1978-02-08Febru~~ 1978 (R~ular--All Da~ Meeting~
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥±rginia, was held
on February ~8, 1978, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Char!ott.esv~
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony
Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:15 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: 'None.
Officers Present:
i County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr~. George R. St. John,
The meeting was called to order at 9:13 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Zntroduction of 4-H Agent.
Mr. Jim Butler, Extension Agent, introduced 4-H Agent, Mrs. Elly Y. DeRosa. Motion was
offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mrs. Elly ¥. DeRosa as 4-H agent effective February 16,
1978. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: March 9, 1977, March 16, 1977 (Afternoon),
March 28, 1977, March 30, 1977, April 6, 1977 (Afternoon), April 7, 1977, April 13, 1977,
April 20, 1977, April 25, 1977, April 27, 1977, May 4, 1977, May 18, 1977 (Night), May 25,
1977, June 15, 1977, June 16, 1977 and June 29, 1977.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of March 16, 1977 (Afternoon),
March 28, 1977, March 30, 1977, April 6, 1977 (Afternoon), April 27, 1977, May 4, 1977, May
18, 1977 (Night), June 15, 1977, June 16, 1977 and June 29, 1977, as presented. Mr. Henley
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The remaining minutes were deferred to February 15, 1978.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher briefed the Board on House Bill 602, one of th~ bills before
the General Assembly on annexation.
Lle,
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters. Key West Roads, Report of.
Mr. Roudabush said the contract had been let for paving four or five hundred feet of
road in the new section of Key West but due to weather conditions the work could not
be done at this time. However, Mr. Jack Schwab, developer of Key West, intends to open the
ilast section of Key West Road (Ridge Road) when economics permit. It will be built to a
standard for acceptance into the State Secondary System.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Fairgrove Subdivision: Request to take road into State Secondary
System.
Mr. Agnor noted request dated December 6, 1977, from Mr. 01lie Fitzgerald, Jr., for
il Willwood Drive serving Phase II of Fairgrove Subdivision to be accepted into the State
Secondary System. Motion was then offered bY Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road
in Phase 2 in Fairgrove Subdivision:
Beginning at station 15+90, a point common to the end of the present
dedication of Willwood Drive, State Route 1541, and the centerline
of Willwood Drive; thence in a southwesterly direction 935.62 feet
to station 25+25.62, the end of Willwood Drive in Phase 2 of Fairgrove
Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation 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 ~ourt of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 582, page 582.
~vote:
iiAYES:
~iNAYS:
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
i Agenda Item No. 4d. Route 637: Authority to sign deed for right of way.
Mr. Agnor said a deed conveying property jointly owned by the County and City at the
'I Ivy Landfill to the State Department of Highways and Transportation for road improvements of
]Route 637 has been received. He recommended approval with the Chairman executing same.
~!Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the following deed and authorization for the
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Noye.
~.THIS DEED, made the (8th day of March, 1978,) by and between the
City of Charlott'esville, Virginia, a Municipality, and the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, Grantors, and the COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA, acting by and through its Department of Highways and
Transportation, Grantee;
WITNESSETH: THAT WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Charlottesville,
~Virginia,,~ itm~me~ing on. (March 6, 1978,) duly aut~horized the
g0nveyance to t~ Cbmmonwe~t~ 0-f~Virginia, Department of HigHways and
Transportation, of the hereinafter described real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting
on February 8, 1978, duly passed a resolution authorizing the conveyance
to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and Transportation,
of the hereinafter described real estate; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to order entered (March 21, 1978,) in the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, the action of said Board to sell said
real estate was approved and ratified.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of $1.00 paid by
the Grantee to the Grantors, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
said Grantors hereby grant and convey unto the said Grantee in fee simple,
with special warranty, the land located in Samuel Miller Magisterial
District of Albemarle County, Virginia, and described as follows:
Being as shown on Sheets 5 and 6 of the plans for Route
637, State Highway Project 0637-002-169, M-501, and lying on
the northwest (right) side of and adjacent to the center of
present Route 637, from the lands of Robert O. Burton, Victoria
H. Burton, John T. Camblos and Jane Z. Camblos opposite
approximate survey centerline Station 132+95 to the lands
of the Diocesan Missionary Society of Virginia opposite
approximate Station 167+90 and containing 2.70 acres, more or
less, land, of which 1.19 acres is included in the existing
right of way and 1.51 acres, more or less, are additional
land; together with the permanent right and easement to use
the additional areas shown as being required for the proper
construction and maintenance of drain ditches right of
Stations 135+80, 144+60 and 148+60 and being a part of the
same land acquired by the County of Albemarle by deed of
Continental Can Company, Inc. dated November 25, 1974, recorded
in Deed Book 567, page 1 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Albemarle County. By deed dated January 27, 1975,
recorded in Deed Book 569, page 50, in the Clerk's Office
aforesaid, the County of Albemarle conveyed to the City of
Charlottesville an undivided one-half interest in such land.
For a more particular description of the land herein conveyed, reference
is made to photo copy of said Sheets 5 and 6, showing outlined in RED the
land conveyed hereunder in fee simple, and outlined in GREEN permanent
drainage easements, which photo copies are attached hereto as a part of this
conveyance and recorded simultaneously herewith in State Highway Plat Book
Number ~X ~ Page~ 209 and 210.
The grantors by the execution of this instrument acknowledges that the
plans for the aforesaid project as they affect its property have been fully
explained to its authorized representatives.
The said Grantors covenant that they have the right to convey the said
land to the Grantee, that they have done no act to encumber the same and that
they will execute such further assurance of the same as may be requisite.
The said Grantors covenant and agree that the consideration hereinabove
mentioned and paid shall be in lieu of any and all claims to compensation for
land, and for damages, if any, to the remaining lands of the Grantors which
may result by reason of the use to which the Grantee will put the land to be
conveyed, including such drainage facilities as may be necessary."
Agenda Item No. 4e. Letter Accepting Road into the State Secondary System.
Mr. Agnor read the following letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transport
tion into the record:
"January 26, 1978
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on August 10, 1977, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective January 26, 1978.
ADDITION LENGTH
WHIPPOORWILL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
Whippoorwill Road - From Route 676 to Route 614. 1.02 Mi."
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if any decision had been made by the Highway Commission on the Board's
request for industrial access funds for General Electric. Mr. Roosevelt said they are
having a problem'with the area on Route 29 where'GE has agreed to limit access to their
property. He has asked Mr. Agnor to set up a meeting with County staff and GE this week to
discuss this problem. Mr. Agnor said he has received correspondence from the adjoining
property owner about a drainage easement and this matter will also be discussed.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Public Hearing: Paul Stacy - Request to abandon old county road
beginning at the intersection of an old County road and State Route 626 approximatel~ 0,2.
mile southeast of its intersection with State Route 724 as shown on Albemarle Cbunt~TaM~ap
SectiOn 139; thence with the old County road approximately 0.8 mile northeast to its intersect:
with State Route 626, a point on Route 626 approXimately '0.75 mile northeast of its intersecti,
with State Route 602. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 25, 1978 and February 1,
1978.)
Mr Paul Stacy, petitioner'~wa~i~-present .... · e~'sald, when he bought his house he was told
that the driveway was private and it had to be maintained by the property owners using same.
Later he found that the driveway was actually an old public road which was not abandoned to
public use at the time the State.took.oVer~Oount,y~roads-in 193.4 and has never: been.abandoned
since that time. Mr. Stacy noted that the other owners of property on this old road have
other access to public roads, but he does not~' He presented to the Board a copy of an
agreement signed by adjoining property owners granting a common driveway easement to concerned
partie -
Mr. George McCallum was present to represent Mr.:~C~erald Wilson, owne~ of Parcel. 25C.?
Mr. Wilson bought this property, known as Monticola, in 1968. Continental Can Company owns
the woodlands surrounding this property. When Continental Can Company bought their property,
two roadways were conveyed for the benefit of Parcel 25C and two roads were reserved for
Continental Can. One or the roadways joins Parcel 25C to State Route 602 and the other runs
to what is known as the Old Warren Road. He said Mr. Stacy disputes Mr. Wilson's right to
use the portion of the road running from the edge of Mr. Wilson's property to State Route
602. A Bill of Complaint has been filed in Circuit Court and a temporary injunction was
granted for a period of 90 days enjoining Mr. Stacy and his wife from impeding Mr. Wilson
and his invitees from using this section of road. Mr. McCallum said the dispute arose when
Mr. Wilson divided 20 acres into four lots (using this old public road as access) to facilitat
financing several guesthouses and the caretakers house. He~. then suggested that~action be
deferred until court action on the bill of complaint.
Ms. Susan Gray, resident along the road, owner, said the only mainte~c·e.~.to..~he road
has .been by the property owners.
Ms. Kathy Stacy said the dispute started with the bulldozing on the slope above her
house which created a muddy mess and eroded onto the road.
Mr. Gerald Wilson said he ceased the bulldozing until the cour~ action is resolved.
Mr. Fred Kent, property owner concurred in M~. St~cy's ~resentation.
At 10:57 A.M., the public hearing was closad.
Mr. St. John said in 1976, three questions concerning these old public roads were asked
of the Attorney General. In essense, the response to.these, three questions w~s_once a
'public road always a public road until the public road is abandoned. The Board does h~ve
the power to abandon the road: !) If no public necessity exists for this road to continue
being a public road; 2) the public welfare will best be served by the road's abandonment;
and 3) no property owner needs the road for sole means of ingress and egress. He felt the
presentation shows that no property owner needs this road as a sole means of egress and
ingress. Since the County has never been enjoined by the Court as a party to the proceeding,
the Board, if it so desires, can legislatively abandon the road. If the lots that have been
subdivided were granted an easement, these lots would not be affected by this abandonment.
Mr. Henley was concerned about abandoning someone's right of way. Mr. Roudabush said
when property is bought and sold its value is determined on certain things related to~:~he
property such as the access. Therefore, he felt this abandonment would diminish the value
of the property. Mr. Dorrier felt the road should be abandoned and suggested that Mr.
Wilson enter in the agreement for maintenance of the road. Mr. Roudabush~asked if Mr.
Wilson was agreeable to the abandonment if private rights were given to him for egress and
ingress. Mr. McCallum said yes. Mr. Fisher felt a statement or assurance from the property o
should be given to extending the agreement under these terms to Mr. Wilson and Continental
Can. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to defer this matter to March 8. Mr. Henley seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4f. Request from Sign Commission.
Mr. Mike Gleason, Chairman of the Sign Commission, read the following memorandum in. to
the record:
"February 3, 1978
TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors i7)~"~,.,
FROM: Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission
RE: Signs on 1-64
The Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission has expressed concern regarding the
?signing of the exits on 1-64 and the following motion was unanimously approved at the
on
~n
aers
F~bruary 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
Transportation to immediately erect interstate logo signs (gas, food,
lodging) along all 1-64 interchanges in Albemarle County.
Secondly, that the Board of Supervisors request the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation to erect a sign designating the Monticello
exit to the west of Monticello on 1-64.
Thirdly, that the Board of Supervisors request the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation to erect a sign at the Ivy interchange
o~ 1-64 to designate the distance and the condition of the road to Ivy.
The Albemarle County Sign Advisory Commission respectfully request that
the Board of Supervisors take action on these requests before the 1978
tourist season."
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
hereby concurs in the following request from the Albemarle County Sign Advisory
Commission:
Request the Virginia Department of Highway.s and Transportation
to immediately erect interstate logo signs (gas, food, lodging)
along all 1-64 interchanges in Albemarle County.
Request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to erect a sign designating the Monticello exit to the west
of Monticello on 1-64.
Request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
to erect a sign at the Ivy interchange on 1-64 to designate
the distance and the condition of the road to Ivy.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4g. Other Highway Matters.
Several Board members had received complaints about many roads in the County which were
impassable for school buses during the bad winter weather.
Mr. Roudabush said the residents in a subdivision known as Ridgemont, located opposite
Route 612 on Stony Point Road, have expressed their interest in having the road taken into
the State System· He asked Mr. Roosevelt to review the plat and estimate the amount necessary
for the property owners to raise to have the road brought up to state standards. . .....
Agenda Item No. 5. Caleb Stowe: Subdivision Flat Appeal. (Subdivision Plat showing
parcels A, B, C & D being a re-division of a portion of property shown on a plat recorded in
Deed Book 512, page 436 located at the intersection of U. S. Route 29 and State Route 631,
Charlottesville Magisterial District, Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by William S. Roudabus
Inc., dated November 30, 1977 and revised December 21, 1977.)
Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion of this matter because his firm prepared the
plat being appealed.
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, read the following staff report into the
record:
"The property is located on the northwest ~corner of the intersection of
Routes 29 North and 631. The Pizza Hut lot was previously divided from
this proposal. It is an integral part of this proposal although it is
not before you at this time. The proposal is to divide two existing
parcels into four lots; 19,445 square feet, 34,632 square feet and
40,590 square feet in size. With regard to access, the four lots are
treated as a unit with access from both Route 29 and Route 631. Interior
access is achieved through the use of easements. The applicant proposes
a reservation of right-of-way for the future improvement of Route 631.
A 30 foot setback from all rights-of-way has been shown as recommended by
the staff. Both entrance facilities will have commercial entrances, the
one on Rio Road will have curb and gutter due to drainage conditions.
Parcel D will probably be used as a joint parking facility for the other
four lots (including Pizza Hut). The Rio Road entrances do not
align with the joint entrance used by Hardee's, however when Rio Road
is improved, a concrete median will not allow existing traffic to make
left turns. Although the applicant has noted that an appropriate amount
of right-of-way will be reserved for the improvement of Route 631, the
staff feels that dedication of this right-of-way should be obtained.
The staff recommends approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
A Maintenance Agreement for the maintenance of the travelways,
parking, and entrances is to be approved by the County Attorney's
Office and recorded with this plat;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance facilities:
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said condition number 5 is being appealed by the applicant. The staff felt
the condition was needed to facilitate the improvement of the intersection. The applicant
is concerned about the twenty-five foot dedication from the center!ine of the road which is
the minimum dedication required by the subdivision ordinance.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for Caleb Stowe, was present. He said the specific point
the developer wishes to appeal is the requirement of dedication of additional land for
possible future widening of Rio Road. The developer is agreeable to dedication of twenty-
five feet and to reserve additional land, but he does not feel it proper to require him to
dedicate additional land. The proposed subdivision will have one access to 29 and Rio Road
which reduces the impact on the highway and the intersection. He did not feel this additional
dedication had anything to do with the applicant's proposal. Mr. Landess said the additional
dedication, 4400 square feet, is approximately eight percent of the total land area at
roughly $5.00 per square foot. In conclusion, Mr. Landess did not feel it equitable, reasonab
or fair to require this applicant to give land for future public road improvements.
Mr. St. John reviewed Section 18-8 of the Subdivision Ordinance and felt Mr. Landess
was correct. Mr. Tucker said the staff and commission were of the qpinion that in areas
where upgrading of roads is contemplated, that possibly more than fifty feet could be
required. Mr. Fisher asked if the Subdivision Ordinance needed to be amended. Mr. Roosevelt
said yes, if no more than 50 feet of right of way is required. He felt sixty feet is needed
for the improvement of Rio Road. Mr. Lindstrom felt the applicant had agreed to dedicate 25
feet from the centerline and to reserve the additional land. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta to amend condition 5 with the following wording: "Area noted as reserved for
future right of way shall be reserved in accordance with Section 18-8 of the Subdivision
Ordinance." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 6. Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission, Request from.
Mr. Roger Flint, Co-chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission
was present. This item was deferred from the December 14, 1977 meeting in order that a
resolution could be drafted for the Board's review. The committee now has three requests
which are: 1) Approve the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission as a joint
commission of the City and County. 2) Appoint a steering committee. 3) Approve and sign
a resolution applying for a grant to support this program. Mr. Flint then presented to the
Board a drafted resolution. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about one item in the resolution
where the funds would be transferred immediately to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean
Community Commission. He felt the funds should come directly 'to the County with the County
being responsible for the disbursement of same. After some discussion, motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution with the above change noted by Mr. Fisher
and authorizing the chairman to execute same. Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recognizes the
existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of the County of
Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through
the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of
Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of grants
for the purpose of promoting enforcement of anti-litter statutes and
ordinances and for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs;
and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the
Application covering administration and use of said funds:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors:
Hereby endorses and supports such a program for the County of
Albemarle; and
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of
Charlottesville in a mutually agreed upon and coordinated
program, contingent on approval of the Application by the
Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division
of Litter Control, and contingent on receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission (CAC3) to plan and budget for a coordinated anti-litter
program, which shall represent said program for all localities
named in this resolution; and
FURTHER, authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission (CAC3) to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities
for a grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation,
and completion of the program as it is described in the attached application
form LC-G-i; and
FURTHER, accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-Albemarle
Clean Community CommissiOn (CAC3) and the City of Charlottesville for all phases
of the program; and '
F~bruary 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
FURTHER, accepts liability for its pro-rata share of any funds not
properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Application,
and that said funds, when received, will be held by the County for disbursement
upon proper certification by appropriate officers at the Commission.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic
Development, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the application
and program, said program being in accord with Regulations governing use and
expenditure of said funds.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint the following persons to the Charlotte~
Albemarle Clean Community Commission: Mrs. Roberta D. Mooney and Messrs. David M. Rothwell,
Jr., Roger B. Flint, Charles T. Lebo, Edwin E. Gatewood, Jr., Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., John
W. Greene and J. Harvey Bailey. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16.
officers.
Request from Sheriff:
Application for grant for two juvenile
The following memorandum from Mr. Agnor was discussed:
"February 3, 1978
TO:
RE:
Board of Supervisors
Application for Federal Assistance
Youth Division - Sheriff's Department
Sheriff Bailey has requested approval of a Federal grant proposal
for Division of Justice and Crime Prevention (DJCP) funds to establish
a new unit in his department entitled Youth Division. The unit would be
comprised of two officers trained in juvenile law to work full-time
with juvenile crime and delinquency, serving as referral agents for youth
programs, and investigators of criminal complaints, diverting less serious
youthful offenders from sources of trouble which can lead to deeper
involvement with crime.
The proposal provides for funding July 1, 1978, as follows:
Salaries
Benefits
Equipment
Supplies
Federal State County
$21,235 $19,111 $ 1,062 $ 1,062
3,611 3,249 J[~. 181 _ ~- 181
10,627 347 20 10,260
1,100 0 0 1,100
$36,573 $22,707 $ 1,263 $12,603
The major portion of the first year costs for equipment and supplies
categories, funded entirely with local funds, are two vehicles ($10,000)
and uniforms with accessories ($1,100). The proposal provides for 90%
Federal funds for salaries and benefits for three years, 50% the fourth
year, and none thereafter. Depending upon State participation, local costs
the second and third years could be $1500 to $3000, $15,000 the fourth year,
and $10,000 to $30,000 thereafter.
Juvenile law and the handling of juvenile problems is a highly
specialized area of law enforcement. It requires training and assignment
of personnel who follow procedures that are dissimilar to other criminal
justice work. The lack of manpower in the Sheriff's Department has prevented
the assignment of deputies to the required training and servicing of juvenile
crime, which statistics indicate is a significant factor in the highest index
crime problem in Albemarle County - burglary. It is therefore recommended
that approval be granted for the Federal grant application as a first step
in establishing a Youth Division in the Sheriff's Department."
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the youth division application for
federal assistance with same being executed by the County Executive. Mr. Dor~rier seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS~
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed.
"January 30, 1978
Mr. Gerald Fisher
Sheffield Road
West Leigh
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Mr. Fisher read the following letter into the record:
22901
have finally received the federal guideline manua% Guide for
Discretionary,Grant Prosrams (Guideline Manual M4500.1F, dated 21
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
In reviewing the programs, I find that no LEAA discretionary funds
are allocated to communications or dispatching projects. Therefore,
the Joint Dispatch Center for Charlottesville, Albemarle and UVA cannot
secure discretionary funds, and will have to be funded from other programs
or resources.
Fortunately, LEAA Part E funds for expansion of correctional faoilities
are retained, so that the proposal you will be considering in the near future
has a good chance of securing funds.
Sincerely yours,
(SIGNED)
Richard R. E. Kania
Criminal Justice Planner"
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Langford Phase II: Final Plat. (Subdivision Plat of
blocks "A" & "B", Section Two "Langford", Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by K. M. Gloeckner
dated November 15, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record:
"Location: On the north side of 1-64 frontage road #1 off Route 637 near Ivy.
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural.
History: On May 10, 1977, the Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat
of this property subject to six conditions:
Double frontage lots 34, 35 and 39 receive a waiver;
Reduction of frontage requirement for lots 5, 6, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 30, 31,
32, and 39 is approved;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineering
Department approval of internal roads;
Grading permit will be required for final approval;
That frontage road #1 be improved to a Class B, Category II standard of
the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance by the developer in order to
eliminate safety hazards which can be expected to arise as a result of
the traffic generated by this development;
No buildings or septic fields will be placed on slopes of 25% or greater.
On September 13, 1977, the Planning Commission approved the first phase of
Langford. Ten lots were approved subject to the following conditions:
Same as #3 above;
Same as #4 above;
Same as #6 above;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval Of entrance
facilities;
The 1-64 frontage road #1 is to be improved to and maintained at Frontage
Road I standards; and the frontage road #1 is to be improved to Category
II, Class B of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance prior to
subdivision of the remainder of the property;
Churchill Lane shall be constructed and maintained to Secondary Road
Standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and
dedicated to public use. Churchill Lane shall be maintained to Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation standards by property owners served
through agreement approved by the County Attorney until such time as
acceptance into the State Secondary System occurs. Churchill Lane shall be
tendered for acceptance at the earliest date legally possible.
On December 20, 1977, The Planning Commission deferred the Phase II Final Plat
to their January 10, 1978, meeting in order that a representative from the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation could be present, and in order
that it could be determined whether or not the applicant will have central water
available.
Pro,posal
To develop 34 lots all served by public roads. One lot will front on the frontage
road. A central well lot is proposed and the applicant has received State
approval of the central well, however, he does not wish to have the central
water required for the lots.
Staff Comment
There are two questions which need to be resolved: First, the applicant previously
indicated to the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff that he intended to
bear the expense of upgrading the frontage road as required by the preliminary
approval; the applicant is now reconsidering this position. Second, the Planning
Commission,s ~policy regarding the subdivision of lots within the watershed (i.e.,
40,000 sq. ft. required per lot outside the 200 foot setback without well, 60,000
sq. ft. with well) causes problems for several lots in this proposal. The
County Engineering Department has determined that a runoff control permit will
not be required for this development.
Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the staff has met with the applicant
to resolve the following two issues:
(a)
The frq~tage road: the applicant again expressed concerns that he did not
want to be required to improve the frontage road. But, he did not oppose
the proposed condition of approval #1;
Day Meeting)
(b)
The~effect of runoff control: though the staff again urged him to redivide
his lots in order that they meet Planning Commission policy with regard to
minimum area outside the 200 foot setback, the applicant did not agree to
redivide and preferred to present the plan as it exists.
The following is a letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, noting what specific improvements are necessary
to upgrade the road to Class B, Category II standards:
"January 5, 1978
Relative to your te~phone request of today concerning improvements
to the Frontage Road by Langford Subdivision, Mr. D. S. Roosevelt's
August 29th, 1977 letter to Mr. Tucker indicated two (2) categories
of design that would be acceptable to the Department.
A Category II design woutd be required if only the original Langford
Subdivision is developed. Those requirements are as follows:
CATEGORY II
Surface 20 feet
Shoulders 5' Fill; 4' Cut
Stopping Sight Distance 200 Feet
Maximum Grade 12%
The Frontage Road was designed and constructed to obtain the minimum
stopping sight distance of 200 feet utilizing a maximum of 12 percent
grade; therefore, no grade changes will be required for the improvement
of this road, only widening to achieve the necessary surface and shoulder
widths.
If you have any further questions, please advise."
In addition, the applicant has notified the staff that the central water system
has been approved by the State and will be utilized.
Recommended conditions of approval:
subject to the following conditions:
The staff recommends approval of this plat
That frontage road No. 1 be improved to Class B, Category II standards
of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance in order to eliminate safety
.hazards which can be expected to arise as a result of the traffic generated
by this development; these improvements should take place from Route 637
to just west of Pippin Drive;
The lot layout must be adjusted in order that each lot has a minimum of
40,000 square feet outside the 200 foot setback if a central well is used or
if the private well is located within the 200 foot setback and meets
Virginia Department of Health requirements, or each lot must have a minimum
of 60,000 square feet outside the 200 foot setback if a well is to be located
outside the 200 foot setback;
3. Written Health Department approval;
The following lots hereby receive a waiver of the minimum frontage requirement:
Block A, Lot 4; Block B, Lots 6 and 7; Block C, Lots 5, 6, and 7; and Block
D, Lots 3, 6, 7, and 8;
5. A grading permit is required;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance into the
secondary system of interior streets;
7. Langford Circle is to be changed to Langford Lane, Drive or Court;
Note on each plat: "No building permit shall be granted for any lot without
written Health Department approval of not fewer than two specified sites
for sewage disposal systems;
Note on each plat: "County law prohibits the construction of any plat of a
sewage disposal system within 200 feet of the centerline of any stream
(intermittent or perennial) within the South Fork of the R±vanna River
Reservoir watershed;"
10.
Note on each plat: Lot 2, Block B, and Lot 1, Block E are not approved for
any construction which may require sewerage."
Mr. Tucker said the applicant is appealing conditions 1 and 2.
1 was based on a traffic generation study conducted.
He noted that condition
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, was present. He said to comply with
the requirement of condition #1, the developer would have to improve 4,000 feet of road that
is not continguous to his piece of property. When the preliminary subdivision approval was
given, the County staff estimated $30,000 to improve the frontage road. Then at the January
10 Planning Commission meeting, a revised estimate was received in the amount of $57,000 for
off-site cost for the improvements. Mr. Gilliam said before 1-64 was built, this road had
frontage all along the length of the property on State Route 637. Then in the late '60's,
condemnation occurred as a result of 1-64. The condemnation specifically said it did not
make a provision for other damages only for the taking of the land. As a result of 1-64,
the frontage access to Route 637 was taken away and this frontage road was put in as access
for this property. The applicant is willing to pay his pro-rata share but to require one
070
Februar~ 8 1.,8 ~_Re;ular--~ll Da~ Meeting~
Mr. Fisher suggested a fund being established for the improvement of the road frontage
that could be on a pro-rata share based on the acreage to be served. Mr. Gilliam said his
client would be willing to pay his pro-rata share. He said the road could be upgraded to
standards only slightly less than the Highway Department's for about $20,000.00. Mr. Fisher
asked what standard that amount would buy. Mr. Ron Carter said the present road (called a
frontage road) has four inches of stone and fourteen feet of road width and is about the
lowest standard of road. This would be category 1. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said category 1
requires twenty feet of width and six inches of stone. Category 2 is basically the same in
width but is eight inches of stone. Mr. Carter said the reason for the narrower width is
that one cannot get the shoulder width on several places along the road. Mr. Dorrier asked
if there were any requirements on Phase I for upgrading the road. Mr. TuCker said yes. Mr.
Roosevelt was unsure if the eighteen feet could be put in with existing guardrails. He
thought only 22 feet existed between the guardrails which leaves only a couple of feet or so
for the 'shoulders. If that is the case, tapering the road from twenty feet of pavement to
eighteen feet would be a safety hazard.
Mr. St. John said although there is authority in the County's ordinances for this, he
has a question as to whether the County has the authority to require this even though there
are Attorney General opinions that it can be required. He felt there is a limit to what can
be required of one developer for the public's use. In this situation, the Count~ could
require it. Dr. Iachetta felt the only requirement the Board can require is improvement of
the frontage road.
Mr. Gilliam asked if a bond in the amount of $20,000 could be posted to cover his
client's share of whatever policy is decided. He requested approval with a modified condition
requiring the applicant to contribute whatever amount is determined.
Mr. Roudabush felt the land should be recognized for what it is; a piece of land which
has been subdivided and fronts on an existing unpaved road. The interior road will have to
meet subdivision standards. Mr. Roudabush did not think the County had ever required anyone
to upgrade an existing state (frontage) road fronting his property. Mr. Fisher said if Mr.
Carter committed himself to the eighteen foot pavement width without adequate shoulders and
this plan were approved by the Highway Department, that would be an adequate condition. He
felt the nature of this problem was created by the building of 1-64 and condemnation. After
some discussion by the Board, Mr. Roudabush offered the following motion: Amend condition 1
to read "improvement to the frontage road shall consist of a pavement no less than eighteen
feet wide, no less than eight inches in depth, prime and double seal with standard shoulders
except in the areas where the construction by the box culverts would not permit the standard
shoulder width and the improvements take place from Route 637 to just west of Pippin Drive."
Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Gilliam said the second condition is also of concern of the applicant. He said
the Planning Commission has adopted a policy requiring a minimum of 40,000 square feet outside
of the 200 foot setback as an alternate site for a septic field. He understood there had been
another ruling of that condition in a similar case and he requested the same condition that
was placed on the Windsor plat. Mr. Tucker then read the condition that was approved for
Windsor. Mr. Gilliam asked that the condition placed on his client be deleted. After some
discussion by the Board, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to amend condition 2 to read "No building
permit shall be granted for any lot without written, health department approval of not fewer
than two specified sites, for sewage disposal systems outside of the two hundred foot
setback." Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 1:45 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 2:23 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 8. Huntwood Land Trust: Discussion.
Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion on th±s matter because his firm prepared the
plat.
The following letter from Mr. Gilliam was received:
"January 23, 1978
The Honorable Gerald E. Fisher
Chairman
Board of County Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Re: Huntwood Land Trust
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We are attorneys for Huntwood Land Trust which owns real property
in Albemarle County near the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown
Road. The subject property is zoned R-3 and lies between the Old Salem
Apartments and the Hessian HillS Apartments.
In early 1977, Huntwood Land Trust received site plan approval for
the construction of 54 apartment units. In due course, its soil erosion
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
received Service Authority approval. Huntwood posted the required bonds
for the highway entrance permit and the soil erosion plans.
When the "Ordinance for the Protection of Water in Public Drinking
Water Supply Impoundments" was adopted on October 19, 1977, a grandfather
clause was inserted into the ordinance which exempted "any development for
which all necessary permits had been issued prior to the effective date of"
said ordinance. While Huntwood had obtained site plan approval, highway
department approval and service authority approval, and had posted the required
bonds, it had not obtained its building permits, though it was eligible to do
so. The cited grandfather clause has now been construed not to exempt
Huntwood from the provisions of the ordinance.
Compliance with the ordinance will require Huntwood to completely
discard its approved site plan (and, therefore, its architectural and
engineering plans). Huntwood will be compelled to have completely new plans
drawn and will have to lower its density by at least one-third.
Application of the reservoir protection ordinance to Huntwood in this
instance-seems particularly harsh. Acting in good faith, Huntwood had its
site plan approved. It then proceeded to spend many thousands of dollars
having architectural plans prepared and engineering work done. We believe
HUntwood had vested rights in its site plan at the time the reservoir
protection ordinance was adopted. In this case, the land is properly zoned
for 54 apartment units, is located in an area in which numerous other apartments
have been built, and Huntwood had complied with all existing ordinances, rules,
regulations and requirements incident to issuance of a building permit.
On behalf of Huntwood, we respectfully respect that the subject ordinance
be amended to exempt developments, like Huntwood, which had obtained all
necessary permits (except building permits) and posted all required bonds prior
to the effective date of the ordinance.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
George H. Gilliam
For the Firm"
The Board felt the purpose of the ordinance is to protect the reservoir and it was not
ready to consider amendments to the ordinance at this time. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta to deny the request to amend the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom seconded
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NA~S~-~:Non~ ~-.__
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 10. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Relating to Jurisdictional Boundaries
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, continuance of public hearing. (Deferred from
January 18, 1978).
This was deferred from January 18, 1978 so that a map could be prepared to show the
various proposals before the Board. (See January 18, 1978, Minutes on page 49 of Minute
Book 16.) Messrs. L. A. Lacy, Robert P. Englander, George T. Omohundro and Elvin E.
Thompson, Jr., from the Albemarle County Service Authority were present. At this time, the
public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said the Board is attempting to bring the actual jurisdictional boundaries
of the Service Authority into compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Mr. Roudabush was not convinced that service areas have to coincide with the growth
areas as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. He felt there were some areas where topography,
existing use and need for water are contradictory. He asked if water and sewer jurisdiction
areas are separate. Mr. Thompson said the Service Authority considers them the same. Mr.
Tucker said the only area recommended by the Planning Commission for water only service is
Ivy.
Mr. Dorrier asked if cutting back the ju~Sdictional areas of the Service Authority
would affect them financially. Mr. Thompson said it depended on how successful the Comprehens:
Plan is in the location of people. If growth does not take place as envisioned in the
Comprehensive Plan, and inflationary trends continue, the only way to get additional revenues
is to increase rates. He noted that rates have not been increased since 1973.
Mr. Lindstrom said in the near future the County will be readopting a zoning ordinance
based on the Comprehensive Plan. He had no problem changing the Comprehensive Plan if
there is a justifiable reason. However, if there is no justifiable reason, the Board would
have no legal basis on which to base zoning decisions. Mr. Dorrier said the Board directed
Mr. Tucker to develop plans for villages in the County and he felt when such a plan is
submitted it~_would clearly define what exists. Mr. Fisher felt the Comprehensive Plan and
the jurisdic~tional areas had to be consistent.
Discussion then followed on the Crozet area of the Plan. Mr. Henley felt the Thurston
Subdivision should be included in that jurisdictional area. Motion was then. offered by Dr.
Iachetta to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to correct the map for Crozet
with the inclusion of the area along Route 684 to encompass the existing, water line which
extends to the entrance of Mint Springs Park, also include the Thurston Subdivision located
on Route 810 north of Crozet, since public water is required for this subdivision. Mr.
Henley seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley. Iachetta. Lindstrom and Roudabush.
Discussion followed on the 29 North Corridor jurisdictional areas. Mr. Roudabush
noted that Terrybrook Subdivision on Proffit Road, which currently is served by the Albemarle
County Service Authority, was deleted in the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation. He also
noted property fronting on Route 29 from Proffit Road to Piney Mountain has existing customers
He felt they should be included in the Plan. Mr. Roudabush suggested including in the
jurisdictional boundaries, the area from Teledyne to Bedford Hills Subdivision. Mr. St.
John noted that it is unlawful for the Service Authority to discontinue serving existing
customers and the Comprehensive Plan should include areas already served. At this time,
the consensus of the Board was that the matter was too difficult to act on at this time and
felt it needed to be studied further. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer this
discussion to February 22, 1978 at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. tl. S~ct~n~>l~2 of the Albemarle County Code regarding general language
and definition of "subdivision" continuance of public hearing (Deferred from December
14, 1977.)
This was deferred so the private roads committee could report back to the Board· The
Committee had sent to the Board certain amendments to Sections 18-2, 18-30, 18-36, 18-37(m)
of the Albemarle County Code. Said amendments attached to a letter from Mr. Frederick W.
Payne, Deputy County Attorney, dated February 3, 1978 and filed in the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors Office. Mr. Mike Boggs said three meetings had been held and a private road
ordinance has been discussed. The main concern is the aesthetics, economy and development,
consumer protection and alleviating the County from any further responsibilities for maintenan¢
The feeling of the committee was not to limit the lot sizes by the subdivision ordinance
but rather by the zoning ordinance. The number of users and not the size of the lot should
govern the traffic volumes and regulate the safety and design criteria for the private
roads· The Committee feels the design specifications based on the number of lo. ts would be
more desirable and a much more reasonable way to regulate the private road ordinance·
Mr. Fisher was concerned that some land zoned ~2 or R-3 with one hundred dwelling
units on one lot might have roads which would be private. Mr. Boggs said the Planning
Commission has complete jurisdiction over whether or not to allow private roads. Mr.
Fisher said his basic concerns are the traffic volume and the maintenance agreement. Dr.
Iachetta said when the committee was established to study private roads, he felt the committee
was going to study piPe stemming as well as stripping. He felt the provision should be
applicable only to single family dwellings. Mr. Boggs felt the definition proposed by the
Committee for pipe frontage would resolve the problem of pipe stemming. He said pipe stem
lots have been approved in the past by the Planning Commission but through a change in the
interpretation the building inspections department is not issuing building permits. Therefore
he felt the matter needed to be resolved.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to refer the entire package to the Plannning commission
without comment Mr Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None J
Agenda Item!No.i 12. Robert Tucker: Comprehensive Plan Format·
Mr. Tucker presented to the Board the format of the Comprehensive Plan and noted that
the urban land use map and general land use map would be in color in the middle of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Agenda Item No. 13. Lewis Hill, Section 3: Site Plan Appeal. (Subdivisimn Plat Showing
"Lewis Hill" -' Section Three Near Ivy, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, Albemarle County,
Virginia, drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated October 17, 1977.~)
Mr. Roudabush abstained from discussion on this matter.
Mr. Tucker read the following staff report into the record:
"Location: East side of Route 678
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural
Proposal: Nineteen lots, average size 2.2 acres. Proposed state roads.
History: Preliminary plat approved October 18, 1977. Final plat was
deferred by the Planning Commission in order to get an opinion from
the Board of Supervisors on the question of requiring public
water. On December 14, the Board adopted a policy definition
of "reasonably accessible or available."
Staff Comment: A revised estimate has been prepared by the surveyor and checked
by the COunty Engineer. The estimate covers the cost of a water
line from West Leigh to serve all nineteen lots in Section 3,
plus an additional seventeen lots which could be possible along
the water line.
6,370 ft. 8" water line ~ 10.00
7 fire hydrants ~ 1,000.00
930 ft. easement (across West Leigh
lots) ~ 5.00
36 Service lines ~ 110.00
36 Connection fees @ 400.00
18 Service connection lines @ 130.00
Engineering and contingencies
TOTAL
63,700
7,000
4,650
14,400
2,340
16,000
112,050
February 8,' 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
073
The estimate for individual wells per lot is $1,800 - $2,000. The
Commission must decide if this cost for public water' is
economically feasible according to the Board's definition.
If the Commission decides to permit a central well system, then
staff would recommend that the system be sized to meet the approval
of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
'Conditions of Approval:
On December 20, 1977, the Planning Commission gave approval
pursuant to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval;
2. Highway Department approval;
3. Grading and runoff control permits if needed;
4. Public water (Albemarle County Service Authority).
Mr. Tucker said based on the above estimates, the Planning Commission felt that public
water is "reasonably available" to the subdivision. Mr. Fisher said by letter dated
December 28, 1977, from Mr. Fred Landess~ attorney for Mr. Cushman, the decision of the
Planning Commission was appealed.
Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for Mr. Cushman, said it is logical to believe that if a
water~line is run from West Leigh, lots in that area would be developed, but Mr. Cushman is
only requesting approval of a 19-lot subdivision. If he must run this water line, he would
need to grade a road at the same time and this would add about $10.00 a foot to the cost of
the lots. When the number of lots is reduced from 36 to 19, development with public water
is not economically feasible.
Mr. Fisher said he felt individual wells would be the worst situa2ion for homeowners.
The argument that there will bnty be 19 lots would be realistic if the building of a road
had not been mentioned, however, it has be~n the applicant's policy o~er the last few years
to expand his development of single-family homes along the Owensville Road.
Dr. Iachetta asked how much additional acreage Mr. Cushman has.
159 acres.
Mr. La~dess Said about
Mr. FiSher said the Board has been asked to judge whether the Planning Commission's -
conditions are reasonable. Mr. Dorrier asked~f Mr. Cushman could hook to a central well
system. Mr. Fisher said his system does not have any additional approved capacity. Dr.
Iachetta said he did not think the Board should approve 19 new individual wells in this area.
Mr. Fisher said that this land lies along the route of the Stillhouse line to Ivy. The Board
could be put .in the position of approving 10 additional hQuses each year (never enough to
require public water) and over a pE~od of time have 100-200 houses in this area on individual
wells.
Mr. Dorrier said although $3,000+ seems like a lot of money, the purchasers will benefit
from fire ~rotection and lower insurance rates. Dr. Iachetta said $3,000 seems insigflificant
compared wihh being~responsible for an individual well. Also, since the applicant owns
the land through which the water line will run, he should, be ahte to recoup~his costs at some
future time. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to deny the appeal. Dr. Iachetta
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, HEnley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 14. Central Well, Cushman, Report of the County Engineer.
The following letter was received from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, dated January
12, 1978:
"Subject: Well #3, Meriwether Hill
Reference is made to my memo dated December'29, 1976 relative to the
testing of Meriwether Hill Well #3. At that date this well was found to
yield 18 g.p.m, at the conclusion of a 48 hour pump test. It was also
determined that this well was on a different acquifier from that which
supplies well #2 of the Meriwether Hill system. The combined flow from
the two wells was 48 g.p.m, and the memo recommended that they be limited
to serving 96 dwelling units.
I now believe that I was in error in recommending the limit of 96 units.
Wells #1 and #2 had been previously tested and certified for 33 g.p.m. The
purpose of testing it together with well #3 was to determine if the
two were on the same acquifier which would have required they be considered
as one service. Since they were not on the same acquifier the report should
have addressed the capacity of well #3 only, which was 18 g.p.m.
There
Meriwether Hill water system. This number would be exceeded if the 3~
connections allowable for well #3 were added to the 79 alloted to wells #!
and #2 by SP-382. However, the use of this system of wells should not be
extended to serve other than the specific lots for which it was intended.
therefore recommend that these three wells serve the 102 lots (33 G.P.M.,
wells #1 and #2 + 18 g.p.m., well #3 = 51 g.p.m.) in the subdivisions
commonly known as Meriwether Hill, Meriwether North, Lewis Hill Section One
and Two, and Lewis Hill West, Stowe Court and Vinton Court and no others."
are 103 lots within the area which are served by the three wells of the
Agenda Item No. 15. Tom Hill: Albemarle Housing Improvement Program.
O74
Februar~ular--All Day Meeti_j~_g~
At 5:42 P.M., the Board recessed for dinner. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Agnor discussed working memorandum #11 dated June 8, 1977, prepared by Kamstra,
Dickerson & Associates. This program has been approved by the Planning Commission.
The following capital improvement requests are broken down according to category and
expenditure item:
I. Schools -- Nine projects totalling $7,225,000 were proposed, all of which
would be locally funded. These projects consist almost entirely of "catch-up"
and reinforcement of existing facility types of improvements. As such, they
fall primarily in the categories of obsolete facility replacement and/or operating
cost reduction although several may be considered to be provision of essential
public services and facilities.
It is recommended that $3,275,000 of the requested $7,225,000 be funded during
the first five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Rationale for reductions
is as follows:
a) Burley Middle School - This school, located within the City, is
currently the subject of discussion for becoming part of the City's
system by purchase or trade. Until this is resolved, it is recommended
that the requested $2,750,000 be deleted from the CIP.
b) Meriwether Lewis/Murray and Crozet Greenwood Elementary Schools -
It is recommended that the $1,750,000 requested be reduced to $1,050,000
in line with the April 11, 1977, School Building Update Committee Report.
c) Scottsville (Old School) - It is recommended that the requested
$500,000 for repair/renovation/improvement of the old school be deleted
from the CIP until an accurate prognosis can be made of the effectiveness
of flood control improvements (being made by the Town) on protecting
the old school from future flood hazard and damage.
d) The balance of requested projects are recommended for inclusion in
the CIP.
e) In addition to requested projects, it is recommended that $350,000
be included in the CIP for acquisition of future school sites (elementary
site in Crozet area, urban area; middle and secondary school site(s) in
area serving Hollymead/Urban area - on east side of Route 29N).
Category/E.xpenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Schools
Albemarle High School Gym
Scottsville POD
Red Hill
Bus Shop
Meriwether Lewis/Murray
Crozet/Greenwood
Burley
Stony Point
Scottsvi!!e (Old School)
Future Site Acquisition
$500,000 $1,000,000
550,000 550,000
750,000 750,000
200,000 200,000
700,000 500,000
1,050,000 550,000
2,750,000 -0-
225,000 225,000
500,000 -0-
-0- 350,000
II. Utilities -- Four projects totalling $1,876,900 were proposed of which $64,500
would be locally funded. These improvements reinforce existing facilities and involve
provision of essential public services and facilities. It is recommended that these
projects be included in the CIP.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests
KDA Recommendations
High Level Service - Pressure Valves $74,500
Storage Tank & Line (Water) 1,718,400
Improvement - Canterbury/Hessian Hills 63,000
School Fire Protection 21,000
$74,500
1,718,400
63,OOO
21,000
III. Solid Waste -- Five projects totalling $7,083,400 were proposed of which
$434,488 would be locally funded. These projects reinforce existing facilities as
well as begin to implement the Comprehensive Plan recommendation of "develop more
efficient and economical facilities capable of producing auxiliary benefits of.
energy production. . ." It is recommended that th~ese projects be included in the CIP.
Cate.gor~/E.xp..enditure Item~ Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Resource Recovery Facility
Collection Station System
Landfill Access Improvements
Landfill - Scales
Landfill - Internal
$6,300,000 $6,300,000
51,575 51,575
690,450 690,450
30,000 30,000
11,375 11,375
IV. Fire Protection -- Two projects totalling $460,400 were proposed of which
$446,000 would be locally funded. These projects fall under the categories of
protection of life and protection of property. It is recommended that $196,000 of
the requested $446,000 be included in the CIP. It is recommended that the request
for $150,000 for construction of a fire house on the Berkmar Drive site be deleted
~ a~ ~ ~ ~v~o~ ~ mot afforded this de~ree of suooort to other
--Ail Da~__Me e t in~
'8,75
Cate.go~y/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Suppression - Hydrants
Fire House and Equipment
Equipment
$110,400 $110,400
350,000 -0-
-0- 100,000
V. Library -- Two projects totalling $1,720,000 were proposed of which $755,000
would be locally funded. These projects fall under other projects affecting public
services and implement the Comprehensive Plan recommendation of "expansion of the
core facilities in Charlottesville." It is recommended that the $755,000 requested
be included in the CIP.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Main Library
Bookmobile
$1,680,000
40,000
$1,680,000
40,000
VI. Airport -- Two projects totalling $875,000 were proposed of which $21,900 would
be locally funded. These projects fall under other projects affecting public services.
It is recommended that these improvements be included in the CIP since they will re-
inforce the planned business expansion in the area on the west side of Route 29N and
since there is major financial leverage produced by a small County investment.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA RecOmmendations
Obstruction Removal
Taxiway/Runway
$300,000 $300,000
575,000 575,000
VII. Flood Plain Markers -- $5500 is proposed, all local funding, to provide permanent
benchmark installations at various locations. It is recommended that this project be
included in the CIP and that Development regulations to r~q~ire installation of such
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Flood Plain Markers
$5,5OO $5,5OO
VIII. Emergency (911) Phone System -- The project request is for $107,000 of which
$35,500 is to be locally funded. It is recommended that this project be included
in the CIP as it falls in the protection of life and maintenance of public health
priority category.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Emergency Phone System (911)
$107,000 $107,000
IX. Highways -- Requests totalling $13,929,000 of which $2,750,000 would be locally
funded were submitted. $11,179,000 represents the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation program for secondary road improvements. 'It is recommended that
the County re-examine these proposed improvements with special attention to their impact
on achievement of Village and Rural area development goals/objectives and to the level
of funding compared to level of needs. The fact that there is no corresponding
program for Primary road improvements is viewed as a serious flaw in the ability
to implement Comprehensive Plan recommendations (particularly those improvements
recommended in the Public Utilities and Facilities Plan pp. 40-41).
The $2,750,000 project proposal is designated for acquisition of right-of-way for
the recommended Alternate Route 29N limited access highway. Purchase of such right-of-
way is traditionally the responsibility of the Commonwealth through VDH&T. Local
funding, especially full funding, of this project would constitute a shift in the
traditional division of responsibility. However, in light of a lack of committed
responsibility for this project by the VDH&T, it is recommended that the County
finance acquisition of portions of right-of-way threatened by imminent development
with the full intention of recouping such expenditures from the Commonwealth at such
time as the project is formally recognized and funded. For purposes of initial funding,
it is recommended that $500,000 be included in the initial CIP and that review of
progress and needs be undertaken in the preparation of succeeding CIP's.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Urban Expressway Right of Way
Secondary Roads
$2,741,899 $500,000
11,178,600 -0-
X. Housing -- Three projects totalling $2,328,000 were proposed, all of which is
to be financed through HUD Community Development Block Grant funds. These funds would
be directed toward eventual construction of 163 dwelling units for elderly residents
with low and moderate income (78 units in Crozet spread over two phases of 28 and 50
units, 45 units in Scottsville, 40 units in the urban area). The CIP request envisions
construction of 78 of the 163 units during the five year CIP period with the balance
to come in succeeding years. These projects are in concert with the Comprehensive
Plan in that they reinforce development recommendations for the urban area, communities
and villages; meet the criteria of the Housing Element; and satisfy the objective of
avoiding large scale concentrations of low income housing. It is, however, of some
concern that specific local needs for elderly housing have not been well-documented
to date. Of the suggested projects, it is recommended that only the initial phase
of the Crozet project be included in the FY 78-82 CIP. The following rationale
are presented for deletion of other projects:
The second phase (50 units) of the Crozet project is recommended to be delayed
for CIP inclusion until experience with the first 28 ~units has been obtained and
pending more definitive committment of construction cost financing from outside
sources.
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
package can be included in the CIP. The current proposal calls for site
acquisition/preparation and construction of a community center without construction
of any dwelling units. It is felt that the entire program should be committed
at one time with the dwelling units emphasized at the front end.
The 45 unit Scottsville project is recommended for delay for the same reasons as
above. The proposal calls for site acquisition/preparation with dwelling unit
construction to follow at a later time. It is felt that the County should not begin
such projects without committment of outside funds to carry it through to completion.
It is recommended that an additional appropriation of $100,000 for a revolving fund
in support of the AHI? program be included in the CIP.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Crozet - Elderly
Scottsvitle - Elderly
Urban Area - Elderly
Housing
$1,323,000 -0-
355,000 -0-
650,000 -0-
-0- $748,000
XI. Parks and Recreation -- Fourteen projects totalling $1,313,700 were proposed
of which $1,307,600 would be locally funded. It is recommended that thirteen of the
fourteen projects totalling $457,700 be included in the CIP.
The major difference ($850,000) is made up by the recommendation not to include the
purchase of Lake Reynovia in the CIP. The Comprehensive Plan finds that the County
has sufficient area-wide parks and this facility is currently operated as a private
recreation area.
Five of the recommended projects consist of neighborhood or mini-parks, which should
assist implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by providing attractive facilities
where residential growth is desired. Other projects are designed to reinforce existing
park facilities.
Additional projects recommended for inclusion in the CIP are as follows:
Development of additional neighborhood or mini-parks to serve the villages of Stony
Point, Nix, Scottsville and Earlysville. Initial funding of $50,000 is suggested to
begin these efforts.
Initial~ funding for>implementation of portions of the bikeway plan is recommended
at a level of $5,000 per year for the second and third years of the CIP.
It is recommended that the County institute a program of acquiring scenic easements,
development rights, or other vested interest in lands required for a green-belt buffer
to separate the Urban Area and the Hollymead Community Area. An initial funding level
of $!00,000 is suggested for this effort.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Yancey School Mini Park
Comfort Stations (2)
Chris Green - Land Acquisition
Chris Green - Expand Swim Area
AHS Tennis Court Reconstruction
Woodbrook School Neighborhood Park
Mint Springs - Picnic Shelter
Mint Springs - Reconstruct Swim Area
Glendower Community Center Improvements
Jack Jouett School Community Park
Stone Robinson School Neighborhood Park
North Garden (Fire Station) Mini Park
Purchase Lake Reynovia
BikewayImprovements
Village Parks
Greenbelt Scenic Easement Acquisition
$13,500 $13,500
35,000 35,000
180,000 180,000
5,000 5,000
20,500 20,500
60,000 60,000
10,000 4,000
3,000 3,000
3,000 3,000
60,200 60,200
60,000 60,000
13,500 13,500
850,000 -0-
-0- 10,000
-0- 50,000
-0- 100,000
XII. Court House-Juvenile Court - An expenditure of'$50,000 of which one-half would
be locally funded was requested for much-needed renovation of juvenile court facilities
in the Court House. It is recommended that this be included in the CIP.
Category/Expenditure Item
DepartmentalRequests KDA Recommendations
Court House & Juvenile Court
$50,000 $50,000
XIII. Health - One project, the. Esmont Community 'Health Center, is requested
involving an expenditure of $131,000 which would be financed through non-local
sources. This project would reinforce the attractiveness of the Esmont village and
falls in the category of maintenance of public health. It is recommended that it be
included in the CIP.
Category/Expe~.diture Item Departmental Requests KDA RecommendationS
Esmont Community Health Facility $131,000 $131,000
XIV. Administrative and Court Buildings - A total of $3,000,000 is requested for
provision of additional office and supporting space for the administrative functions
of the County government. It is recommended that this project be included in the CIP
inasmuch as it is a catch-up type improvement and will help to correct the situation
of widely scattered office locations that the County presently tolerates.
An additional appropriation of $50,000 is recommended for site acquisition for a
multi-ouroose government subcenter in the Hollymead Community.
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
O77
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests
KDA Recommendations
Administration and Court Buildings
Government Subcenter Site Acquisition
$3,000,000 $3,000,000
-0- 5O,OOO
XV. Data Processing System - Subsequent to filing of a $107,000 capital request, the
County has discovered that this function can be more economically accomplished on a lease
basis. It is therefore recommended that this item be deleted from the CIP.
Category/Expenditure Item
Departmental Requests
KDA Recommendations
Data Processing System
$107,500 -0-
XVI. Miscellaneous - Capital improvement funding for purchase of land for a
Lickinghole Creek impoundment in Crozet is recommended for inclusion in the CIP.
This project will assist in flood control and erosion control as well as provide a
scenic/recreational amenity for the community. It is recommended that the initial
CIP include funding at the level of $500,000 for this purpose.
Cate.gory/E.xpenditure Item
Departmental Requests KDA Recommendations
Lickinghole Creek Impoundment
-0- $500,000
Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum dated February 3, 1978:
"The attached tables are amendments to the Capital Improvements Program prepared
by KDA as Working Memorandum #11 dated 8 June 1977. The amendments are a shift
in the use of Federal Revenue Sharing funds to school projects in order to
improve the County's entitlement of future Federal funds.
Additionally, the Albemarle High School
gymnasium project has been updated to its correct total, and the distribution
of the revenue for this project amended as approved for this project.
The following recommendations are presented for your consideration in
adopting the five year program:
Delete project IX, Expressway Right-of-Way as recommended by
KDA. The inclusion of this project establishes a precedent for
the County to fund a State Highway responsibility, and, additionally,
is premature to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area Transportation
Study (CATS) report.
Approve Parks and Recreation in lump sum only, and not by projects
listed, pending outcome of the Parks and Recreation Five Year Plan.
Delete project XI~.:, Government Subcenter Site Acquisition recommended
by KDA. A central County administration building should serve the
urban and Hollymead areas adequately with the transportation plan
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Agnor said the matter of the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment was recommended by KDA
and is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. The impoundment was recommended and adopted
after a full knowledge of the Runoff Control Ordinance was known. Mr. Agnor felt if the
Runoff Control Ordinance performs as intended there may not be any need for recreational
amenities. However, he was hesitent to recommend removal of this since it does comply with
the comprehensive plan and is funded in the last year of the five year period.
Dr. Iachetta requested that money be included for purchase of the Rann Preserve on
which a'commitment has already been made.
Mr. Agnor said the Committee working on a contract for the library expected the amount
to be $1,800,000 instead of the $1,680,000 and he supported the increase.
Mr. Agnor also noted a decrease in the Mint Springs Picnic Shelter from $10,000 to
$4,000 because KDA felt $10,000 was too much and he supported KDA's recommendation.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the plan with KDA's recommendations and
the above changes noted by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the figures for Fiscal Year 1977-
78 for a public hearing on March 15, 1978. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to request the Library Board to
sell the property on Vinegar Hill since the Post Office Building has been purchased for use
as a Regional'Library; County's proportionate share of sale price to be returned. Dr.
Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
O78
February~_~~? :~ ,. _ :
Agenda Item No. 18. Appointments:
A. Economic Development Commission.
B. Health Systems Agency, Subarea Council.
C. Industrial Development Authority.
D. ~ail Board.
E. Mental Health & Retardation Services Board.
F. Jordan Development Corporation.
There were no appointments for the above vacancies.
G. Transportation Study-Policy Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to
appoint Dr. Lester Hoe! to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study Policy Committee.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing mOtion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
H. Watershed Management Plan. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Dr.
Rolf Benzinger to represent the water consumers of the County on the Watershed Management
Plan Committee. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle to the Parks and
Recreation Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to acknowledge appreciation to Dr. Harry Gamble,
past Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Mr. Charles Vest, past member of
the Jail Board. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
~genma Item No. 19. Lottery rermiss, ~iscussion./ ~~~z~z~c~~/~
/
Mr. Agnor noted letter dated February 7, 1978,~rom Mr. Robert E. Taylor, Commissioner
· f ' f of res onsibilities for filin of records on raffles and
of Accounts, askmng or relme p ~for g ~ tt .
bingo games. Mr. Agnor said Section 18.2-335/provides that .records of all receipts and disDurs~.menvs
shall be filed annually with the Commissioner/ of Accounts "or with such other local official
as the local governing body made designate."/ Mr. Taylor has recommended that an officer or
employee of the County receive the records because the County issues the permits. Based on
this recommendation, Mr. Agnor recommended that Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, assume Mr.
Taylor's responsibilities. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of December
1977, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 21. Report of the County Executive for the month of December, 1977, was
~resented as information.
Agenda Item No. 22. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Sheriff's Department were received for January, 1978. The statements were present, d
by Mr. Agnor and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the statements as presented.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the foilowing recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of January,
1978, was presented. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve
the statement as presented. The foregoing motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 24. Regional Jail Report (State Department of Corrections), January,
Statement of expenses for the operation and maintenance of the Regional Jail. alon~
February 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting)
079
salary of the classification officer, were presented. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Henley to approve the statements as presented. The foregoing motion was
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None. .~
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from Board Members and the Public.
Mr. Fisher said the budget work schedules would have to be changed due to conflicts.
After some discussion, the following changes were made: March 9, 1978 7:30 P.M to replace
March 6, 1978 and March 10, 1978, 1:00 P.M., to replace March 13, 1978.
Mr. Agnor said notification has been received from Virginia Electric and Power Company
for volunteer usage rates for churches.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.