1978-03-15NMarch 15, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 10, 1978)
March 15~_ 1978 (Regular-Night Meetin.g~)
Agenda Item No. 7. Regional Jail. Present was Mr. Sam Pruett, Jail Administrator, and
Mr. Raymond'Pace, Chairman of the Jail Board, who requested that the Board fund three
additional positions. Mr. Agnor said he had recommended funding for one additional position
and felt that the funding for the other two could be accommodated from salary savings.
Agenda Item No. 9.
Agenda Item No. 13.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Agenda Item No. 11.
Agenda Item No. 12.
Magistrate's Office. Present was Mr. D. D. Hudson.
Juvenile Court. Present was Judge Ralph Zehler.
Juvenile Detention Home.
Emergency Medical Communications Equipment Maintenance.
Debt Service.
Agenda Item No. 14. Policing and Investigating. Present was Sheriff George Bailey, who
said that his request included salaries of two-additional deputies. Motion was offered by
Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 14.1-70, does hereby concur mn the request of
the Sheriff of Albemarle County to the State Compensation Board for two additional
deputies.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier and Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed: Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby concur in the request of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Regional Jail
Board to the State Compensation Board for three additional positions.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Dorrier and Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 16. Revenue Estimates.
At 3:39 P.M. the meeting was adjourned.~
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 15, 1978, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. (Arriving at 8:23 P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley~ Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta.
Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order.
Gerald E. Fisher, at 7:38 P.M.
Meeting was called to order by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78-01. Harry D. Campbell. To locate a permanent sawmill on
189.36+ acres zoned A-1. Property is located approximately 2 miles from the intersection of
Routes 692 and 29 South, on the southwest side of Route 712. County Tax Map 99, Parcels 49
and 50, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and
March 8, 1978.)
Mr. Robert Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
"Character of the Area
This area is rural in character though several small lots exist on Route 712 near
the railroad. An apple storage and cider/wine complex is located south of the site.
A permanent sawmill with kilns exists between the site and Route 29 South. This site
is currently wooded, though the applicant has cut an access road and cleared about
30 acres.
March 15_~_~1978(~~ular-Ni~t Meeting)
Comprehensive Plan
This property is about 3/4 mile east of the proposed North Garden Village in an area
shown for agriculture conservation. The Plan states that "Commercial timber harvest-
ing should be conducted using standards and principles recommended by the Virginia
Division of Forestry under either selective cutting or clear cut/reforestation
conditions".
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to operate the sawmill with one head saw and one edger. No
kilns are requested as the lumber would be shipped green (The ~applicant may ship by
rail as well as truck; a side tract already exists on the site.) The applicant
forsees 10-12 employees including loggers and drivers. The mill would be located
600-1000 fset from Route 712. The applicant has indicated that some selected on-site
stock would be timbered initially but most stock would not mature for an estimated
eight to. ten years.
Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons:
1. Staff opinion is that this request complies with the recommendations of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. This use would be Supportive of the agriculture industry and would provide
basic employment in the North Garden area;
3. Because of the size of the property and with appropriate setback, staff opinion
ms that this use would not be objectionable to the area. The use would be in
character with other agri-business uses in the area.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Sawmill is to be setback not less than 600 feet from the nearest dwelling unit and
provide a 100 foot tree buffer along the Southern Railroad except where access is
provided;
2. Staff approval of site plan;
3. Highway Department approval of entrances;
4. County Engineering Department approval of interior roads and parking specifications;
5. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
NOTE:
The County encourages the applicant to employ harvesting standards and principles
recommended by the Virginia Division of Forestry."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 7, 1978, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition with the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Tucker then noted letters of opposition from Mr. James H. Miller, dated March 15,
1978, and Mr. John Ward, a local property owner who personally resides in New Jersey.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and Mr. Harry Campbell was present to
speak on behalf of his request. He located the desired mill site on maps for Board members.
Mr. Fisher asked if a specific area could be set aside for the location of the mill, rather
than give an open permit for the entire 189+ acres. Mr. Campbell said the location he has
chosen is approximately 1,000 feet west of the underpass. Mr. Henley asked if a maximum of
15 acres would be adequate to allow for future expansmon. Mr. Campbell said he felt that
was more than adequate.
No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
closed. After a brief discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve this request
with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and the following added condition:
"6) The sawmill and related functions to be limited to 15 acres; and 7) A 100 foot tree
buffer to be maintained around the entire 15 acre site as agreed to by the applicant, Mr.
Campbell, at the meeting held on March 15, 1978." Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom ~and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Iachetta.
~genda Item No. 3. SP-78-04. Earl Lloyd. To locate an agricultural service occupation
for a horse and harness shop, with horse related supplies, on 3 acres zoned A-1. Property is
located on Route 250 East, at the intersection of Routes 250 East and 744 (Old Pleasant
Valley Country Store). County Tax Map 80, Parcel 57, Rivanna Magisterial District. (Adver-
tised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
"Character of the Area
This area is rural in character with strip residential and commercial development
along Route 250 East. Two antique shops, a country store, motorcycle shop, and
Moose Lodge are to the west. This existing building was a gasoline service ~tation
and antique shop (Pleasant Valley Country Store). Since recent abandonment, the
building has been vandalized and is in need of extensive repair.
Comprehensive Plan
This area is shown as "other rural land" in the Comprehensive Plan indicating no
critical characteristics warranting conservation protection. The plan recommends that
the County "permit location and continuation of industrial and commercial uses which
support or are a part of the agricultural economy".
i37
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to upgrade ($15,000 in repairs) and live on the premises.
His occupation would be the manufacture and repair of harness and horse drawn
vehicles. Retail sales of related gear and supplies ~is also envisioned. The
applicant hopes to have three employees in the future.
Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons:
1. Staff opinion is that the request complies with the recommendations Of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. This use is supportive of the agricultural industry in Albemarle County;
3. This use is compatible to the area and would improve the premises.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Staff approval of parking scheme and Highway Department approval of entrances;
2. Building Official and Fire Official approvals;
3. County Engineer approval of paving specifications;
4. Approval of other appropriate state and local agencies."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on March 7, 1978, unanimously
recommended approval of this petition, but changing the Staff's first condition to read:
"Staff approval of parking scheme and entrance controls."
Mr. Lindstrom asked why no deceleration lane was being resuired. He noted that it was
his understanding that it is Highway Department policy to requmre a deceleration lane on any
business parcel with direct access onto a major highway. Mr. Tucker and Mr. Fisher said the
special permit was for horse drawn vehicles, and could see no reason to require a decelera-
tion lane, also for the fact that it would not be a business with a large volume of customers
Mr. Lloyd was present and said approximately 600 square feet would be used for retail, the
rest would be for work, storage and living space.
No One else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. Lloyd would object to
an additional condition limiting the number of employees. Mr. Lloyd said he would never need
more than three or four. Motion was offered by Mr. Rouda~ush, seconded by Mr. Henley to
approve the petition with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, adding #5 to
read: "The number of employees to be limited to four and Mr. Lloyd." Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
.ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Messrs. Dorrier and Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-78-05. VEPCO. To locate a microwave tower on 0.5165 acres zoned
Agricultural. Property is 'located on the top of Bear Den Mountain north of the Skyline Drive
and approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the State Police Office. Augusta County Tax Map 78,
Parcel 32, Wayne Magisterial District; and northwest of Albemarle County Tax Map 53, Parcel 3
White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8,
1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
"Request: Microwave Communications tower (Section 2-1-25(87))
Acreage: 0.5165 (part)
Zoning: A-1 Agriculture
Location: Property, described as Augusta County Tax Map 78, Parcel 32, is located
on Bear Den Mountain west of the Skyline Drive.
Character of the Area
The Albemarle/Augusta County line runs through this property. The tower would be
located about 100 feet within Albemarle County in rolling pastureland. The Appalachian
Trail is in the vicinity as are the Virginia State Police radio tower and the Jefferson
Cable tower. The proposed tower may be visible from Calf Mountain Overlook on the
Skyline Drive.
Staff Comment
While staff is concerned about the physical and visuale~roachment of structures
on the Skyline Drive and the Appalachian Trail, staff opinion is that the applicant's
justification which follows outweights these factors. Additionally, the supporting
structure is relatively small (about 12 feet square at the base and 60' high) and
there are two other towers in the area.
BEAR DEN MOUNTAIN MICROWAVE SITE
Vepco is building a major, system-wide, microwave communications network to
fulfill many needs which are vital to Vepco's ability to provide reliable electrical
service. Among these are: 1) transmission line protection to prevent destruction
of transmission lines and major equipment resulting ~rom electrical faults, 2) data
tranSmission (including computer control from Richmond of power generation~ telemetering
of power flow through interconnections with other power companies, and immediate
reporting to RichmOnd of any abnormal transmission line or major substation condition),
3) redundant voice communications between Richmond and System Operations in various
power stations and district/division offices, and 4) improved two-way radio communi-
cations with service vehicles.
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Bear Den Mountain is a critical hub in this'communications network,
which will connect to Richmond via Bremo power station and Midlothian, and
in the other directions from Bear Den to: 1) the division office in
Charlottesville, 2) the district office in Fishersville, 8) Dooms Sub-
station which is the main transmission substation for most electrical power
in the Albemarle County area, (and Shenandoah Valley), 4) the future Valley
Substation in the Shenandoah Valley, and connect to the Mount Storm and Bath
County Hydro Power Station Project.
This mountaintop site is perfectly suited to this application as
evidenced by similar nearby installations of the Virginia State Police and
the Jefferson Cable Television Company. The proposed Vepco site has been
carefully selected to ensure that the operation of these other installations
will not be affected. Because of these existingffacilities, no new roads or
power lines will be required."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting March 14, 1978, by a vote of
7-1-1, recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of fencing and landscape screening around tower to discourage
<tm~spass;
2. Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur;
3. Equipment shed, tower and antennae to be camoflauged with painted pattern
or painted solid color appropriate to surroundings, if permitted by FAA;
4. FAA approval of tower;
5. Enlargement shall require amendment of this special permit;
6. Tower and equipment shall not be located within Virginia State Parks Scenic
easement."
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of the following letters:
Mr. Robert Jacobsen, Superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park, who was opposed to~
the location of this tower. A letter from David Richie, of the Appalachian Trail Project
office, who was also opposed to the location of the tower; and from the Department of
Conservation and Economic Development, who were opposed to the lo¢ation 6f the tower because
of it's impact on the views from Skyline Drive. Mr. Tucker said it was suggested to VEPC0
that they investigate the possibility of sharing one of the two towers already located there.
Mr. Tucker said that for secuDity reasons they could not share the S~ate Police Tower, and he
requested the VEPC0 representative present to s~ate the outcome of discussions with Jefferson
Cable.
Mr. John Graves, representing VEPC0, said the possibility of sharing the tower owned by
Jefferson Cable had been explored, but that it was not a practical solution to the problem.
He said VEPC0's tower would be painted an appropriate color, and limited to 60 feet in height.
There would be six antennas (2 at 8 feet, 2 at 6 feet, and 2 at 4 feet).
(Mr. Lindsay Dorrier arrived at the meeting at this point.) Mr. Max Evans wished to know
why the public telephone system could not be used by VEPCO instead of erecting a tower for
their own private communications. He also suggested the Board request a more detailed site
plan drawing of the ~ower and surrounding area.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the.public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he found it hard to support this
request when the public and park service are unanimously opposed. Mr. Lindstrom said he
felt it was an unsightly obstruction to the scenic view of Skyline Drive. Messrs. Henley,
Roudabush and Dorrier said it would be unfair to deny this petition, since there were already
two Other towers on the site.
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve this request, with the conditions set by the
Planning Commission, with the addition of a seventh condition reading: "Tower to be limited
to 6g feet~ with six disc' type antennas." Motion was seconded by Mr.~ Roudabush and carried
bY the folloWing recor'ded vote.:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. $. ZTA-?8-02. Phyllis Lawrence. To amend the A-1 zone of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to permit day nurseries as a use by right. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
"Phyllis Lawrence is petitioning the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
to amend the A-t Agricultural Zone to provide for "day nurseries" by right. Day
nurseries are currently provided by special permit in the R-2 and R-3 Residential
zones and by right in the CO Commercial Office Zone.
Favorable Comments
In staff opinion, this use is generally compatible to residential uses and should
be located convenient to residential areas. Amending the A-1 zone for this use
wouId greatly increase locational opportunities and convenience since the A-1 zone
represents about 90% of the area of the County.
Unfavorable Comments
Staff has resisted further commercialization of the A-1 zone.
uses of this nature in the rural areas may encourage growth.
Providing convenience
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Staff Recommendation
While the staff is reluctant to provide for commercial amenities in the rural areas
which would stimulate growth, this use should not be restricted to the Urban Area
and Crozet (i.e., where R-2, R-3, CO are provided). Day nursery is a convenience
commercial use appropriate to the designated villages and communities in the Compre-
hensive Plan. Staff recommends the following amendment which would provide for this
use by special permit in the A-1 zone:
Section 2-1-25(41)
Day nurseries located within villages and communities as
designated in the Comprehensive Plan."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on March ?, 1978, unanimously
recommended denial of this request. Neither the applicant, nor a representative was present.
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of three letters from Mrs. Jo Stanley, Director of the Crozet
Citizen's Association. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Stanley's letters addressed to Messrs.
Fisher, Tucker and St. John were not in opposition to the amendment, but were questioning
the wording of the legal advertisement published in the Daily Progress. Mr. St. John said
he felt the advertisement was legal as written. Mrs. Stanley was present, and requested the
Board's support of the Crozet Citizens group in handling .the planning of their community. Mr
Fisher emphasized that this was not a zoning map change, but a zonmng text change and did not
effect the Crozet area exclusively. Mrs. Stanley concluded by saying her group did oppose
this application, and any other applications submitted before the new Comprehensive Plan
recommendations for the Crozet Village are published.
Mr. Homer Kennamer, a resident of the County, said he supported this amendment only if
allowed in villages or communities. He would not support a general change to allow same
throughout the entire A-1 zone.
Mr. Fisher read the letter of notification to Mrs. Lawrence stating that she or her
representative should be present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Henley requested the definition
of a day nursery. Mr. Tucker read it as being "an agency, organization or individual provid-
ing daytime care of six or more children, not related by blood or marriage to or not the
legal wards or foster children of the attendant adult." Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed, when no one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this
petition.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommenda.
tion of the Planning Commission and deny the request. Roll was called and motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
At 9:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:0? P.M.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-78-03. C.F.S. Associates. To amend Sections 11-8-1, 11-8-2,
11-8-3, and 11-8-4 to permit flexibility in loading space parking in shopping centers.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and March 8, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
"C.F.S. Associates has petitioned the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
to amend Section 11-8-1 through 11-8-4 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit
flexibility in loading space requirements for shopping centers. Staff has reviewed
these ordinance sections and staff opinion is that these requirements do not
provide adequate flexibility to "encourage innovative and creative design and
facilitate use of the most advantageous techniques in the development of land".
Since questions of adequacy of loading facilities are most appropriately addressed
at time of site plan review, staff recommends amendment which would allow the
Planning Commission to waive loading space requirements provided the proposed method
of accommodating delivery satisfies the purposes of Sections 11-7 and 11-8 and
other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. This is an approach similar to that
recommended and approved for distance from parking space to dwelling unit.
Recommended Amendment
Section 11-8-6
The requirements of Section 11-8 may be waived in such cases where
Planning Commission shall determine the public interest or safety
would be equally or better served by such waiver; that such waiver
would not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice,
and that such 'waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose
and intent of thfs ordinance.'"
Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on March 7, 1978, by a vote of 7-2
recommended approval with the following wording:
'Section 11-8-6
The requirements of Section 11-8 may be modified and/or waived in
such cases where Planning Commission shall determine the public
interest or safety would be equally or better served by such modifi-
cations and/or waiver; that such modification/and or waiver would
not be a departure from sound engineering and design practice, and
that such modification and/or waiver would not otherwise be contrary
to the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
Mr. Eric Deckinger, representing the C.F.S. Associates, said their purpose was to provide
better and more efficient loading for stores proposed to be in the new Charlottesville Fashion
Square Mall.
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
140
Mr. Alan Scouten, a resident of Berkeley Subdivision, said this would be lowering the
current standards of the ordinance, and suggested the Board vote against this change.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said if this is approved, the Planning
Commission would have the responsibility of insuring that it is properly used for the added
safety and service of the public.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Fashion Square Mall will be enclosed, and that in
essence is the root of the problem and need for the change. Following a brief discussion,
motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush ~o ~mend and reenact~the Zoning Ordinance in Section
11-8-6 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but changing the wor~ "or" following public
interest, to "and". Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. ?. SP-78-06. M. E. Gibson· To amend SP-446 (Branchlands PUD) condition
of approval to provide for site sewer, water, transportation system and other development in
stages based on functional need. The 117 acres of property known as Branchlands, is located
on Route 29 North, opposite Berkeley Subdivision· County Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 03-1, 02-1 and
iA. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 1 and
March 8, 1928.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
"SP-78-06 Gibson, M.E.
M.E. GibSon is requesting amendment to certain conditions of approval of SP-446,
Branchlands Planned Community (September 10, 1975) to provide that on-site and
off-site improvements be required at such time in the development of the planned
community as there exists functional need (see attached letter of explanation and
applicant.'s proposed amendments). Such an approach would be more conductive to
phased development, and would reduce the burden of improvements currently required
for first phase development.
Staff endorses this general approach, however, does not agree with one of the
applicant's proposed amendments. The proposed amendment of Condition D.1. envisions
the County accepting bonding and holding such in escrow for the eventual relocation of
an entrance and crossover on Route 29 North. A major problem with this approach is
that, currently, the County has no mechanism for releasing such escrow funds to the
grantee (the future developer who would be ultimately responsible for the entrance
construction). Additionally, the staff is reluctant for the County to become a
third party in an agreement in which the County has no interest. (The County's concern
is the relocation of the entrance and ~rossover for reasons of safety. The County is not
concerned about the financial arrangements involved in such relocation.)
Staff recommends proposed amendments which would:
1. Better identify the referenced preliminary plans;
2. Reduce the conditions to a more manageable number by combining some conditions,
and by deleting some conditions which are redundant in the sense that they will
be addressed in subsequent review and approval procedures;
3. Update conditions to current ordinance requirements and review procedures;
4. Encourage phased development by basing improvement requirements on a need and/or
pro-rata basis.
The following are staff recommended conditions of approval. Referenced Branchlands
plans have been re-identified and numbered for clarity:
A~ Density - Land Use - Concept
~. ~a~-~e-~e~y-a~-~a~-~e-~ese~-~y-~e-a~e~-a~-a~e~-~-~e
Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall
comply with Approved Plan I;
~a~.$he cluster arrangement concept, providing for a minimal number of
entrances on to the internal road system be adhered to as indicated em-~e
#~-e~-~e-app~eaa~s-s~bm&~a~ in Approved Plan 2.
A~l-see~&ems-ef-~e-p~epesa~v-w~em-be&ag-~eve~epe~-s~a~-a~eme-~e-~e-ae~eage-
(See Revised Condition A.1.);
Be
Site Plans - Subdivision of Land
aa~-~am~seape-p~ame-~e-~Ae-~amm~g-Bep~mea~-fe~-app~e~a&-by-~Ae-~aa~mg-
~emmiss~e~?
Deve~epme~-g~&mamee~
Site Plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning
Ordinance and Chapter 18 of the Land Subdi'vision and Development 'of the Code
of Albemarle respectively:
2.~. No grading permit shall be issued for roads,streets, or highway until approved
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
have been approved by the Virginia 'Dep'a~tment''of Highways and
Transport'atiOn;
Sewer and Water
~e~ie~e-i~s~ee~iea-b~-~e-A~bemaP~e-~e~%y-8e~ee-A~e~y-eP-Ge~%y-E~aeeP~-
Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to the issuance of any
building permit for that phase of development.
The developer or developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County
Service Authority all wa~eP-a~-~eweP-~s-~-e~e-a~-~e~-s~we~-a~-wa~e~
~&~ee-eff-si~e-w~ieA-aPe-ew~e~-b¥-~e-~e~e~epeP~.w~&e~-a~e-~eeessa~y-~-~e~e
p~ieP-~e-eeaBee~ie~-~e-a~y-wa~eP-aa~-eewem-~e-ia-w~e~-~e-Ge~y-ge~¥~ee-
~k-~i~e-sAa~A-Pemai~-~e-pPepeP~y-a~-PespeRoibi~%y-ef-~e-ewae~ew~e~e~
on-site and off-site water and sewer improvements, which are necessary to serve
that phase to be developed, at no cost to the Service Authority·
~-~ee~-f~P-~e-ma~e~ee-e~-~e-~e~ea~e~-wa~e~-a~-~ewe~-~es-~y-~e
(Redundant - Would be covered by Revised Condition C.1. and by Service
Authority in Site Review Committee).
oi~e-eaeeme~e-a~-P&~e-ef-wey~
(Redundant - Would be covered by Revised Condition C.1. and by Service
Authority in Site Review Committee).
Transportation System
Ea~aReee-aR4-e~eeBewePe-e~-Re~e-~@-~e~%~-a~-e~Pee~-e~a~-eeR~emm-~e-~Ae
~aye~-~ew~-e~-AA~e~a~i~e-~-
Entrances and crossovers on Route 29 North and internal street layouts shall
conform to Approved Plan 3:
The existing Branchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and Entrance A
and crossover (Approved Plan. 33 shall De constructed prmor to the issuance Of
any building permit for any phase of development which would have ac,ess to
and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the Planning
Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular phase of develop-
ment upon a finding that the existing entrance.would, be adequate to accommodate
in a 'safe manner such t'ra£fi'o'as may b'e:'o.c'c'~s's'i'o'n'e'd b'y '.s'u.c~ 'd'e'.ve'l'Op'me'nt.
Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as;shown on A~emRa%ive-¢~-Approved
Pl'an' 3 for future potential connections into the Montague-Miller tract and
WeStfield Section II.
Ail right-of-way widths for all interior streets will be determined as
individual site development plans are submitted.
5.
All streets are to be built to 8~a~e-~&~Away Virginia Department of Highways
and Tran~spOr't'at'ion specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System.
E. Other
~. R~creational facilities shall be provided according to the following:
tot lots:
playfields:
sport facilities:
55 square feet/dwelling unit
165 square feet/dwellSng.unit
(tennis, handball, swmmmzng, etc.) 165 square feet/dwelling unit¢%.i
March 15, 1978
(Regular-Night Meetin )
Bike paths should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or
sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of development
on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or immediately
adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning Commission
may require reasonable extension of such bike trail through other areas if such
extensmon provides linkage to an eXisting or approved bike trail.
wa~eP-aa~-a~p~e~e~-~y-ge~y-~ag~aeeP~ag-De~aP~mea~
(Redundant: Required in normal site plan and subdivision review)·
~e~ewe~-by-~e-~f~iee-e~-~Ae-Ge~y-A~e~aey-as-~-~s-~e~e~e~?
Approval by the County Attorney's Office of Homeowner's Association agreements
for the maintenance of 'driveWays,'o'Ren 'apace, and other commonly~owKed 'or'
common-use amenties. Owners of propertieS''design'ate~d for commerci'ai use
and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop Of RichmOnd, as owner of an 8.0 acre tract to
be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the Planned Community
property (referred to hereinafter as the Church property) shall not be required
~o~be members of the HomeownerS' Association; provided that .these owners shall
be solely responsible for the mai'nt'e'nance of the driveways, open space, etc.
located within their respective 't'ra~TS,'"and that such maintenance shall be
'comparable to that level establi~She'd ~fn the HOmeownems' Association agreements
for other such uses· Should commer'c'ial' development or sale of commercially-
designated property occur prior to establishment of Homeowners' Association
agreements, the Planning Commission mav require in the deed restrictions for
such property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways,, open spaces,
etc. as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering and
protection of residential areas and for the reasonable useage Of such areas
by future residents of the Planned Commqnity. In respect to useage, the Home-
owners' Association members shall enjoy the same rights and privileges of use
of driveways, open space, etc. within commerqially-desi~nated 'areas' and the
church property as shall be establi'shed'by HomeoWners' ~s'SOci~ati'on''agreements
for other such uses within the Planned 'co'mmunit'y.
Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be sold.
by-~e-~ee-ef-~e-~e~y-A~e~ey~
Developer of Section C ~kApproved Plan 1) to provide fencing in area~%designated
"Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property
(Chapel Hill SubdiviSion)."
"February 23, ~978
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Director of Planning
County of Albemarle
Planning Department
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: Request for SP-78-06 (Amendment to
Branchlands PUD -- SP-446)
Dear Mr. Tucker:
I have received Ms. Gloeckner's letter of February~ 12, 1978 with notifi-
cation of the dates of the pubiic hearings. The purpose of this letter is to state
the 'amendments we seek to the' BranchIands PUD conditions of approval and reasons
therefore.
The Branchlands PUD conditions of approval are contained in a letter dated
September 17, 1975 to the Reverend Don Michael Hanna from Jane Carter, Planning
Department. For the most part, those conditions contemplate the development of
the entire Branchlands property at one time, rather than in stages. It is
generally true a project the size of that contemplated by the Branchlands PUD is
not developed at one time, but rather is developed incstages as smaller parcels
are sold. The primary reason for seeking the amendments to the PUD conditions as
set forth below is to provide for the performance of those conditions in phases
as the land is developed in phases in order to achieve orderly development of the
Branchlands property.
The owner of Branchlands is planning to sell to CFS Associates, a Virginia
limited partnership, 9.842 acres of commercial ~and contained in the Branchlands
PUD, (An additional .158 acres of the Branchlands property will be shown on the
site plan to be submitted by CPS Associates in compliance with the county zoning
ordinance requirement that not less than ten acres of PUD property be shown on a
site plan.) The owner of Branchlands is seeking amendment to certain of the PUD
conditions in order that CFS Associates and future developers of Branchlands
property be responsible for performing their share of the PUD conditions as such
relate to phase developments which may occur from time to time.
One of the PUD conditions requires that all subdivision of land be approved
by the Planning Commission Board of Supervisors. The owner of Branchlands seeks
approval of the conveyance to C~S Associates of 9.842 acres as shown on the pre-
liminary map prepared by Lewis & Owens, Inc., attached hereto as Exhibit 1. This
parcel of land will be developed by CPS Associates as part of the Charlottesville
Fashion Square. Part of a department store will be constructed on part of the
land, with the remainder of the land being used for parking spacecand buffer. The
use to which the land will be put is less intense than thatcontemplated by the
143
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Branchlands PUD Plan since a sizable portion of that land will be used as parking
and buffer. The buffer area is shown on Exhibit 1.
The amendments to the Branchlands PUDilconditions requested by the owner of
Branchlands are as follows (paragraph letters and numbers correspond'to those in
the September 17, 1975 letter):
Co lo
Delete first sentence and substitute: Ail plans for sewer and water
for any phase being developed shall be submitted to the County Engineer
for approval prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit on
that phase of development.
Co 2o
Delete first sentence and substitute: The developer o~ developers
shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County Service Authority
all water and sewer lines located within the area of land included in
the site plan for the development of that phase, and those sewer and~
water lines off site which are owned by the developers and which are
necessary to serve Branchlands at no expense to the service authority.
D. 1.
Delete and substitute: When there exists a functional need created
by development of the residential and commercial areas such that the
traffic flow is increased to a point at which the present entrances
and crossovers amc inade~quate, the entrances, crossovers of U. S.
Route 29 North, and streets shall be constructed to conform to the
layout shown on Alternative No. 1.
The development of the ten-acre parcel by CPS Associates as part of
the Charlottesville Fashion Square does not create a functional need
for such constructio~ since the Branchlands entrance does not serve as
an entrance to the Charlottesville Fashion Square facility.
The owner of Branchlands and the developers of Charlottesville Fashion
Square have agreed the developer will contribute its proportionate share
toward the development of Branchlands Route 29 entrance A, such share
being 10% of the total estimated cost as approved by the County. It is
currently estimated the total cost for the entrance A and related work
is $260,000. The developer shall deliver to the County of Albemarle a
bond (in form acceptable to the County) obligating the developer to pay
to the County 10% of the estimated cost of relocating ~he Bmanchlands
Route 29 entrance A (as shown on Alternative No. 1 as approv%d by the
County of Albemarle), building the required deceleration lane serving
the relocated entrance, constructing the Route ~29 crossover ~aligned with
such entrance, and closing the discontinued crossover. The developer's
responsibility under the bond shall not include the performance of any
work, but shall be limited to payment of 10% of the estimated cost for
the work as approved by the County. The bond shall provide that if
it is determined at some future date the entrance A, or some comparable
entrance will not be constructed, or if such entrance or comparable
entrance is not constructed within 20 years of the date of the bond,
the bond will terminate.
D. 3. Delete. (see D.1 above)
E. 1.
Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and
need."
Eo 2,
Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and
need."
Eo 3o
Add at end of sentence, "commensurate with residential development and
need."
Eo 4.
Add at end of sentence: as part of each phase of development on the
open space corridors or sewer easements located within or immediately
adjacent to that phase of development.
E. 6.
E. 8.
Add: CPS Associates, as owner of the 9.842 acres tract, and Walter F.
Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner of an 8.0 acre parcel of land to
be reserved for church purposes and not sold as part of the PUD property,
shall not be required to be members of the Homeowners Association. In-
stead, those two owners shall be responsible for 100% of the maintenance
of the driveways, open space, etc., located within their respective 9.842
and 8.0 acre tracts of land. The homeowners association need not be
established until land other than that described in this paragraph is
developed.
Delete and substitute: Developer of "Section C" to provide fencing in
area designated "Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass
onto adjoining property when "Section C" is developed.
Except as amended as requested herein, the Branchlands PUD conditions
shall~remain unchanged.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if you have
any questions or require any additional information.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Gibson, Jr."
March 15, 1978 (Regular-NiEht Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said on March 7, 1978, by a vote of 7-2, the Planning Commission recommended
"approval with the following conditions:
A. Density - Land Use - Concept
Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities
shall comply with Approved Plan 1;
The cluster arrangement concept, providing for a minimal number of
entrances on to the internal road system be adhered to as indicated
in Approved Plan 2.
B. Site Plans - Subdivision of Land
Site Plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning
Ordinance and Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle respectively;
No grading permit shall be issued for roads, streets, or highways until
plans and profiles have been approved by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
C. Sewer and Water
Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed
shall be approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to
the issuance of any building permit for that phase of development;
The developer or developers shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle
County Service Authority all on-site and off-site water and sewer
improvements, which are necessary to serve that phase to be developed,
at no cost to the Service Authority.
D. Transportation System
Entrances and crossovers on Route 29 North and internal street layouts
shall conform to Approved Plan 3;
The existing B~anchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and
Entrance A and crossover (Approved Plan 3) shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of any building permit for any phase of development which would have
access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the
Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, may waive this requirement for a particular
phase of development upon a finding that the existing entrance would be
adequate to accommodate in a safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned
by such development.
Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Approved Plan
for future potential connections into the Montague-Miller ~tract and Westfield
Section II;
Ail right-of-way widths for all interior streets will be determined as
individual site development plans are submitted;
Ail streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System.
E. Other
Recreational facilities shall be provided according to the following:
tot lots: 55 square feet/dwelling unit
playfields: 165 square feet/dwelling unit
sport facilities: (tennis, handball, swimming, etc.) 165 square feet/
dwelling u~it;
Bike paths should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds)
or sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of
development on the open space corridors and sewer easements located
within or immediately adjacent to that phase of development; provided
that the Planning Commission may require reasonable extension of such
bike trail through other areas if such extension provides linkage to
an existing or approved bike trail;
Approval by the County Attorney's Office of Homeowners~ Association
agreements for the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other
commonly-owned or common-use amenities· Owners of properties designated
for commercial use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond, as owner
of an 8.0 acre tract to be reserved for church purposes and not sold as
part of the Planned Community property (referred to hereinafter as the
Church property) shall not be required to be members of the Homeowners'
Association; provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for
the maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their
respective tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to that
level established in the Homeowners' Association agreements for other
such uses. Should commercial development or sale of commercially-designated
property occur prior to establishment of Homeowners' Association agreements,
the Planning Commission may require in the deed restrictions for such
property, provisions for the maintenance of such driveways, open spaces,
etc., as the Commission shall deem appropriate for adequate buffering and
protection of residential areas and for the reasonable usage of such areas
by future residents of the Planned Community. In respect to usage, the
Homeowners' Association members shall enjoy the same rights and privileges
of use of driveways, o~en s~ace, etc., within commema~]]v ~n~ ~=
March !5~ 1978__~_ular-Night Meeting~)
Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be
sold;
Developer of Section C (Approved Plan 1) to provide fencing in area designated
"Section C" adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining
property (-Chapel Hill Subdivision)."
Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Tucker to define the differences between approved plans one,
two and three. Mr. Tucker said approved plan number one deals with the density; plan two
deals with the internal road system and number of curb cuts; plan three deals with the in-
ternal road network primarily showing the main entrances into Branchlands. Ail three plans
were approved in September, 1975.
Mr. Fisher stated his concern about the deletion of whole paragraphs from the present
conditions. Mr. Tucker said the idea was to eliminate duplicate and redundant wording. Mr.
St. John said as a point of procedure, this application should be cross-indexed under the
heading of Branehlands and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop of Richmond. Mr. Fisher instructed
the Clerk to make such a notation in the minute books, and that Mr. Tucker should also
change the file headings on all Planning Department files.
Mr. M. E. Gibson, Jr., said these changes were to simplify the development process.
He noted that few developers could handle areas of 100 acres, and so this site would be
developed in 10 acre plots. Mr. Gibson made reference to a letter received by the Planning
Department from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation suggesting that the
applicant make a grade change on Route 29 in order to improve sight distance. Mr. Gibson
estimated that such roadwork wo~ld cost in the neighborhood of half the total cost of the
entire 100 acre parcel. He said he was highly opposed to this recommendation.
Mr. Lane Kneedler, a resident of Brandywine Drive, immediately behind the proposed
Branchlands development in the City, requested clarification of wording in condition B2.
Mr. Tucker said this assures that proper road standards are met in the plans. He also
noted that this condition eliminated the redundant conditions.
Mr. Alan Scouten asked if this change to 10 acre development increments would mean
that the area set aside for the Famber Mall would not have to pay its contribution toward
the impact of water and sewer systems. Mr. Fisher answered that nothing being contemplat-
ed tonight would change any of the already approved plans for Branchlands.
Mr. Homer Kennamer said he was an adjacent property owner. He first asked if the con-
struction of the proposed mall constituted the initial development of the Branchlands P.U.D.
Mr. Fisher said yes, it did according to the approved plans. Mr. Kennamer then asked about
the relocation of the entrance to Branchlands. Mr. Tucker said that it would have to be
relocated upon initial development or when there was sufficient effect on the traffic of
Route 29 North (as determined by the Highway Department). Mr. Kennamer said Route 29 is
already congested. He then asked if the proposed bike trails would allow motorized vehicles.
Mr. Fisher said the standards drawn up for this project do not exclude such. Lastly, Mr.
Kennamer said he was not satisfied with the condition that the fence be built upon construc-
tion of Section "C". He said prior development would create the need for the fence many
years prior to the construction of SeCtion "C"~[ He also requested that the fence be extended
all the way to the Kane property.
Mr. Tucker then read the following letter from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation:
"March 13, 1978
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning
Albemarle County
414 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Tucker:
Reference is made to our recent conversations concerning the proposed entrances
to the BranchIands Development along Route 29 in Albemarle County.
As you know, the county has approved entrances to the Branchlands Subdivision in
accordance With a plan, entitled Alternative #1. This plan calls for two major entrance
to the subdivision to be build adjacent to the cross-overs along Route 29. The two
cross-overs shown are at new locations and basically replace one existing c~oss-over
which is proposed to be closed. Since the approval of this entrance configuration,
standards for intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance have been changed.
The two entrances and ~djacent cross-overs as proposed do not meet the minimum standards
now in effect. I, therefore, must advise you that the Department cannot approve the
entrances and cross-overs as proposed.
In reviewing this matter, I have determined that the movement of one cross-over
and the addition of the second cross-over were never approved by proper authority
within the Department. It will, therefore, be necessary that any plan which requires
the movement of any cross-over, or the establishment of any new cross-over be reviewed~
and approved by the Department. This will be necessary even if stopping sight distance
and intersection sight distance to the cross-overs and entrances are adequate.
For your information, the minimum standards for cross-overs and entrances in this
area are as follows:
Stopping sight distance
425 feet
Intersection sight distance 650 feet
Cross-over spacing 800 feet
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
For your .information, the existing cross-over along the frontage of the
Branchlands property does not meet minimum intersection sight distance. This
means that if a major entrance to Branchlands was proposed opposite this cross-
over, the Department would take steps to eliminate left turns out of the develop-
ment and into the development through this cross-over.
I would suggest that the proposed entrances to the Branchlands PUD be
redesigned to meet the standards li~ted above. If the county wishes to support
the establishment of new cross-overs, or the movement of existing cross-overs,
or the waiver of any requirement, this request should be submitted to my office.
Yours truly,
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Mr. Fisher said this letter would require that changes be made to the already approved
plan, which would require it to be brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher then
suggested possibly having the applicant, the Planning Department and the Highway Department
meet and work out the road revisions, and bring all the changes back to the Planning Commissio
and Board simultaneously.
After a brief discussion between Max Evans and the Board, Mr. Fisher asked if it would be
possible for Mr. Tucker to set up a meeting with the Highway Department within the next two
weeks. He noted that the Board already had a meeting scheduled for March 29th. Mr. Tucker
said he would contact the Highway Department. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush,
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer further discussion of this petition until March 29, 1978.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 8. Five-Year Capital Improvements Program Budget.
Daily Progress on March 4, 1978.)
(Advertised in the
Mr. Agnor presented a summary of recommended capital improvements, requesting the Board
to vote on the current fiscal year's expenditures, as well as the five-year plan. Mr. Agnor
reviewed the project area headings and proposed expenditures.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one being present at the meeting at
this time, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Board discussion centered around the heading of Parks and Recreation, Future Projects.
Ail felt the amounts of $47,000 and $180,000 should be left out of this year's fiscal budget,
but it was debated whether or not to drop it entirely or carry~it over to fiscal 1978-79.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded bykMr. Lindstrom to carry those amounts over to
the 1978-79 fiscal year budget. Roll was called, and motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Roudabush.
Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Henley then offered mot'ion to drop the $180,000, and transfer the $47,000 to fiscal
year 1978-79. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and RoudabUsh.
Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom.
Dr. Iachetta.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the five-year
plan as amended. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and R~udabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
March 15, 1978
(Regular-Night Meeting )
PROJECT
SUMMARY
OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL
PROJECT
ESTIMATE
IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES BY PROJECT - LOCAL SHARE ONLY
LOCAL SHARE FY 1977-78 FY 1978-79 FY 1979-80
ESTIMATE
1. SCHOOLS
Albemarle High School Gym
Scottsville POD
Red Hill
Bus Shop
Meriwether Lewis-Murray
Crozet - Greenwood
Future Site Acquisition
Stony Point
2. UTILITIES
SOLID WASTE
Resource Recovery
Collection System
Sanitary Landfill(Access)
Sanitary Landfill(Scales)
.Sanitary Landfill(Improvements)
FIRE PROTECTION
Hydrants
Equipment
5. LIBRARIES
Main Library
Bookmobile
6. AIRPORT
Ob struction Removal
Taxiway
7. FLOOD PLAIN (MARKERS)
8. EMERGENCY PHONE SYSTEM(911)
9. HOUSING
Crozet Project
AHIP
0.
JUVENILE COIYRT
ii i.
PARKS & RECREATION
! Albemarle High School-Tennis
Courts
Rann Preserve
Future Projects
2. ADMINISTRATION
Administration & Court Building
3. HEALTH-COmITY FACILITIES
AT ESMQm~T
4. MISCELLANEOUS
Lickinghol~ Cr~'ek Improvements
~,125,000 $4,125,000
1,000,000 1,000,000
55O
750
200
500
550
350
225
000
000
000
000
000
000
,000
St~' _ ~ _
200,000( SCF ) -
3oo,ooo(RS)
500,000( LF )
550,000 - 50,O00(UB) 500,000(LF)
750,000 - - 275, O00(RS )
200, ooo - 20,000(RS) 180, O00(RS)
-500,000 - 50, O00(UB) 450, O00(LF)
550,000 - - 50,000( UB )
350,000 - - -
225,000 - -
1,876,900
7,083,400
6,300,000
51,575
690,450
3O,OOO
11,375
954,500 - - -
537,000 17,000(UB) 173,334(UB) 173,333(UB)
51,600 51,600(RS) -
345,200 149,000(RS) 196,200(RS) -
15,ooo 15,000(RS) -
5,700 - 5,700(UB ) -
210,400
110,400
100,000
196,000 - - -
96,000 24,000(UB) 24,000(UB) 24,000(OB)
100,000 - IO0,O00(UB) -
1,840,
1,800,
40,
000
000
000
840,000 - - -
800,000 175,000(RS) 325,000(UB) 300,000(UB)
40,000 - 40,000(UB) -
869,580
300,000
569,580
21,738 - -
7,500 7,500(U~) -
14,238 - 14,238( UB )
5,500( OB )
5,500 5,500
107,000 35,500
975,480 250,000
725,480 -
250,000 250,000
50,000 25,000
50,000(RS)
2,500( UB )
717,700 50q,700 -
25,000 25,000 25,000(UB)
280,000 70,000 70,O00(UB)
4t2,700 412,700 -
3,000,000 3,000,000 -
3,000,000 3,000,000 600,O00(RS)
131,000 -
500,000 500,000
35,500( UB )
FY 1980-81
475,000(LF)
500,000( LF )
350,000(UB )
25,000(UB )
TOTAL:
173,333( tm )~
S~Y (BY YT_JLR)
School Construction Fund (SCF)
Unallocated Balance ( UB )
Revenue Sharing (RS)
Literary Fund (LF)
TOTALS:
24,000( UB )
50,000(~) 50,000(Rs)50,000(RS)
22, 50O(~) - -
129,000(UB) 70,200(UB) 60,000(UB)
925,000(RS) 1,O00,O00(RSO 400,000(RS)
75,000( 'UB ) - -
21,491,960 lb",~60,938 2,192,100 2,199,972 3,'~08,033 2,057,333
$-- $ -
653,033 632,333
1,505,000 450,000
950,000 975,000
200,000 $ 200,000
3,099,138 151,500
4,536,800 1,340,600
2,625~,000 500,000
1,008,772
1,191,200
10,460,938 2,192,100 ~,199,972 3'7108,033 2,057,333
FY 1981-82
200,000( LF )
50,000(RS):
153, 5oo( UB )
500,000(UB)
903,500
653,500
50,000
200,000
963,5oo
t48
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting
School Cons~
Unallocated
R~venue Sha~
Literary Fuz
T(
RECAP: SHOWING DISPOSITION OF AVAILABLE FUNDS AND ESTIMATED RETAINED BALANCE
AMOUNT AVAILABLE DURING PERIOD
AMOUNT ALLOCATED DURING PERIOD
RETAINED BALANCE END OF PERIOD
ruction Fund (SCF) $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - 0 -
Balance (UB) 4~000,000 3,099,138 900,862
ng (RS) 4,545,000 4,536,800 8,200
(LF) 2,625,000 2,625,000 ......... - 0 ~ .........
?ALS:
$11,370,000 $10,460,938 $909,062
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the follow~
ing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,703,100 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated fom~capital improve-
ments projects during the 1977r78 fiscal year as follows:
From the School Construction Fund and coded as follows:
19.19 Physical Education Facilities at Albemarle High School
From Revenue Sharing Funds and coded as follows:
47-19.19 Physical Education Facilities at Albemarle High School
47-10J.3 Collection Systems (Container)
47-18A3 Main Library (Post Office Building)
47-18A.4 Administration $ Court Buildings
From the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and coded as follows:
19-10J.4 Resource Recovery System
19-215C Fire Hydrants
19J Airport-Obstruction Removal
19.20A Flood Plain Markers
19Z Juvenile Court
19W.1 Rann Preserve
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
$575,000
500,000
51,600
50,000
600,000
17,000
24,000
7,500
5,500
2,500
70,000
Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented the application of the Psi Chapt~
of Sigma Chi Fraternity, proceeds of games to go to the Martha Jefferson Hospital, and the
Wallace Village for children with minimal brain damage in Boulder, Colorado. Motion was
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the lottery permit for the
calendar year 1978 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. Roll was called and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
MessrS.~ Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: County.-.Attorney. Mr. St. John said although he did
not know how much it would cost, he wfs~e'd the[Board's per,hiss-ion to order full 'transcripts
of the James Fleming proceedings in Federal Court on March 6 and 7, 1978 and March 21, 1978;
also the argument before the Fourth District Circuit Court on March 9, 1978, regarding the
James Fleming suit. Motion to approve this request was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher read a letter from the law firm of Boyle and Bain, dated March
15, 1978, regarding the Charlottesville Fashion Site Plan, requesting a review by the Board
of Supervisors of a decision made by the Planning Commission on March 14, 1978. This decision
was relative to Zoning Ordinance Section 17-7-6.
Mr. Fisher requested that this be placed on the agenda of March 17 so Dr. Iachetta could
participate in the vote.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated February 28, 1978 from Mr.
Cald~r Loth, Senior Architectural Historian of the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission.
The letter, sent at the request of Mr. Bedford Moore, noted that Shack Mountain is listed on
both the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places.
March 15, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
March 17, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 15, 1978)
At 11:~00 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn this meeting to March 17, 1978
at 1:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Dr. Iachetta.
March 17, 1978 (Afternoon-Adjourned from March 15, 1978)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on March 17, 1978, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 15, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iaehetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:09 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, who announced that this was the final work session on the 1978-79 County Budget.
Agenda Item No. 2. Education Budget. The meeting began with a statement made by the
Chairman of the School Board, Mr. Peter Way. After quite a lengthy discussion about the
budgeting process, motion was offered by Mr. Dottier directing that the School Board adopt
zero-base budgeting for the 1979-80 fiscal year. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, directing that the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the School Board set an appropriate
date for a meeting between the two bodies for an informal discussion of joint problems. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 3:05 P.M., the Board recessed and reeonvened at 3:14 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 3. Library Budget. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by
Mr. Roudabush to increase the appropriation for the Library to $285,161 for public hearing
purposes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. VPI/SU Extension Service. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to go to public hearing with the amount recommended by. the County
Executive; $48,808. The Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. General District Court. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to add $1,500 to this budget for rent of a xerox machine, thus
making the total $8,312. Also adding to the revenue side of the budget under miscellaneous
refunds, expected revenues from copies made on this machine or $600. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Set Tax Rate and Order Advertisement of Budget. Mr. Agnor noted
that the Board had increased the total expenditures in the budget by $30,109 since the budget
sessions had started. This increase can be accommodated in two ways; add $10,109 to the
revenue side unde~ refunds, Code 90-911; and add $20,000 to the carry-over balance to balance
the budget. Motion to this effect was offered~by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.