he/she is unable to
attend a meeting. These representatives need not be public officials themselveS, but they
shall have full authority to act for the public official whom they represent."
Mr. Agnor requested the Board to consider appointments to the Thomas Jefferson Visitors
Bureau. Mr.~Agnor said the County must make three appointments and recommended that two
of the appointees be citizens, and the third represent one of the tourist attractions
located in Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher suggested this be deferred until names of appointees
can be presented.
No other appointment nominations were made at this time.
Agenda Item No. 20. 1980 Legislative Matters. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Ray B. Jones has
requested legislation regarding bingo laws in the areas of 1) Placing of signs advertising
any bingo game, 2) the percentage of an organization's bingo operation received from
"instant bingo",
3) to simplify recOrd-keeping requirements, 4) to make the requirement of audit of
reports for bingo games and raffles optional, and 5) to set the hours per day and the days
per week that bingo games will be conducted.
Mr. Agnor said legislation was also requested by JAUNT to exempt the Jefferson Area
United Transportation, Inc. from the personal property taxes of the City of Charlottesville.
Mr. Roudabush recommended that the staff look into wording legislation to allow disaster
aid for County citizens without declaring the entire County a disaster area.
Mr. Robert Tucker requested modification of Section !5.1-466(K) of the State Code by
repealing same or modifying the language, which would provide for an exemption from local
subdivision regulations for "family divisions". Mr. Tucker wishes such divisions to
obtain local Health Department approval and Highway Department approval for entrance
facilities.
Mr. Fisher noted that the deadline for sending legislative requests to the Virginia
Association of Counties for enclusion in their 1980 legislative package is October 9,
1979, and requested the properly worded resolutions be prepared by the staff for pre-
sentation at the Board of Supervisor meeting on October 3, 1979.
(NOTE: At 5:56 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting.)
Mr. Fisher requested the Clerk to make reservations for the Virginia Association of
Counties Annual Meeting for Board members, plus two additional reservations for the two
contested seats on the Board. Mr. Fisher noted that this meeting would be an excellent
way for any member-elect to the Board, to be introduced to the legislative process.
Agenda Item No. 19. Scenic Rivers Committee Report (continued). Mr. Michel said the
Committee quickly met again, and came to the unanimous conclusion that the report is
correct as presented, that the "immediate environs" distance in question should read as
shown in the report at"fifteen feet" The Committee will meet one more time on the
definition of "clear cutting". Mr~ Steve Helvin said the fifteen feet was not just an
arbitrary figure, and it was the minimum possible for the protection of the river without
taking away property owners rights.
Agenda Item No. 21. Statements of Expenses - Director of Finance, Sheriff and
Commonwealth's Attorney for July and August, 1979 were presented along with salary state-
ments for July, 1979.7 Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these state-
ments were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 22. Statement of Expenses - Regional Jail. Salaries for the month
of July, 1979, and expenses for the months of July and August, 1979, were received. On
motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as presented.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dottier.
081
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 23. Regional Jail Report - August, 1979. Statement of expenses
incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of August,
1979, along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and
statement of salaries of the paramedics and the classification officer were received. On
motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 24. Reports of the County Executive for July and August, 1979 were
presented for the Board's information.
Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of July, 1979,
were also presented as information.
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Cafeteria Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Debt Service Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 1,641.26
696,105.06
529,532.49
60,445.50
14,320.77
23.00
65,490.66
220.29
97,755.47
354,211.55
4,574.49
143,355.26
$1,967,675,80
Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of August,
1979, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Operating Fund
School Construction Capital Outlay Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 6,357.57
508,893.29
569,632.20
17,983.48
18,626.84
66,749.84
215.30
37,935.85
53,840.36
141,209.69
$1,421,444.42
Agenda Item No. 25. Report of the Social Services Department for July, 1979, was
presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 2. Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom reported he read the minutes of May 16,
1979, and stated he found no corrections necessary. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
approve those minutes. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote'
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier
Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters. Mr. Agnor said the School Board has requested a
joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors. The Board suggested October 16, 1979, and
asked Mr. Agnor to verify this date with the School Board.
Mr. L!ndstrom said he would like to nominate Mr. Harold R. Bailes to be appointed to
the Monticello Area Community Action Agency. Mr. Bailes' address is Route 1, Box 96A,
Keswick, Virginia, 22947. It was noted that there is no set term for this appointment,
which becomes effective immediately. Also, the County pays compensation to their representati~
serving on this Board in the amount of $25.00 per meeting attended or a maximum of $50.00
each month, plus allowable mileage for attending meetings. Motion to appoint Mr. Bailes
was made by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier.
At 6:15 P.M., Mr. Roudabush offered motion for the Board to adjourn into Executive
Session for the purpose of discussing personnel and legal matters. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
O82
September 12, 1979 (Day Meeting)
At 6:2'2 P.M., the Board reconvened int~o open session.
Agenda Item No. 27. Adjourn. On motion from Dr[ Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
this meeting was adjourned to September 19, 1979, at 2:30 P.M. in the County Office
Building Board Room. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
Messrs. Fisher, Henley,.Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Chairman
September. 19, 1979 (Adjourned from September 12,
1979) (~fternoon Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on September 19, 1979, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 12, 1979.
PRESENT: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier,'gr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.(arriving
at 2:48 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 2:38 P.M.), and W.
S. Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
Tucker, Jr.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Planner, Robert W.
Agenda Item No. 1.
The meeting was called to order at 2:40 P.M.
Agenda Item No~ 2. Work Session: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan - Urban
Neighborhoods One and Seven. (Mr~ Agnor left the meeting at this time).
Mr. Fisher said because of the inclement weather on September 5, 1979, when the
public hearing was held on the amendments for the urban areas, it was noted that written
correspondence would be received for approximately two weeks and comments would be taken
during the work sessions. .He then reopened the public hearing for those citizens who had
not previously spoken.
Mr. Rolf Benzinger said he was a member of the Watershed Management Plan Committee.
He feels that the most important factor in providing protection of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir is the amount of phosphates entering the Reservoir. He understands that phos-
phate measurements have been made in the reservoir area over a long time span, and he said
those figures should be released'so that everyone can look at the figures of raw phosphate
concentrations. Mr. Benzinger referred to Rivanna Reservoir Restoration Project, May,
1979, Environmental Protection Agency, performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
He said his main objection to the watershed committee report is a statement that the
reservoir is okay without any basis of 'fact. No figures were released to prove the
statement and he requested that the Board release such figures. Mr. Fisher saidtheBoard
had received a copy of Mr.~ Benzinger's minority report the Watershed Management Committee
presented their report and the Board willcontinue to work on the problem.
Mr. Richard Cogan said he owns land in Neighborhood' Three to the east of the inter-
section of 1-64.and Route 250 between the Sheraton Inn and Moore's Well Drilling. This
area is shown as lying outside of the urban area boundary. He said there is quite a bit
of commercial activity in the area, and he suggested that She urban area boundary for
Neighborhood Three be extended about one quarter mile to the east. He noted that the
Planning CommisSion has recommended granting this request.
Mr. David Wood referred to requests made to the Planning Commission (noted under
Planning Commission recommendations number three and number nine on Neighborhood One). He
said that land along Berkmar Drive is presently zoned commercial. Berkmar Drive was built
by the developer so the properties along the road could be developed as business and it
would be a substantial loss to the developer to~downzone the land to either residential or
commercial off.ice. This same thing applies to land along Whitewood Road and noted under
recommendation nine.~
Mr. Max Evans was present to talk about the Jessup property in Neighborhood Seven.
In the Comprehensive Plan, it is stated that the Urban Area will grow because of its
convenience to commercial and other activities. The Jessup property is less than two
miles from commercial areas and the University of Virginia, water is available, and the
topography is reasonably good. The Neighborhood Seven Committee had recommended a two
acre/per unit density; same as the present rural density. The consultant recommended one
to four units per acre. There was a compromise in the Committee, and the recommendation
came forth as one unit per acre. Mr. Evans said with property this close to urban develop-
ment and by having water available, and having some sewage treatment in the area, he felt
it would be unwise to go to a lower density. He then read the following letter from James
Jessup dated September 19, 1979.
"Colthurst Farm and that property which separates it from Barracks Road is located
less than two miles from the city limits, Colthurst itself is remote from the main
road and thereby offers its residents exclusivity not available t6 the propertY'
located along Barracks Road. ~tn order to better serve the County, it would seem that
a residential planned neighborhood with smaller lots and free space that could help~