1978-08-09August 9, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
380
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 9, 1978, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Char!ottesvi]
.Vi?g±n±a.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived
at 9:06 A.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr, County Executive and George R. St. John,
The meeting was called to order at 9:11 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: January 18, 1978 (Afternoon), February 15, 1978
February 22, 1978, February 24, 1978, March 1, 1978 (Afternoon), March 1, 1978 (Night),
March 5, 1978, March 6, 1978 and March 7, 1978.
Mr. Lindstrom noted the following correction on the minutes of February 22, 1978: page
72, agenda item number 2, change the word "service" to "surface". Mr. Fisher noted the
following correction on the minutes of March 1, 1978 (Night): page 10, twelfth paragraph,
insert "alleged" between "an" and "liable". With no further corrections being noted, motion
was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve all minutes as presented except February 24, 1978,
with corrections noted. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
The minutes of February 24, 1978 had not been read.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Paul Stacy: Request to abandon an old county
road off Route 626 in Howardsville. (Deferred from July 12, 1978.)
Mr. Fisher noted letter dated August 8, 1978, received from George McCallum, and Bruce
D. Rasmussen, attorneys for parties of interest requesting deferral of this matter to Se~
13, 1978. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this matter to September 13,
1978 with notification to the parties concerned that the matter will be dropped from the
BOa~t'~ agenda if a decision is not ready by that date. Mr. Dorrier 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. 3b. Request for Street Lights in Berkeley.
The following memorandum from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was presented to
the Board:
"July 7, 1978
Pursuant to the Roadway Lighting Policy--Rules for Procedure which
were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 13, 1977, the County
Engineering office has processed an application by the Berkeley Community
Association for a complete street lighting system for Berkeley Community.
I recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve the request and authorize
the installation of the lighting system.
Attached to this memo is a copy of a document which was circulated to
each resident in Berkeley by the officers of the Berkeley Community Association,
together with a certificate signed by the President of the Association,
certifying that no person has raised any objection to the lighting. The plans,
prepared by VEPCO with the help of the Engineering Department, has the
approval of the Highway Department.
There are currently thirteen lights in Berkeley, some of which will remain
and others replaced. The plans requires a total of fifty lights. The cost
of the existing lights is $60.64 per month. The cost of the proposed system
will be $270.72 per month. This will add $2,520 per year to the County's
street-lighting budget. This increase was anticipated in the preparation
of the 1978-79 budget."
Mr. Gil Roy of the Berkeley Homeowners Association was present. He said notices ex'
the lighting system and the location of the lights was distributed to the homeowners; all
have responded favorably.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the street lighting request for the
Berkeley Community as outlined by the County Engineer. Mr. Lindstrom 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. '3c. Discussion of a road in Sherwood Farm Subdivision.
In response to an inquiry from Mrs. Raymond Dueser of Mountain View Drive in Sherwood
Farm Subdivision, Mr. Fisher requested that this matter be discussed to determine the requirem~
necessary for brin~in~ this road into the Seaonda~v ~o~ ~v~m_ ~_ ~~ ~ a~ ~
381
_ Au: ust ': 1': '-8 Re, ular~--Da~
undeveloped and still in the name of the developer.
Mrs. Raymond Dueser was present. She said the road is in a bad state of disrepair and
the eight families currently living on the road have gotten together to explore the possibilitN
of having it accepted into the State Secondary System. They understand the only feasible
way to~' db this is to have the Highway Department do the actual construction. The homeowners
are aware that somewhere between $20,000 and $40,000 will have to be shared among the eighteen
lots for the improvements.
~. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present. He said three things are
involved for the road to qualify as a rural addition: 1) Platting of the subdivision has
to be in a certain time; 2) No land developer or speculator can own more than 15% of the
lots; and 3) The county or the homeowners would have to come up with a percentage of funds
for the road to be built. Mr. Williams said the developer, Dr. Charles Hurt, does owns: more
than 15% of the lots.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the road could be taken in at no cost to the homeowners if the
per contributed to the cost. Mr. Roosevelt said no. He referred to Section 33.1-72
of the Code of Virginia, the definition of "new street" which was revised in 1977. The
section states that the County will pay the actual cost for development, but the highway
department will do the work for a street developed between 1958 and 1975. The only difference
between the highway department doing the work versus a subdivider is the savings in preliminary
engineering which would amount to about ten or fifteen percent reduction of the total cost.
Mr. Roosevelt said the disadvantage in having the state do the work is the removal of the
highway~rew~rom~improvements on existing state roads and it opens the door for many subdivisi
which fall in the same classification. Mr. Roosevelt concluded by stating that the question
is whether to use highway department forces to construct the roads or should the homeowners
hire a contractor and build the road using present subdivision ordinance standards and
procedures. Mr. Fisher said very seldom are people willing to contribute money for improvement
therefore, he did not feel many requests of this type would be received.
Dr. Iachetta asked if the developer had been asked to participate in the necessary
improvements. Mrs. Dueser said yes; he is willing to participate as one-third owner of the
subdivision.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the road needed grading and alignment work or Just building a
surfac, e. Mr. Roosevelt said there is a sight distance problem at the intersection With
.~ Also, Mountain View Road is used as an embankment for a pond located at its
intersection with Route 859. He said these two problems would have to be resolved before
the useoof rural addition funds could be approved. Mr. Roudabush asked if the possibility
of the homeowners raising the money with the developer doing the actual work had been explored.
Mrs. Dueser said no.
If residents are willing to raise the necessary money, Mr. Fisher felt the Board should
help and did not feel it unreasonable to ask the Highway Department for assistance. Mr.
Henley disagreed and hesitated to ask the Highway Department to get involved. Mr. Lindstrom
agreed that the developer should be approached to do the necessary work and was concerned
about involving the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said if the developer built the road
it would have to meet current Subdivision Ordinance standards. If the highway department
idoes the work, then Section 33.1-72 of the code would be adhered to and plans would not have
ito be drawn. However, the construction would be placed at the end of the highway department's
current work schedule'which would probably be at the latter part of the next construction
session; after July 1979.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Highway Department, County Engineer, Mrs. Dueser, and Mr.
Roudabush get together with Dr. Hurt to see what plans exist and what Dr. Hurt might be
willing to do and then make a report back to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 3d. Letters from the Highway Department.
Mr. Agnor said notification has been received from the Highway Department concerning a
public hearing to be held, if requested, on proposed improvements to Route 20 South between
IGlendower and Scottsville. .... The requests have to be made to the Resident Highway Engineer b~y
~lAugust ll, 1978. Mr. Fmsher samd Mr. Dorrmer has revmewed the matter and does not feel a
ili~ublic hearing is necessary.
Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of a notification about the Annual Fall Highway Conference
to be held in Lexington on October 19 and 20.
Agenda Item No. 3e. Letters Accepting Roads into the State Secondary System.
Mr. Agnor read the following letters into the record:
"August 3, 1978
Gentlemen:
~As requested in resolution by your Board on June 1~, 1978, the following
a~di~ions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective July 1, 1978.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
EARLYSVILLE HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
Viewmont Road - Beginning at Route 1535 going southeasterly 0.12 Mi.
Yorkshire Road - From: Viewmont Road to end of cul-de-sac 0.15 Mi."
phs
A~t 9~_~~tar--Da~Meetin~
"July 26, 1978
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on June 14, 1978 the following
additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved,
effective July 1, 1978.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
CLEARVIEW KNOLLS SUBDIVISION
Clearview Circle - From: Rte. 660 southeasterly to its intersection with Hickory Drive.
Hickory Drive - From:
0.12 Mi.
Clearview Circle to end to cul-de-sac. 0.19 Mi."
0.65 Mi."
"July 27, 1978
~entlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on April 12, 1978, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective July 1, 1978.
ADDITION LENGTH
RUNNING DEER SUBDIVISION
Running Deer Lane - From end of State Maintenance Route 808 to end of cul-de-sac.
Agenda Item No. 3f. Public Hearing: Request to abandon portion of Summit Road in
Knollwood Subdivision beginning at the centerline of Summit Road and the southeastern
margin of Georgetown Road (State Route 656); thence with Su~it Road in a southeasterly
direction 102 feet to a point opposite the property line between Lots 1 and 2; Block C of
Knollwood Subdivision. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 8 and 15, 1978.)
In December 1976, Mr. Fred Colmer, representing Mrs. Frank Hamilton of 145 West Park
Drive, requested that the above portion of Summit Road in Knollwood Subdivision be abandoned
from the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said as a result of that letter a public hearing
for the abandonment was ordered in January 1977. The time in between has involved getting
the plat, a description drawn and all the paper work required as well as notification to the
property owners and the highway department of the proposed abandonment.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred Colmer was present. He said this section of
Summit Road was shown on the original plat of Knollwood but has never been constructed
although it was taken in as part of the State Secondary System in error. His client feels
her property has been affected by this section since it is a "no man's" land. She has tried
to keep it clean in order to protect her property's appearance. Mr. Colmer said with the
current traffic flow on Georgetown, he did not feel any resident in the area would want this
portion opened up as access to Georgetown Road. Also, there is a problem with the topography
at this location.
Mrs'. Frank Hamilton was present and noted that her family has maintained this strip of
~nd~for fifteen years.
Mr. Kurt Quasenbarth, an adjoining property owner, was present and did not favor opening
up Summit Road to Georgetown Road. He said the road is used primarily by children cutting
through to other sections of Knollwood Subdivision.
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said the area is grown up and a large oak tree
is in the center of the right of way. He said there is access to Summit Road at Inglewood
Drive for emergency vehicles. He did question the fact that lot iA was recorded as two
separate lots at one time. The tax records carry it as one lot but anytime a person owns
two contiguous lots they can be subdivided. He also noted that there is a fifteen foot
drainage~easement running through this right of way. Mr. Tucker said the Board had the
following three alternatives: 1) Provide access for frontage on Summit Road for what' was
lot 1; 2) Provide access through easement for lot 1; or 3) If lots 1 and 2 have been re-
recorded as one lot, there is no problem.
Mr. D.~ S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said the Highway Department is in favor
of the abandonment since the road has never been constructed. However, he would like to
see the drainage easement retained. Mr. Roosevelt said there is a sight distance problem if
Summit Road is connected to Georgetown Road.
Mr. Roudabush said if the portion of land was divided in the middle between the two
adjoinin~g lot owners, then lot i would have access. He suggested in dividing the land that
the County retain the drainage easement and possibly an easement for water and sewer. He
then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that that portion of Summit Road (Knollwood Subdivision) lying north of West
Park Drive, as shown on Albemarle County Engineering Department drawing dated
August 5, 1977, and shaded in red, be abandoned and removed from the State
Secondary System of Highways pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-151; the
title thereby reverting to Albemarle County; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Highway Department, the County Engineering
property owners in a manner that will be approved by the Albemarle County
Planning Commission, with this Board considering action at some future date
to convey this property.
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.
Agenda Item No. 3g. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher asked the status of Route 637. Mr. Roosevelt said a meeting will be held
next Wednesday. He noted that the right of way has been granted to the Highway Department
and once the paper work is completed, th~ job can start.
Mr. Agnor noted that the bridge on Route 671 will be closed for repairs from August 21
through 26.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has received several calls concerning the litter on the side of
Garth Road near Ivy Creek.
Dr. Iachetta thanked Mr. Roosevelt, on behalf of the Highway Safety Commission, for
looking at the signing of the one-lane bridge on Route 626. He then asked about the Route
651 project. Mr. Roosevelt said hopefully the project will begin this spring.
Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the entrance to Bedford Hills.
needed to get in touch with some of the residents.
Mr. Roosevelt said he
Dr. Iachetta noted an open dump on the curve on the west side of Route 643 below the
South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr. Roosevelt said if it is on the highway department's
right of way then they can try to do something to prevent such occuring and clean same up
but if it is on private property, the Highway Department has no control.
Dr. Iachetta asked if it was possible to lower the speed limit on Hollymead Drive. Mr.
Roosevelt said from the Highway Department's point of view, there is no value in lowering
the speed limit. The location has been checked and the present speed limit, 35 miles per
hour, is the proper speed for Hollymead as far as traffic and road design are concerned. He
felt it was also properly posted and more of an enforcement problem than anything else. Dr.
Iachetta asked about putting up signs warning of children playing. Mr. Roosevelt said such
signs only raise a sense of security in the minds of children and parents and the Highway
Department has no enforcement with a sign.
Mr. Roudabush said he received several calls relating to the condition of Route 785
north of Proffit Road. Due to the condition of the road, school buses would not use it last
year. He understood an attempt was made some years ago to do the work but the right of way
could not be obtained. Mr. Roudabush said all the residents have now agreed to donate the
right of way. He asked if Mr. Roosevelt could look into the matter. Mr. Roosevelt was
unaware of the problems but said he would check into the matter.
Mr.~ Roudabush said the property owners on Route 616 (Black Cat Road) near Keswick are
dissatisfied with the rejection by the road viewers to have this road accepted into the
secondary system. This request was also rejected a couple of years ago and the conditions
of the road have not changed. Mr. Roudabush said the road was not created by a speculator
or d,~veloper but has grown up through the years by usage and a number of parcels on the
road. Although someone may have sold a piece of property in the last few years, Mr. Roudabush
did not feel the area could be classified a subdivision.
Mr. Roosevelt said the road viewers checked this road and found that one parcel has
been divided from one lot into three since 1959. The estimated cost for the necessary
improvements is estimated to be $16,000 which would have to come from rural addition funds.
Only $20,000 is allocated each year for rural additions and the road viewers have already
approved one request for $5,000. Mr. Roosevelt said the road viewers felt that even though
the road qualifies under the viewer law, it is needed primarily to serve lots which have
been subdivided. Therefore, they did not feel it was a proper use of rural addition funds.
Mr. Venable Minor was present. He said the residents on the road could not participate
on a 50/50 cost sharing basis because most are retired and live on pensions. He understood
$15,000 was needed to improve the road and from the discussion this morning he assumed that
much was left in the fund. Mr. Minor said many times last year the road was impassable.
The residents have graveled the road. He noted a situation, last year, when the rescue
squad was stuck in the road for twenty minutes. He felt the road viewers have rejected the
request because they consider it a subdivision and he objected to that. Mr. Minor said
there are about eleven property owners on this road, a majority of them black. As far as he
is concerned, if the road is surfaced from the entrance to the place where the three lots
were cut off, it would be a help.
Mr. James Chapman, resident, was present.
entrance and where the lots have been created.
the road be made wider and graveled.
He noted that five families live between the
He said the residents are only asking that
Mr. Minor said when this request was submitted before there was a problem with the
right of way and that has now been resolved; all of the property owners have signed a petition
granting right of way.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the $16,000 was estimated for a paved road to normal standards.
Mr. Roosevelt said yes. He felt the traffic would warrant the paving.
~Au~ust 9, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
384
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to request the road viewers to reconsider their
recommendation in light of what the property owners are willing to accept. Mr. Henley
seconded the mQtion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RoudabUsh.
None. ~
Mr. Henley said a lot of people have inquired about the road work on Route 810 where
the surface has been torn up. He asked if that is all that will be done or if the hill will
be lowered. Mr. Roosevelt said that is what was supposed to be done the first time. -'However,
he understQ~d there.was still a problem with the sight distance and.that must be adequate
first.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Expansion of Camelot Sewer Plant.
Mr. Fisher said the Albemarle County Service Authority has received a request from
adjacent land owners to enlarge the Camelot treatment plant. The Albemarle County Service
Authority has discussed doing, such by contract and is now requesting a recommendation from
this Board as to how to respond to this. Mr. Fisher said he understood that most of the
· land included in the request is within the present jurisdictional boundaries of the Albemarle
County Service Authority.
Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was
present. He said there is not ample capacity in the Camelot plant to serve General Electric;
therefore, GE requested the expansion and is willing to pay for the improvements necessary.
Mr. Thompson said Mr. Wendell Wood, owner of property in the area, has also requested the
expansion to facilitate his property. The total amount requested for the expansion is
175,000 gallons per day. Of this amount, 17,000 gallons per day is for General Electric and
158,000 gallons per day for Mr. Wood. The present capacity of the plant is 40,000 gallons
per day. Mr. Thompson said the health department states that 400 gallons per day is needed
for a residential connection. Based on that, Mr. Wood would have a possible 395 residential
connections to the sewer plant. Mr. Thompson said the recent rezoning of 42 acres to M-1
for Mr. Wood would project a possible 28.9 residential units or 11,550 gallons per day. He
then summarized the parcels in the immediate area that might be connected to this plant and
noted that the present zoning allows a total of 2055.3 residential units. He'said the
Service Authority is concerned about two things. One, the Service Authority does not want
to be in the middle of any zoning matters. The only contract the Service Authority wilI
consider is that the capacity run with the land and not with the Owner. The second'concern
of the Authority is that it should be clear that the contract would not have any implications
whatsoever for rezoning of properties. Other than these concerns, Mr. Thompson said the
Service Authority feels it is reasonable to expand the plant. He noted that the Service
Authority will not have to bear any of the costs for the expansion.
Dr. Iachetta said the capacity being requested is not in excess of the current zoning
of the land in question. Mr. Thompson said Mr. Wood has questioned the possible rezoning of
his land from residential to commercial. Mr. Thompson said if the Board approves the rezoning.
then a conversion table could be put in to convert the gallons from residential to a commercia~
us~e.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the area is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan to be within
the Jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Tucker said no; also the Comprehensive Plan does not
recognize any high densit~ land use in this area, but the area is within the present existing
jurisdictional boundaries.
Mr. Fisher said the issue before the Board is whether or not to encourage the Albemarle
County Service Authority to sign the contracts to permit sewer services to areas that are
recommended for low density zoning in the Comprehensive Plan. He did not favor the expansion.
Mr. Stuart Carwile, representing Mr. Wood, was present. He said the contract was
discussed bY the Albemarle County Service Authority Board on May 11 and certain modifications
were made to take care of concerns of the Rivanna Water and Sewer AuthoritY. He felt the
Board had to reach a decision on whether they wanted the capacity to run with the owner or
the land; if the Board chooses the land, then individual parcels will have to be identified.
He did not feel it is economical to take 447 acres and develop it in two-acre' reSidential
lots and install public sewage facilities. However, he felt it was impossible to predict
whether or not the land would be developed as an RPN or a PUD. Mr. Carwile said no one can
forecast what will occur on the land in the future.
Mr. St. John said the Planning Commission has to review this matter pursuant to Virginia
Code SeCtion 15.1-456 which readS as follows: "Whenever the local commission shall have
recommended a comprehensive plan. . . and such plan shall have been . . . adopted by the
governing body, it shall control the general or approximate location, character and extent
of each feature shown on the plan. . . (d) no . . public utility facility. . . shall be
constructed. . . unless and until the general l~cation or approximate location, character,
and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by the local commission as being
substantially in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan or Part thereof. . ."
Mr. Thompson said the reason for bringing this to the Board was to receive comments to
guide the Service Authority in the final preparation of the agreement.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to refer this matter to the Planning Commission in
accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-456. Mr. DOrrier 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. 5. To be discussed later.
385
Agenda Item No. 6. Appeal: Mario Scarpa Final Plat. (Plat showing 6.215 acre parcel
and 15 foot right of way, a portion of the Marlo J. Scarpa Property, located off State Route
810, north of Boonesville, Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by R. O. Snow and Associates,
Charlottesville, Virginia, dated April 20, 1978.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he requested this plat be reviewed by the Board particularly since
the private road requirements, except for a maintenance agreement, had been waived.
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Location: North side of Route 810 near Boonesville.
Zoning: A-1 Agricultural.
Proposal: Division of one 6.2-acre parcel on proposed 15 foot right-of-way
leaving 53.2 acres residue. Individual well and septic system.
Purpose: Sale of 6.2 acres to Mr. O'Donnell for a residence.
Staff Comment: There is an existing residence on the residue acreage. A house
has been started on the 6.2 acre parcel. We have received two
letters from adjacent owners, one in opposition. The property
is served by an outlet road which appears to serve more than
five dwellings. The applicant is unable to obtain a maintenance
agreement or to improve the existing road to private road
standards. A commercial entrance is required at Route 810.
Sight distance is not available."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at their meeting on June 20, 1978, gave conditio
approval with the following conditions:
1. Notes on plat:
"No further division along this easement without Planning Commission
approval."
"No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval."
2. Waiver of commercial entrance requirements.
3. : Maintenance agreement to cover that portion of the outlet road from the
Scarpa property line to Route 810. This should be a standard
maintenance agreement with provision for placing liens on properties
of persons who do not participate. Ail parties between Route 810
and Scarpa should join in the agreement. If this is not possible
you are to come back to the Commission.
4. Waiver granted of all other private road requirements.
'-Mr. Terrence O'Donnell, the applicant, was present. He said the opposition of the
property owners was a misunderstanding because they thought there was going to be a large
subdivision on this land. He thought the road was a deeded, recognized right of way entrance
and his only work was on the road off of that right of way. He has had it surveyed. Mr.
O'Donnell said the neighbors are opposed to a written maintenance agreement. Also, since
some of them are not present year round, Mr. Walton, a landowner in the area, has asked that
he join in a verbal agreement with him and three other owners for the maintenance and he has
agreed to this. Mr. O'Donnell said he did not realize there would be any controversy over
the road since he planned to repair the portion that he will be using.
Mr. Norris, a landowner on the road, was present.
agreement or any of the other requirements.
He did not approve of the maintenance
Mr. O'Donnell said it is difficult to do anything with the road since there are so many
people involved, and legally this has been a nightmare. Mr. Fisher asked if the house has
been built. Mr. O'Donnell said that somehow he was issued a building permit about one and
one-half years ago and he was not told about these standards at that time.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that the County, by issuance of the building permit, has waived the
private roads requirements and messed itself up.
After some discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to take no action on this
appeal; also, that a report be made to the Board on the issuance of this building permit.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same caried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs Dorrier,~Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Roger Davis Preliminary Plat.
Davis, A.I.A., Architect, project 7805, dated April 24, 1978.)
(Plat drawn by Roger C.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Davis is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission for
denial.
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Location:
Zoning:
Acreage:
South side Woodstock Drive
R-1 Residential.
Lot 3 - 16,750 square feet (less than one-half of the current
requirements for septic and drainfield)
Lot 4 - 16,500 square feet
Proposal:
Redivision of two existing lots, which requires a waiver from
the Subdivision Ordinance requirement of minimum 40,000 square
feet lot size with one utility. The applicant wishes to relocate
the co~on property line to allow the existing house to conform
to the side yard setback and to allow for construction of a
single-family residence on lot 3. Public water - individual septic.
Purpose:
The applicant wishes to build himself a home on lot 3 and to give
the existing house to his son's family.
al
August 9, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
!
History:
The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance, VA-78-22, on
May 9, 1978 of the minimum lot size requirement in the Zoning
Ordinance, with conditions relating to mandatoryhho~k~t~to
public sewer when it becomes available.
Staff Comment: Mr. Davis has submitted a preliminary plat of the proposed change.
If the Commission-chooses to approve this request, the new
property line location must be approved as well as a waiver of lot
size requirement. Also, staff requests that the Commission
permit the Staff to approve the final plat administratively.
Health approval has been granted for a septic system on lot 3. We
have received eleven letters of opposition from adjacent owners.
Staff would note that a hardship must be present in order,for
the Commission to waiver a subdivision requirement."
~Mr. TUcker said the Planning Commission denied the request on June 13, 1978. He said
sewer lines are now being installed in Hessian Hills but the closest one to Mr. Davis'
property is one lot away on Bennington Road. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels that public
sewer is important and there is currently a drainage problem on the property behind Mr.
Davis lot and the lots'which front on Rickey Road. He said if the waiver is approved, lot 3
should have public sewer hook up and comply-'With the the recommendations of the County
Engineer's office concerning drainage. Mr. Tucker noted letters on file from Mr. J. Ashley
Williams, Assistant County Engineer, concerning w~at should be done to alleviate some of the
problems particularly the runoff from the proposed new lot.
Mr. Roger Davis, the applicant, was present. He said the major opposition is the
runoff water. Mr. Davis said Mr. Williams has looked at his property and makes the following
recommendations:
"DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1978
Ron Keeler
J. Ashley Williams
Site Plan - Roger C. Davis Property
Pursuant to your request I have investigated the cost of a pump/force line
sewer Service for the referenced site. As shown on the attached drawing, the
distance to the new sewer line in Bennington Road is 175 feet. The cost of
this sewer pump system with the Service Authority connection fees is estimated
to be $2,000.00. Another alternative would be to construct a gravity line
to the sewer line in Rickey Road. This would require an easement from the
owners of the property at the rear of this site. I estimate the cost would be
slightly less than $2,000.00 for the actual construction.
With respect to the drainage, I recommend that in order to not increase the
drainage from this site, the roof drains outlet underground to gravel sumps.
As shown on the attached drawing there should be a new drainage easement
recorded to reflect the drainage proposal of the new site. This new easement
should be 12 feet and be recorded as shown in red on the copy of the site plan.
The drainage culvert will need to be properly sized when the owner obtains a
permit from the Highway Department."
Mr. Davis said he agreed with the recommendations stated by Mr. Williams. In addition
to those recommendations, he will provide dry wells for the down spouts to keep the surface
water down. Mr. Davis said there is a possibility that the sewer line will be installed on
Bennington Road and if that is the case, he would like to connect to it. But until such
time, he would like to be able to use his existing septic system. Mr. Davis said Mr. Thompson
of the Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that he would have to put in a
pumping station to connect to the Bennington Road unit. Mr. Davis said he is not now asking
for a variance but only that the lot line be moved over in order to make the side yard
setback conforming.
Mr. Roudabush said this request is different from what was presented to the Planning
Commission and he did not feel the Board should make any decision since the circumstances
are different.
Mr. William Strickland, resident of the immediate area, was present in opposition to
the request. He felt the request was in violation of the restrictive existing covenants
which were placed on the property, by the developer, in the early 50's when the lots were
subdivided. Mr. Strickland said Mr. Davis has to establish that there is an extraordinary
hardship before such a waiver can be granted and this situation cannot be created intentional!;
or created by the property owners. Mr. Fisher said the restrictive covenants are not enforcabl
by the Board.
Speaking next in opposition were Mrs. W. Kirk Gilmore, Messrs. Warner Moon, and Lawrence
Vermillion. They were opposed to the variance because of the drainage problems which current
exist, the existing environment of the neighborhood should not be disturbed and the depreciati
of their property values.
Mr. Davis said a hardship does exist for him because when he bought the lots he was not
financially able to build on both. He emphasized that the recommendations of the County
Engineer's Department would be adhered to and he did not feel that the house proposed will
increase the amount of runoff water since he will be installing downspouts in dry wells. He
noted that very few trees will be removed 'from the property. Mr. Davis said he is not
trying to create a subdivision and cited the section in the subdivision ordinance (18-2)
pertaining to what a subdivision is. He said all he intended to do was to move the property
line over so as to make the lot conforming. The only waiver that he is asking for is to
continue to use the existing septic system for the house until the proposed line in Bennington
Road is installed. Mr. Davis stated that he was not asking for any waiver for the other
house and will connect to the public sewer or not do anything.
After a discussion by the Board, it was the consensus that this matter needed to go
back to the Planning Commission since the request was entirely different from what had been
387
_August 9, 19_78 (Regular--Day_ Meeting)
Dorrler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
The Board recessed for lunch at 1:12 P.M. and reconvened at 1:50 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Capital Budget and Revenue Sharing Funds.
in the Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 1978.)
(Advertis,
The purpose of the public hearing is to update the 1977 program as required by the
Comprehensive Plan and to meet requirements for the allocation of revenue sharing monies.
Mr. Agnor then presented the following projects and programs for 1978-79:
Education--The only addition to this program is miscellaneous repairs
for a total of $175,000. $35,000 is allocated in each year of the five years.
This was taken out of the educational operation budget and placed in the
capital budget. Mr. Agnor said the dollar figure for the year 1978-79 is
to allow the school board to employ an architect to determine which projects
are feasible and cost of same. The Scottsville POD, Red Hill Renovations,
and the Bus Shop were carried in the previous years program but there were
no appropriations made for same.
II.
Utilities--An allocation of $21,750 is shown for installation of a twelve-
inch waterline between Crozet and Brownsville, where there is an existing
six-inch line. The Service Authority estimates the total project to be
$29,000 with the County paying $21,750 or the equivalent of an eight-inch
line. The purpose of this project is to provide adequate water flows and
pressures for fire protection to the school complex at Brownsville. Mr.
Agnor felt that the waterline system is really a utility and should be
paid for by the Service Authority.
III. Solid Waste--No money is being allocated for 1978 to the Resource Recovery
Study Commission until the study by the Metcalf Consulting Firm has been
completed. The Ivy Landfill Access Road (Route 637) is scheduled for work in
1978 and the state will fund 15% of the County's share as a match since the
County plans to use revenue sharing funds. Mr. Agnor recommended that the
$334,000 recommended in the prior year's capitlal budget be appropriated at
this time. Under Ivy Landfill Improvements, which is the completion of the
scales, it is anticipated that the cost will be $5,700.
IV.
Fire, Rescue and Safety--An allocation of $48,000 for fire hydrants
is requested with the completion of the fire hydrant program in 1979-80.
$175,000 for site acquisition of land for a rescue squad building has been
appropriated. The Emergency Phone System (911) is being retained with no
allocation for 1978-79.
Libraries--Funds are being allocated for the renovation of the Post Office
Building in the amount of $275,000. The bookmobile is being continued
in the amount of $40,000 for the replacement of one or two bookmobiles
for the Regional Library.
VI.
Airport--The parallel taxiways and the security fence were previously
approved as one project but have now been separated as follows: Parallel
taxiways, $14,238, and security fence, $1,275. A runway overlay project
in the amount of $21,875 is a new category. The balance of the obstruction
removal project is being requested in the amount of $3,688. A request of
$875.00 is included for updating the master plan which is five years old and
is in the process of being revised. Mr. Agnor noted that $21,900 is available
for the airport from a refund for the ILS project.
VII.
Housing--The AHIP prgoram is a continuation of Revenue Sharing Funds in
the amount of $64,720. About $15,000 of that allocation is used for
direct grants for materials by the County where other funding cannot be
obtained.
VIII. Health--The total project cost of $131,000 shown is the continuation
of proposed health facility at Esmont with funding by HUD.
IX.
Juvenile Court--There are plans to renovate the first floor of the Old
Elks Building jointly with the City of Charlottesville for $25,000.
Parks and Recreation--Only one project, Chris Greene Comfort Station,
in the amount of $17,000, is requested for funding this year. The future
projects are pending the completion of the Parks and Recreation Five Year
Program.
XI.
Administration and Court House Renovations--The renovation of the Lane
Building are underway and the same amount, $1,000,000, which was requested
in the current program is being requested this year.
XII.
Highways--This section is for information since the six year plan was
approved by the Board on May 22, 1978. (See pages 263 and 264, Minute Book
16.)
XIII. Other--The dam on Lickinghole Creek is being retained with no request
for funding at this time. Microfilm equipment for the Cl~rk's Office
is requested in the amount of $22,715.00. Tentative plans are being
made to expand the Community College in 1980, but no funding is requested
August 9, 1978 (Regular--DaY Meeting)
Mr. Agnor then summarized the available funds that are projected through 1983, less the
appropriations that have been made, resulting in a total of 12.8 million dollars. Mr. Agnor
said if all the projects were approved and funded a total of 10.8 million dollars would be
used. Between the resources available and the projects listed, there would be a total of
two million dollars unallocated.
Mr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Education, was present. He summarized the
situation with the Scottsville and Red Hill Schools. Additions were made to the schools but
a decision needs to be made whether to renovate the old schools or build new schools. He
said another project is the Meriwether Lewis/Murray Schools; whether to continue using both
schools to have all the children in one school. If both schools are continued, Meriwether
Lewis will need some additional facilities and renovation. This same situation exists with
the Greenwood/Crozet Schools. Mr. McClure said another request is the bus garage. Discussions
have been held on updating the facilities to house buses, police cars and pickup trucks for
the County. He said he has interviewed architects and will make a recommendation to the
School Board. This individual will assist with the feasibility studies to determine available
sites and the soundness of the above named buildings. Mr. McClure said funds are needed to
start planning for these projects. Mr. Agnor agreed that planning money for hiring an
architect is needed this fiscal year to enable execution of same contracts by the end of
the next school year.
Mr. Agnor said a public hearing has been held by the Planning Commission and they have
~onded favorably.
At 2:22 P.M., the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or
against the matter, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, was present. She said the School
Board would like to have the architects look at Meriwether Lewis/Murray and Crozet/Greenwood
schools at'the same time that Red Hill is being studied. Mr. Jones said no funds were
~luded for the projects.
After a brief discussion, Mr. McClure and Mr. Jones felt $50,000 would be adequate for
;ural studies of MeriWether Lewis/Murray and $60,000 for Crozet/Greenwood Schools.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the five year capital program as
:ommended by the County Executive. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by
following recorded vote:
ES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
: None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $425,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and transferred to the School Construction Fund and coded to the following
codes:
19.12 Scottsville POD $ 60,000.00
19.27 Red Hill Renovations 100,000.00
19.28 Bus Shop 120,000.00
19.17K Miscellaneous Repairs 35,000.00
19.29 Meriwether Lewis-Murray 50,000.00
19.30 Crozet-Greenwood 60,000.00
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $450,365.00 be, and the same
hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General
Capital Outlay Fund and coded to the following codes:
19.4A Microfilm Equipment (Clerk's Office) $ 22,715.00
19.19-1 Ivy Landfill Improvements 5,700.00
19J Airport Improvements 41,950.00
19.7-215C Fire Hydrants (ACSA) 48,000.00
19G.1 Main Library 275,000.00
19G.2 Bookmobile 40,000.00
19.10L.1 Chris Greene Lake Comfort Station 17,000.00
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
~YES:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,398,720.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Revenue
Sharing Funds and coded to the following codes:
47-18B.12
47-18A.4
47-19.1
AHIP
Administration and Court Facilities
Ivy Landfill Road
64,720.00
!,000~000.00
334,000.00
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
'otc:
lAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
389
August 9, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9- Discussion: Zoning Ordinance Definition of "Family".
Mr. Fisher said several residents in the Buckingham Circle area are concerned about
single-family dwellings being converted into rental units and question the definition for
"family" contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Buck Moskatski, spokesman for the residents of Buckingham Circle, was present. He
explained the situation in the neighborhood whereby this concern developed. A basement
apartment was built in a home without any zoning Clearance and the residents in the area
approached the Zoning Administrator about this matter. After discussions, an agreement with
the owner was reached to vacate the premises by the first of August. Shortly after this,
the owner leased the house to five students. Mr. Moskalski said the Zoning Administrator
has taken several positions on this matter but there is some question in his mind about the
definition of "family." Therefore, the residents of Buckingham Circle would like to request
the Board to clarify this definition to protect the R-1 zone against an unlimited amount of
unrelated people living in one house.
Messrs. Gary Allen, Gus and Bob Harrison were also present from Buckingham
Circle. They expressed their concerns about single-family dwellings being rented to unrelated
individuals and emphasized the problems such create particularly with congestion of streets,
speeding, parking and noise.
Mr. Fisher then requested a resolution of intent to the Planning Commission to amend
the language of Section 16-31. Mr. Henley felt some consideration should be given to district
because he did not feel six students living in a house in the country created any problem.
Mr. Dorrier agreed that consideration of the definition should be for specified districts.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 16-31; and
FURTHER, requests the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said
proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and report back to the Board at
the earliest possible date.
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.
Agenda Item No. 10. AHIP: Quarterly Report.
Mr. Tom Hill introduced Mr. Bremmer, who will be assuming some of his duties. Mr.
Bremmer then presented slides of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program projects for the
fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 1977-78.
Agenda Item No. 11. Progress Report on the Meadows Project.
Ms. Sara Payne, President of the Jordan Development Corporation, was present. She
presented to the Board a cost analysis of the Meadows project. Ms. Payne brought to the
Board's attention the original budget figure was $177,280 and the negotiated bids was for
$187,215 with the kitchen equipment added there is an overrun of $15,000.
Mr. Agnor said there is an overrun of $15,000 of what has been allocated by HUD for
this program. The Jordan Development Corporation is requesting that $15,000 of the HUD
grant, for the Esmont Health facility be transferred to the Meadows project for building the
senior center and developing the site.
Mr. Agnor recommended that the HUD funds be utilized to complete the Meadows project.
Mr. Dorrier said in discussions with Mrs. Jane Saunier and others from the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission office, it is evident that no land is available for the Esmont
project. Therefore, he did not object to the request. Mr. Agnor said the kitchen equipment
for the Meadows senior center will cost $5,065.00. Mr. Russell Otis, Housing Coordinator,
has informed him that there is a possib~ity of obtaining another grant through some senior
center funding for the equipment. Mr. Agnor said the Board may desire to approve $9,935.00
and defer $5,065.00 for the kitchen equipment until funding elsewhere can be investigated or
approve the transfer for $15,000 with the contingency that kitchen funds will be sought
elsewhere. Mrs. Saunier said the full amount wi~h the contingency is preferred. Mo~ion was
then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to transfer $15,000.00 from the Esmont Health Facility to the
Meadows project but stipulate that $5,065.00 for the kitchen equipment will not be used
until ali funding alternatives have been examined. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Ordinance for Barking or Howling Dogs.
requesting that this item be placed on the agenda was not present.)
(The person
Agenda Item No. 13. Amendment to Rates for Community Attention Contract.
After discussing this matter with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Agnor said
it was determined that this matter had already been approved and did not need further Board
action.
August 9, ~978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
390
Agenda Item No. 14. Watershed Management Plan Committee: Proposed Budget for 1978-79.
At the July 12, 1978 meeting, the Board requested that the Watershed Management Plan
Committee, submit a budget to cover the work to be done during 1978-79. Mr. Bailey said
there are two phases of work to be accomplished by the committee. Phase I to be completed
by December 1978 will provide the following: 1) Identification of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. 2) Evaluation and prioritization of these sources. 3) Description
of existing management methods being employed in the watershed. In the second phase, some
work should be done on the monitoring to observe any changes which have occurred in the last
three years since the BETZ study was made. With this monitoring, he felt a better ordinance
could result. Mr. Bailey said the State Water Control Board and the Environmental Protection
Agency feel it desirable to go further than originally intended and to proceed with the
monitoring program. He then presented the following proposed budget for the Watershed
Manageme~nt Plan for August 1978-December 1978:
1. Data Collection -- Field Studies $ 6,000
2. Data Analysis 2,960
3. Project Coordination, Management and Meetings 1,000
4. Management Plan Development 3,700
5. Documentation of Management Plan 3,000
6. Report Production 3,000
7. Expenses--Travel, Field Expenses, Telephone,
Postage, Supplies, Computer Use Fee
2,250
$20,000
Mr...Bailey said $15,000 will come from Federal 208 sources and the $5,000 will be from
local sources split between in-kind services and cash. He said in order to have Federal
funds available for 1979 the budget must be introduced now. Mr. Bailey noted that it ~s not
a commitment to spend and there is no guarantee that the monies will be available, but in
order to be in line for federal funds, the committee has to apply now. The following proposed
1979 budget was then presented:
1. Phase 2 - Completion of Watershed Management Plan $ 6,000
2. Reservoir and Watershed Monitoring program 36,500
3. Development of Runoff Control Ordinance Methodology 60~300
$102,8'00
Federal 208 Share $77,100
Local County - RWSA Share $25,700
(Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority)
Mr. Bailey said approval is requested for the 1978 budget in the amount of $20,000 as
outlined above and approval of the 1979 budget concept in order to preserve funds in the
Environmental Protection Agency program being administered by the State Water Control Board.
Discussion then followed on the local funding. The consensus of the Board was that
City Council should be approached and get their concurrence that the local share should be
through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority so the water consumers of the city could pay
their proportionate share.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the 1978 budget for the Watershed
Management Plan as presented and to approve the 1979 Watershed Management Plan budget concept
and authorize the application for federal funding in the amount of $77,100. 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. !Sa. Central Well Application.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board an application for a central well system for Woverly-
Midway to serve twenty-eight units. The County Engineer's Office has reviewed the plans and
specifications for the system and after testing, have found that the two wells test at
fourteen gallons per minute. Therefore, the County Engineer's Office recommends the approval
of the central well systems. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the central
well systems at Wolverly-Midway for twenty-eight units. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion
~knd §ame~'~ar~i. ed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Authorization to execute agreement for architectural services of
Lane Building. (Deferred from August 2, 1978.)
Mr. Agnor presented the proposal from Stainback and Scribner and said his concern is
whether the professional liability insurance is applicable to each job done by the architects
or to all work in progress. He felt if it is the latter, that coverage should be provided
to this particular job on a separate policy. Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney has recommend
that Article 9--Arbitration be deleted. Mr. Agnor suggested that the agreement be executed
today so that the work is under agreement. The County has the option at a later date to
provide the insurance. Mr. Agnor said once the insurance matter has been resolved the
agreement can be brought back for an amendment. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to
authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement dated July 31, 1978, between the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and Stainback and Scribner, Architects for the renovation of the Lane
High School Building into an Office Building for the County of Albemarle, Preston Avenue and
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia, Job No. 7816. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
3,91.
ourned from August 9,197
August 10, 1978 (Afternoon Meeting--Adj ~
August 9, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting)
At 5:12 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to August 10, 1978 at 4:00
P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building to discuss agenda items they did not
have time to discuss today. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
~HA~RMAN
August 10, 1978 (AFternoon Meeting-Adjourned from
August 9, 1978)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, was
held on August 10, 1978, at 4:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 9, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthon
Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
'OFficers Present:
Attorney.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, County
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval: Proposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Mr. Agnor presented the following TTProposed Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the
Charlottesville Albemarle Urban Water System", received from Mr. E. E. Thompson, Jr.,
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority; same adopted by the Albemarle
County Service Authority on June 8, 1978.
"This plan is a guide to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in
exercising it's responsibility to advise the City and the County when and how
conservation measures should be taken to prevent unwise use of water when the
supply is scarce. This plan is also a guide to the City and the County in
implementing conservation measures that will treat all urban water system users
the same. The curtailment steps are keyed to the percentage of the remaining
raw water in storage. The distribution is based on per capita allotments as
far as possible and on history records in all other cases.
If the total raw water stored drops to 70% of the maximum
usable raw water storage capacity, Plan A shall be in effect
until the total raw water stored returns to 80% of the maximum.
If the total raw water stored drops to 60% of the capacity,
Plan B shall be in effect until the amount stored returns to
70% of the maximum.
If the total raw water stored drops to 45% of the capacity,
Plan C shall be in effect until the amount stored returns to 70%
of the maximum.
If the total raw water stored drops to 30% of the capacity,
Plan D shall be in effect until the amount stored returns to
70% of the maximum.
If the total raw water stored drops to 15% of the capacity,
Plan E shall be in effect until the amount stored returns
to 70% of the maximum.
Plan A--Advise public of shortage and request voluntary conservation. Reduce
the Observatory Plan production to the minimum possible. Increase maintenance
observations at all plants to prevent unexpected breakdowns. Keep customers
advised of status of situation through the news media.
Plan B--Enact an ordinance to reduce water consumption by prohibiting excessive
use of water and by providing apenalty for violations.
Continue Plan A and contact large volume users to request special efforts
toward conservation.
Plan C--Impose a water allotment program with penalty charges for excess use.
Each residential customer will be allowed 70 gallons per capita per day at the
regular billing rates. Ail water used over that amount shall be billed at a
rate of i0 times the regular rate.
Ail customers of other than residential use shall be allowed a base of 90%
of their average monthly consumption for the year preceeding implementation
of Plan A. A penalty charge equal to 10 times the regular rate shall be
charged for all water used above that base.
Continue Plans A & B. Waivers on the basis of hardships and special health
requirements shall be reviewed by the City Manager or the Executive Director