1978-09-06NSeptember 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 6, 1978, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. I. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. He presented to the Board a notice fr~m the State Corporation
Commission for a temporary/permanent rate increase for the Appalachian Power Company.
Local hearings will be held on October 10 and October 11 in Pulaski and Roanoke, Virginia.
This notice will be on file with the Clerk to the Board.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78-37. WESTVACO. For a woodchipping mill (pursuant to
Section 2-1-25(22) of the Zoning Ordinance) on 271.24 acres zoned A-1. Property on north-
east side of Route 600 about 2~8 miles east of Route 29 is bordered on the southeast by the
Southern Railway. County Tax Map 33, Parcel 51, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting the application be
withdrawn. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to allow withdrawal
of the application without prejudice. Roll was called and the motion carried by the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. To amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to provide for
Industrial Park designation. (Deferred from June 21, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Stagf's report and the ordinance as proposed.
On May 3, 1978, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend
the Zoning Ordinance to provide for an industrial park designation. The staff
proposes Article 20: Planned Industrial District (PID) for this purpose. The
PID has been fashioned after the Residential Planned Neighborhood and the Plan~~-
ned Community designations as well as using similar Planned Industrial ~rdinances
from other areas of the state. As with these designations, a binding preliminary
plan would be a part of the approval process.
As opposed to the traditional industrial rezoning process, such considerations as
off-site improvements, performance standards and other special regulations to
protect the character of the area, locations of industrial uses within the PID,
and industrial uses permitted could be addressed at the initial stage of develop-
ment-rezoning. Guidelines and conditions of approval could be established to
insure that proper improvements are made i~ an orderly and timely manner as
development occurs. Since many major concerns such as road ~provements and
protective buffers are established initially, subsequent individual site developers
and purchasers will be aware of many requirements prior to final site plan review.
Therefore, the PID would provide the developer a framework for planning future
development. Likewise, the developer could enjoy a wide range of industrial uses.
Uses permitted in the PID consist of all uses permitted in the Research and
Technical Manufacturing (RTM), Industrial Limited (M-I), and Industrial General
(M-2) zones with only a comparatively few uses requiring special use permit.
As a part of the initial application, the applicant would develop a Transportation
Analysis Plan, which would be reviewed by Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation to determine ultimate road classifications and specifications. In
addition, the PID contains provisions for performance standards, and special setback
and yard regulations which would permit flexibility of development.
ARTICLE 20: PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (PID)
20-1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
20-1-1
The Planned Industrial District (PID) is intended to encourage and provide for
variety and flexibility in land development for industrial purposes, and uses
ancillary thereto, that are necessary to meet those changes in technology and
demand which will be consistent with the best interest of the county and the
area in which it is located. It is also the intent of this district to promote
economical and efficient land use, an improved level of amenities, and appropriate
and harmonious physical development, in accordance with the objectives of the
comprehensive plan.
20-2 APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
20-2-1
The board of supervisors may authorize the establishment of planned industrial
districts after notice and hearing as required by section 15.1-431 of the Code
of Virginia. Such authorization shall be given only to land having a minimum
acreage of ten acres under common ownership or control.
399
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
20-2-2
20-2-3
20-2-4
20-2-5
20-3
20-3-1
Additional land area may subsequently be added to an approved planned industrial
district if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the existing district.
The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application
~ere filed, and all requirements of this section shall apply except the minimum
acreage requirement as specified above.
The applicant shall file an application for rezoning with the zoning administrator,
accompanied by the following information where applicable. Such information
shall be deemed as part of the rezoning application:
(a) Twelve copies of a preliminary plan showing:
(i)
general information including: the name and address of the individual
who prepared the plan; the date of the drawing; north point; scale [not
smaller than one inch equals one hundred feet; for larger tracts, a
scale which may be accommodated on two 36" x 42" matchline sheets]; tax
map and parcel number of the property; vicinity map at a scale not
smaller than one inch equals two miles;
(b)
(c)
(2)
existing conditions including: boundary lines of the property and
departing lot lines of adjoining parcels, owners, zoning, and present
use of adjoining tracts including all main buildings located within
two hundred feet of the subject property lines; street names and state
route numbers; topography at the minimum available USGS contour interval
including slope analysis showing grades of 0-14%; 15-24%; and 25% and
over [color coded on at least one copy of the plan]; natural drainage
channels and easements; water courses and bodies including name and
location; 100-year flood plain limits; existing wooded areas and areas
of vegetative cover; existing public utilities including electrical,
telephone, gas, and oil lines and power substations; public utilities
including water and sewer lines, line sizes, locations of fire hydrants,
manholes, and other such appurtenances;
(3)
general layout of what is proposed including: summary of land uses by
areas and category in accordance with section 20-3; [land uses to be
color coded on at least one copy of plan]~ general road alignments with
proposed right-of-way widths including adjacent and internal roads;
general alignment of sidewalks and pedestrian ways if proposed; general
water layout plan indicating the size and location of mainlines and the
locations of fire hydrants and other appurtenances; general sanitary
sewer layout indicating the size and location of trunk lines, location
of pump stations and manholes and other appmrtenances; general storm
sewer layout indicating ~he location and sizes of lines and culverts;
landscape plan for the o.s. category including a master landscaping
scheme and type of plantings, buffer areas, berming, and protective
and/or ornamental fencing. The phasing of improvements enumerated in
this section shall be indicated on the plan.
Five copies of a transportation analysis plan showing: projected automobile
and truck traffic generation; percent of truck traffic by type (van;
single-axle, dual-wheel; dual-axle, dual wheel, etc.); internal and
aceess-point turning movements; general alignment of internal roads;
rights-of-way widths and roadway typical sections including base strength
designs; proposed improvements to existing transportation network; percentage
estimate of traffic distribution to and from the site on external roads; bus
and car pool programs, if any.. The phasing of improvements enumerated in
this section shall be indicated on the plan.
Two copies of a boundary survey of the subject property prepared by a
certified land surveyor' including accurate locations of proposed access to
existing public roads and landmarks sufficient to properly identify .the
property.
The staff of the county shall review the application for rezoning and the
preliminary plans as submitted by the applicant, evaluate the proposed Project
and present its recommendations for necessary utilities and other facilities to
protect other uses within the area. No approval shall be given of any such
rezoning and preliminary plan until the recommendations of the staff have been
considered by the planning commission after studying the characteristics of the
area in which the proposed development is to be located.
Following the staff review hereinabove required, the planning commission and
board of supervisors shall review and act on the application in accordance with
the provisions of article 14 of this ordinance. In the event that the board of
supervisors shall approve the application, either as submitted or with modifi-
cations, such approved application shall control the subsequent development of
the site. Thereafter, prior to any development, the applicant shall submit
final .site development plans in keeping with the approved preliminary plan and
in conformance with article 17 of this ordinance and with chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code.
USES PERMITTED
In the preliminary plan, land may be shown for any of the following categories.
Upon approval of the preliminary plan, unless such uses are Otherwise provided
in this article, uses permitted within a category shall be by right in that area
so designated in the plan:
(a)
CATEGORY I shall consist of uses permitted by right in ~rticle 7a:
Research and Technical Manufacturing District (RTM), and Article 8:
Limited Industrial District (M-I);
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
4O
20-3-2
20-4
20-4-1
20-4-2
20-5
20-5-1
20-6
20-6-1
20-6-2
20-6-3
20-7
20-7-1
(b)
(c)
CATEGORY II shall consist of uses permitted in Category I, plus uses permitted
by right and by special use permit in Article 7A: Research and Technical
Manufacturing District (RTM), and Article 8: Limited Industrial District (M-l);
CATEGORY III shall consist of uses permitted in Categories I and II, plus
uses permitted by right and by special use permit in Article 9: General
Industrial District (M-2); provided that uses permitted by special use permit
in Article 9 shall be allowed only by special use permit with such conditions
as may be imposed pursuant to section 11-13;
(d)
CATEGORY OS shall consist of open space as defined by section 16-65.1 of
this ordinance. Open space shall consist of not less than ~en percent of the
area included in the preiiminary plan. In the planning Category OS, special
consideration shall be given to the preservation of existing wooded areas in
a natural state.
The following uses shall be allowed by special use permit only in Categories II
and III, unless otherwise provided herein:
(a)
Public Utilities: Public water and sewer transmissions: main or trunk lines
and treatment facilities, pumping stations; electrical power transmission and
distribution substations, transmission lines and towers, generating plants;
oil and gas transmission lines, pipelines and pumping stations; microwave
radio wave transmission and relay towers and substations. Guch uses may be
permitted by special use permit in Categories OS and I in addition to Categorie
II and III;
(b) Airports, helistops
(c) Go-cart and trail bike tracks
(d) Veterinary or dog or cat hospitals, kennels
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Processes and equipment employed, and materials or goods used in manu£acture
and/or storage shall be limited to those which are not objectionable at the
property line, without the use of detection instruments, of each individual lot
by reason of odor, dust, smoke,, fumes, noise, vibration, refuse matter or
water-carried waste.
Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit to the county
engineer as a part of final site development plan approval, a qualified engineer's
report describing the proposed operation, all machines, processes, products and
by-products, stating the nature and expected levels of emission or discharge to
land, air and/or water or liquid, solid, or gaseous effluent and electrical
impulses and noise under normal operations, and the specifications of treatment
methods and mechanisms to be used to control such emission or discharge. The
county engineer shall review the appliaant's submittal and make comment and
recommendation prior to final commission action on the site plan.
AREA REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum area requirements for permitted uses, except as herein
otherwi~e expressly provided. In the case of any parcel served by either a
central sewer system or a central water supply, there shall be provided a minimum
area of forty thousand square feet per commercial or industrial establishment or
per dwelling unit, as the case may be. In the case of any parcel, served by neither
a central sewer system nor a central water supply, the minimum area shall be sixty
thousand square feet'; and provided further that, in the case of unusual soil
conditions or other physi'cal factor's whfch may impair the'health 'and safety of the
neighborhood, upon' the irec'omimendation' of the 'Virginia Department of Health, the
planning commission~ may inc.rease 'the 'area requirements 'for' uses utilizing other
than a public se~.e.r, sy-at:em.
SETBACK AND YARD REGULATIONS
Adjacent to public streets: Ail structures except signs advertising sale or rent
of the property shall be located fifty feet or more from any street right-of-way.
No off-street parking' or loading space shall be permitted within twenty-five feet
of any street right-of-way.
Adjacent to agricultural and residential districts: No structure shall be located
closer than fifty feet to any residential or agricultural district; provided that
the planning commission may increase such distance in order to protect the
character of the adjoining district. No off-street parking or loading space shall
be closer than fifty feet to any residential or agricultural district.
Special setback and yard requirements: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
commission may in the review of any final site plan, vary the requirements of
section 20-6-1 and 20-6-2 in any case in which it shall find that such variation
will better promote the purposes of this ordinance.
HEIGHT REGULATIONS
Buildings may be erected to a height of sixty feet. For buildings over sixty feet
in height, approval shall be obtained from the planning commission at time of
final site plan approval. Chimneys, flues, cooling towers, flag poles, radio or
communication towers or their accessory facilities are excluded from this
limitation. Parapet walls are permitted up to four feet above the limited height
of the building on which the walls rest. Additional height limitations for uses
in the vicinity of an airport may be established by the planning commission upon
401
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
20-8
FLOOR AREA, BUILDING, AND DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE REGULATIONS
20-8-1
Floor area: The maximum gross floor area for an individual lot shall not exceed
forty percent of the gross lot area. For the purposes of this section, parking
and loading areas within buildings and floor area of accessory buildings shall not
be considered in floor area calculations.
20-8-2
Building coverage: The maximum building coverage, including parking and loading
areas within buildings and that area covered by accessory buildings, for ~an
individual lot shall not exceed fifty percent of the gross lot area.
2O-8-3
Devel0Pment..coverase: The maximum area co~ered by main and accessory buildings,
outside storage, loading areas, parking lots, driveways and access aisles for an
individual lot shall not exceed eighty percent of the lot area.
20-8-4
Any parcel not subdivided shall be considered a single lot for the purposes of
section 20-8.
20-9
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
20-9-1
Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as setforth in article 11-7 of
this ordinance.
20-10 SIGN REGULATIONS
20-10-1 Sign regulations shall be as setforth in section 15A-7 of this ordinance.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at their meeting of July 18, 1978, by
unanimous vote, recommended approval of this ordinance as read.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one from the public wished to speak
either for or against this 0r~'~nc~:, and Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing.
Dr. Iachetta felt sections 20-3-1 and 20-4-2 w~re contradictory to each other, and
that the P.I.D. does no more than create a "super" M-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said he felt all
areas were covered by the requirement of performance standards which must be met and
approved by the County Engineer. Mr. St. John suggested adding the statement "provided
they meet the performance standards set out in Section 20-4" after "by right in that area
so designated in the plan". Dr. Iache~ta also felt the word "engineer" should be qualified
to read "registered engineer".
Mr. Fisher noted that there seemed to be too many areas which still needed work, and
suggested a work session. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,
to defer action to September 20, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. in the County Office Building Board
Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 to establish zoning inspection
fees and to require notification by the developer to the Zoning Administrator for phased
site inspections. (Deferred from August 2, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the proposed changes:
Purpose:
To provide better coordination and efficiency of site inspections
during construction to insure compliance with approved site plans.
This amendment places the burden of site inspection scheduling on the developer
and is intended to provide for timely inspections as the site is developed.
Time and money will be saved by both the County and developer through this
more efficient inspection process. A nominal site inspection fee would be
charged for each site visit to offset costs to the County.
17-6-4
Ail county and state officers and employees responsible for the super-
vision and enforcement of this article shall have the right to enter
upon the property at all reasonable times during the period of con-
struction for the purpose of making periodic inspections for compliance
with this article. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to
notify the zoning administrator when each stase of the development shall
be ready for inspection for compliance with the approved site plan in
accordance with schedules and regul~ations promulgated by the zoning
administrator.
17-6-6 [substitution for existing language of 17-6-6]
(a) The developer shall pay to the County a fee for the examination and
approval or disapproval of site development plans submitted pursuant to
this article, such fees to be paid one half ~t the time of filing of the
plan and the remainder prior to final approval. Such fee shall be
calculated as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
less than 5 acres - $ 50.00
5-10 acres - $ 75.00
more than 10 acres - $100.00 plus $1.00 for each acre in excess
of 10 acres.
(b) In addition, for site plan field inspections as the site is developed,
the developer shall pay to the County a fee as prescribed by the fee
schedule of the Building Inspections Department.
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
402
Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission on July 25 heard this request and
returned same for further staff work. He read the following:
Additional Staff Comment (August 22~ 1978)
This item was deferred by the Planning Commission so the Zoning Administrator
could develop a schedule of inspections which in his opinion are necessary to
insure compliance with approved plans. Also, concern was expressed over fhe
"per inspection" method of charging fees. After further discussion by Plan-_-
ning, Zoning, and Building Inspections, the "per inspection" approach is
recommended as the most equitable approach at this time.
"To:
Re:
Date:
Planning Commission
c/o Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning
Resolution of Intent
Amend Section 17-6-4 and 17-6-6
August 14, 1978
It is my understanding from listening to the Commission's discussion on the
above items that the Zoning Administrotor's input is requested.
Regarding the proposed amendment to 17-6-4, my only input is that this amend-
ment provides the only practical administrative way for the ZoniNg Administrator
or for his inspectors to keep abreast with continuing site plan compliance before
non-compliance occurs. Present levels of construction prevent my staff from
keeping a day to day guard over site plan development.
Regarding the concern as to fees, I believe a comprehensive fee for site plan
inspections can be charged to help defray the costs of inspections. As to the
amount of fee, this should be determined by administrative staff's analysis,
taking into consideration vehicular trips and man-power hours expended on
inspections. This would require study and time. This may take a year's time
in order to evaluate the difference between commercial, industrial and
residential development as well as by acreage.
Therefore, at this time, after further discussion by Building, Planning and Zoning,
the "per inspection" approach to fees is recommended. The Director of Inspections
will propose to the Board of Supervisors a $10.00 per .inspection fee billable at
the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The critic~l inspections for site plan compliance requiring mandatory notices by
the contractor or developer to the Zoning Administrator or his staff are as follows:
1) Laying of foundation of main and accessory structures.
2) Laying of surface water drainage p~pes and culverts (as
to size and location).
3) Laying of sub-surface stone for parking or entrance
(checking proper depth before final surfacing).
4) Final site inspection before requesting a certificate or
temporary certificate of occupancy (48 hours prior notice
is requested).
Ail ~f the above noted inspections requested by the contractor or developer will be
made not more than 24 hours after requested by the developer or as soon as possible
after the inspection is requested."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on August 22, 1978 recommended by a Tote of
6 to 3 approval of the language as submitted by the staff, but' adding the words "and as
approved by the Board of Supervisors" at the end of Section 17-6-4. Board members questioned
if the inspector, s. would be abIe 'to handle this possible increase in calls, and also if
they would be able to kisit the construction sites within a 24 to 48 hour period of time.
Mr. Fisher opened the pubZic hearing, and first to speak was Ms. Susie ~Sherwood,
representing the League of Women Voters, who read the following statement:
"September 6, 1978
To:
Re:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Resolution of Intent to amend Sections 17-6-4 and 17-6-6 of the Zoning
Ordinance to establish zoning inspection fees and to require notification
by the developer to the zoning administrator for phasedsite inspections.
Two years ago there was virtually no inspection in Albemarle County.
The League of Women Voter~ approves the efforts county officials have made to
tighten inspection procedures and enforce ordinances in the last two years.
Considering all the other responsibilities the zoning inspectors have, it seems
only logical to ensure the best possible use of their time ~y requiring the
developer to notify the department whan~he~is ready for inspections. This re-
quirement is necessary if we are to avoid the hit or miss enforcement that has been
all too common in the past. The public needs some assurance that t~ere will be no
other situations such as occurred at Shoppers World when asphalt was laid on bare
ground with no underlying stone whatsoever. What we are worried about is what we
cannot see.
It appears to us that inspection fees are a justifiable obligation of the developer
and that such fees should cover the cost of the inspections so that the general
public does not subsidize commercial d~velopment~.
The League. questions whether there is sufficient staff to adequately inspect and
enforce the ordinances which have been added to the books since 1975. These ordinances
are of no value unless tbev ~.~e ~f~a~d_
4O3
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Susie Sherwood, President
Margaret Melcher, Second Vice-president, County
Treva Cromwell, Environmental Quality
Babs Huckle, Land Use"
Mr. Fisher next read a letter dated September 6, 1978 from Mr. Preston Stallings.
"September 5, 1978
Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
417 E. Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Zoning Inspection and Fee Ordinance
Dear Ms. Neher:
On behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, we would appreciate your
conveying to the Board of Supervisors our request that the above mentioned item
scheduled to be heard on September 6, 1978 be deferred.
Members of our Association are scheduled to meet with Benjamin Dick and the
Planning staff on Thursday, September 14th, in an effort to revise the proposed
ordinance in a manner which will be satisfactory to all concerned.
We believe the meeting will result in an ordinance that we can, at least partially,
support.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
Preston O. Stallings
President"
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to defer this public hearing until October 4, 1978', at
which time he hoped a more acceptable ordinance could be worked out with the builders
associations and the inspections department. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
A~ES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-78-40. Curtis and Carolyn Byers. For a duplex on 2.0 acres
zoned A-1. (Pursuant to Section 2-1-25(34) of the Zoning Ordinance.) Property on northeast
corner at intersection of Routes 712 and 760. County Tax Map 87, Parcel 35E, Samuel Miller
District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
Character of the Area
This property is undeveloped and open. Several small parcels exist in this area.
Comprehensive Plan
The property is located within the North Garden area designated as a larger Type 1
Village in the Comprehensive Plan. The plan recommends that duplex development at
a density of one unit per acre is appropriate to the village scale.
Staff Comment
The applicant proposes to construct a rental duplex on this property. The applicant
lives on an adjoining parcel 46. Staff opinion is that this request complies with
the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Four off-street parking spaces;
2. Health Department approval;
3. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Tucker noted that by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission, on August 1, 1978,
recommended to approve this request with the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Fisher said there is a discrepancy in the ordinance when it allows duplex homes on
a minimum of 60,000 square feet if built in a zone other than the A-1 when they are allowed~o~
by special permit in an A-1 zone. Mr. Roudabush said a duplex with one well and one septic
system requires less land than two single-family homes with two wells and two septic systems,
and is more easily accommodated on the two-acre lot.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Curtis Byers
who said he wished to build on this iland for the extra income. He also noted that the Healt~
Department said there would be no problem with installing a septic system to meet thair
requirements.
No onsz else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Ly
SePtember 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
It was the consensus of the Board that the special permit could not be denied Mr.
Byers because of an inconsistency in the zoning ordinance. Motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the request for a special permit with the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote~
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and RQudabush.
Nmne.
Mr. Fisher restated his concern that the land area for a duplex was inconsistent in
an A-1 zone compared to all other zones in the County. He suggested the possibility of
sending to the Planning Commission a resolution of intent to correct this inconsistency.
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Tucker when the revised zoning ordinance was scheduled to be
presented for public work'sessions. Mr. Tucker said some time in the early part of October.
It was therefore agreed that it would take the same time to correct the situation no matter
which method was used. The Board thereby decided to leave the wording in the ordinance
as it presently stands', and look into changing the language regarding acreage for duplexes
at the time of public work sessions on the new zoning ordinance.
Agenda Item No.. 6. ZMA=78-12. Randall W. Barnett. To rezone 27.0 acres from A-1
to M-1 Industrial Limited. Property (previously the City Landfill) is in northwest quadrant
of Route 742 and 1-64. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 11 (part thereof). Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23 and August 30, 1978.)
Mr. Roudabush disqualified himself from discussion and vote.
Mr. Tucker read the county planning staff's report:
Character of the Area
This site is the former sanitary landfill. Interstate 64, the Joint Security
Complex, and the National Guard are to the south. Hamilton Paper Company and
Ridge Electronics are to the east. Single-family dwellings and mobile homes
are to the north. Property to the west has been approved for the Willoughby
Planned Community. James River Supply is also to the west.
Comprehensive Plan
This property, municipally-oWned at plan adoption, is recommended for open
space, park, and institutional use in the Comprehensive Plan. Industrial,
open space, and high density residential uses are shown in the area.
Priority Factors - Comprehensive Plan
This property does not receive priority ranking on the Comprehensive Plan
checklist since it is not within one-half mile of a major t~ansportation
facility. Access to Route 20 and 1-64 would be by circuitou~ route through
residential areas of the City. In comment on the County Comprehensive Plan
in August, 1977, the City Council and Planning Commission made the following
statement:
"We recommend improvement of Avon Street South' to give an
outlet for east-west traffic to 1-64 for industrial and
commercial traffic without going through the City's
residential area."
Staff Comment
Staff makes the .additional following observations with respec't 'to this petition:
1. Fully developed, this property .c~ou'ld house'300'iemPloyees' 'and generate an
additional 880 vehi'cle itrips per day to Avon Street Extended'.
2. Much of the siteJis probably unbuildable ~ue to unconsolidated fill;
Due to the generation of gas from the fill area there will likely be
danger of explosion and fire.
The applicant proposes to locate a farm machinery business in a 6000 square foot
building at the northern end of this property. Should the Commission and ~Board
choose to approve this petition, staff recommends that only that area for the
proposed bu~ness be rezoned.
A recent problem has be~n the disposition of properties owned by other governments
in Albemarle County. M~st governmentally-owned properties are shown for
institutional uses in the Comprehensive Plan. An analysis of alternative uses
should be made and the County afforded the opportunity to amend the Comprehensive
Plan accordingly thFough the public hearing process prior to such sales.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on August 29, 1978, recommended that an
area consisting of approximately 168,000 square feet (3.86 acres) be rezoned from A-1 to M-1.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Jack Kegley,
representing the applicant. He noted that much of the surrounding property is already
zoned M-I. He said it is south of the City, and would create needed jobs for many of the
unemployed who live on that end of the County. He also said it would create more tax revenue
if the entire lot were rezoned M-1 now. He concluded by saying Mr. Barnett has an agreement
with the City of Charlottesville whereby they will monitor the land for gas buildups every
six months for a period of five years, and longer if traces of gas arise.
405
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Fisher noted having attended a conference on Solid Waste, where it was the general
opinion that former landfill areas were best suited for parks and non-populous uses~ He
also reiterated the statements in the staff report saying that they did not recommend
building on certain areas of the former landfill because the land was nOt fully compacted
and hazards of explosion and fire from gas deposits was likely.
Mr. Dorrier said he would support the rezoning because it would be making better use
of the land ~han at present, and he has also checked with neighboring property owners who
have no objections to the rezoning to M-1.
Dr. Iachetta said the gas problem is not something that~will last only five years.
He noted that initially the gas is methane which is explosive, but that in later years
it becomes CO2 which causes the land above the gas deposit to collapse~ This would be
detrimental to any structure built over it. He then asked Mr. Barnett if the 3.86 acres
was adequate to construct the New Holland Industries. Mr. Barnett said yes, it would be
sufficient.
Mr. Lindstrom said he could approve the 9.86 acres now, but not the entire acreage
requested, as there is only a limited amount of M-1 land allowed to baarezoned each year
in the Comprehensive Plan, and this would use up a great amount of that quota.
At 9:25 P,M., Mr. Fisher requested a brief rece~ss.~ Meeting was reconvened at 9:33 P.M.
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the rezoning of ZMA-78-12ofrom A-1 to M-I,
300 feet perpendicular from the right-of way of Route 742 and running parallel to Route 742
on Tax Map 77, Parcel 11; from the northernmost boundary, parcel 10, to Interstate R~ute I-6l
for a total of 1,340.75 feet ending along the southernmost boundary of the parcel along 1-64
owned by the State Highway Department. 1,340.75 feet is a total of 366 feet + 883 feet +
91.07 feet which is the length as indicated on a plat of William S. Roudabush dated
August 2, 1978. The motion was seconded by'Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom and Dr. Iachetta both said they could not support the motion because
there is already too much M-1 zoning in the County which is not suitable industrial ~a~d.
Mr. Agnor noted that when he worked for the City as Director of Public Works, the
landfill was one of his responsibilities. He stated with authority that the distance of
~irgin soil from Route 742 was a minimum of 150 feet, but averaged about 200 feet, with a
maximum of around 300 feet.
Roll was then called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. St. John suggested that the area approved for rezoning be shaded and noted on a
plat for the record.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-78-60. The Jaycees and Charles W. Hurt. For an annual event
(circus) on 11.67 acres zoned B-1. Property on the south side of Route 250 'East about 600
feet south of Locust Grove and behind the~m0bile home and u~ed car sales lot. County Tax
Map 78, Parcel 7D, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 25 and
August 31, 1978.)
Mr. Tucke~ read tha.Connty .Pla'nning Staff's report:
Character of the Area
This area is predominately zoned and developed in business uses.
dwellings are in the vicinity, of the zite~.'
Four single'family
Staff Comment
The Jaycees propose an annual one-day circus event on this site.
that this temporal use would not disrupt the area.
Staff Opinion is
Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission, by unanimous vote on September 5, 1978,
recommended approval with four conditions as follows:
Ail signs, both on and off-site, advertising the circus, and all trash from
Route 250 to the site, shall be removed within 48 hours after the event;
Notification in writing to the Sheriff and the Rescue Squad 30 days prior to
the event;
3. Health Department approval of food services and restroom facilities;
4. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Dorrier said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this item as he is
a member of the Jaycees.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. Mr. David Konopelski representing the
Jaycees was present, but had ~o comments to make to the Board. No one else wished to speak
either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Motion for approval with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iache~ta and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 8. To rezone all properties owned by the County of Albemarle,
University of Virginia, Shenandoah National Park and George Washington National Forest,
lying within the watershed area of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir from their present
classifications to the CVN-Conservation District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 23 and August 30, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report:
On June 14, 1978, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to rezone
all properties owned by the County of Albemarle, University of Virginia, Shenandoah
National Park, and the George Washington National Forest lying within the watershed
area of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir from their present classifications to
the CVN-Conservation District classification.
Comprehensive~Plan
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the "purposes of conservation are related to
environmental elements involving water quality hydrology, air quality, and minerals."
The Plan goes further to outline those categories where conservation practices should
be applied. They include hillsides, flood hazard area~, woodlands, and impo~undment
watersheds.
Staff Comment
Due to the vast acreages involved, staff recommendations are based on available data
(U.S.G.S. maps, Army Corps of Engineers flood plain delineation, SCS serial
photography, etc.) rather than a complete field investigation. Staff deleted~from
consideration those properties which would become non-conforming or require special
use permits under the CVN designation such as the City-County landfill and existing
schools. Staff has found that the following properties substantially conform to the
criteria for a Conservation designation as se~forth in the Comprehensive Plan and
recommend their inclusion in the CVN District:
Albemarle County
Mint Springs Park
Beaver Creek Reservoir
Tax Map~ Parcel Acres
55-28
5Z-4 218.71
University of Virginia
University of Va. Endowment Fund
45-65 34.67
Federal
Blue Ridge Parkway
United States of America
Shenandoah National Park
53-4 19.45
38-2 273.59
24-2 14~,891.00
TOTAL 15,892.88
In addition to these properties, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries owns
88.08 acres (Tax Map 41A-72) at Lake Albemarle appropriate to the CVN designation.
About 10 acres, belonging to the' City of Charlottesville at Lake Alb'emarle, has
already received Conservation designation.
Mr. Tucker noted that the'Planning Commission, at their meeting on August 1, 1978, by
a vote'of 6-1, recommended approval of a rezoning of the properties listed in the staff's
report. (Land at Albemarle 'Lake h~s not' been advertise'd for a pubIic hearing, therefore
cannot be considered tonight.)
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Ms. Susie Sherwood
representing the League of Women Voters~aid they supported the change of zone to Conser-
vation.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against th!A~'rezoning and Mr.
Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Motion was promptly offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the
recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve the rezoning to conservation. Roll
was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virg$~ia,
does hereby state its intent to rezone 88.08 acres (Tax Map 4lA, Parcel 72) at
Lake Albemarle owned by the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries lying within
the watershed area of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir and property owned
by the County of Albemarle at the Totier Creek Park lying within the Totier Creek
Impoundment watershed from their present classifications to the CVN-Cunservation
District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is
hereby directed to hold public hearings on this matter and to return a recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
407
SePtember 6, ~.978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindst~om and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution of Intent to amend the R-2 Residential and R-3
Residential zones to provide for the subdivision of duPlexes. (Advertised on AuguSt 23
and August 30, 1978~!n the Daily Progress.)
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff's report:
At staff request, the Planning commission adopted this resolution on July 18,
1978. These amendments would serve to clarify and simplify regulations governing
subdivision of two-family dwelling lots.
5-4-1
5-4-2
For a e&~&e-~am&~-~we&~&~ permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less
in height served by both a p~* central sewer system and a p~&, central
water supply the minimum lot width at the setback line shall be sixty-five
(65) feet or more.a~&-~e~-eae~-a~&e~a&-~e~m&~e&-~ee-~e~e-e~a~-~e-a~
&eae$-$e~-4&e$-¢ee~-a6S&~&e~a~-&e~-w&~$~-a~-~e-ee~ae~-&&~e= A two-family
dwelling may be subdivided along the common fire separation wall~ provided
that the combined lot widths at the setback line of the resulting lots
shall be sixty-five (65) feet or more.
For a e&~g~e-~am&~-~we&~&~ permitted use thirty-five (35) feet or less
in height served by other than a ~, central sewer system and a ~$~,
central water supply, the minimum width at the setback line shall be eighty
(80)' feet or more.w&~h-~e~-~-a&&&~&e~a~-~ee~-e~-~e~-w~h-~e~-eaeh
a44&~&e~a~-~e~m~$$e4-~e= A two-family dwelling may be subdivided al'ong
the common fire separation wall; prokided that the combined lot widths at
the setback line of the resulting lots shall be eighty (80) feet or more.
6-4-1
For a permitted uses., thirty-five (35) feet or less in height, served by
both a ~&e central 2ewer system and a p~, central water supply, the
minimum lot width at the setback line shall be sixty-five (65) feet or more.
a~-~e~-eaeA-a~A~&e~a&-pe~m~e~-~ee-~Ae~e-eAa~-be-a~-~eae~-~e~-~-~ee~
~e-~e~&~e~½a~-~e~e~ee-e~e~e~e~ A two-family dwelling may ~e subdivided
along the common fire separation wall~ provided that the combined Zot widths
at the setback line of the resulting lots shall be sixty-five (65) feet or
more.
6-4-2
For a permitted use~, thirty-five (35) feet or less in height served by other
than a ~&~e central sewer system and a ~e central water supply, the
minimum lot width at the setback line shall be eight (80) feet or more,..a~
~e~-eae~-a~&~&e~a&-pe~m&~e~-~ee-~Ae~e-e~a~-be-a~-~eae~-~e~-~-~ee~-a~-
&e~a~-~e~-w&~-a~-~e-ee~ae~-~&~e~--~&e-~e~a~&e~-e~a~-~e~-a~p~-~e
~ee&6e~$&a&-$e~a~e~ee-e~e~e~e= A two-family dwelling may be subdivided
along the common fire separation wall; provided that the combined lot widths
at the setback line o'f the resu'l'ting lots shall be eighty (80) feet' or more.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at their meeting of August 22, 1978, by
unanimous vote, recommended approval of these ameadments.
Mr. Fisher and Dr. Iaohetta both noted that this could only apply to a side-by-side
type duplex, separated by a horizontal fire wall.
Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, but no one, either for or against, wished to
speak. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Board members expressed concern that this would increase vehicular traffic and/or
basic density. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John what course of action could be taken if
structural damage occurs to the mutually-owned fire wall, whose responsibility would it be t¢
repair. Mr. St. John said this could be handled in some type of mutual homeowners agreement.
Following considerable discussion regarding lot widths, motion was offered by Dr.
Iachetta to adopt the proposal as recommended with two changes: first, change section 5-4-1
setback from 65 feet to 75 feet and 6-4.~the same way. No second was received to Dr.
Iachetta's motion. Following considerable discussion regarding the required lot size, Dr.
Iachetta amended his motion requesting the County Attorney to draft an ordinance which will
preserv~ the current lot widths, but will still allow the division of the property, and
defer action until September 20, 1978, at 2:00 P~.M. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item. No. 10. Discussion: Employees Health Insurance.
Mr. Agnor read his memorandum dated August 31, 1978 as follows:
Two years ago during budget meetings, you directed me to examine the dis-
parity between the health insurance benefits for School employees and the
benefits to all other County employees, and determine the method and costs to
equalize the two.separate plans. I discussed the matter with Mr. McClure and
the County's insurance carrier, and agreed to collect this information at the
next bidding of the School contract for this coverage.
September.6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
4O8
The two plans differ essentially in the amounts paid for hospital room
charges and doctor's fees. The School plan pays the first $3000 of a hospital
bill, and 80% of all expenses over that amount. The County plan pays for a
semi-private room for a stay up to 365 days. The School plan pays 80% of a
doctor's fees. The County plan pays all of a doctor's customary fee. Both
plans have $250,000 maximums.
Bids were solicited and received in early August on three rate schedules
for a plan equal to the contract currently provided to County general govern-
ment employees. The three schedules are:
1,
County general government employees with 245 subscribers, 121 of
which purchase family coverage, and 10 of which purchase family
with one minor only coverage.
School division employees with 1047 subscribers, 284 of which
purchase family coverage, and none of which have purchased family
with one minor only coverage because it has not been available.
3. A combination contract of 1 and 2.
Examining the costs of the County, cost to the Employee, and total cost,
Blue Cross ~ the lower bid in every category. Examining further the separate
contracts versus a combined contract, the separate contract is lower in total
cost by $4859, and in employee w/family cost by $11,283 but higher in County
costs by $6030 and higher in employee w/one minor by $394. Examining these
differences even further, you will note the following:
County Costs:
The School division is $20,311 cheaper in a separate contract, while
the County general government is $26,342 cheaper in a combined contract.
Employee w/Family ~Paid by Employees)
The School division employee will pay $13,461 less in a separate
contract, while other County employees will pay $2178 less in a combined
contract. Annual costs per employee enrolled with this coverage is $47.40
in the School divisions and $18.00 in other departments.
Employees w/one Minor (Paid by Employees)
The School division has no such coverage. It is estimated that 40
to 50 school employees would enroll for this coverage. Other employees
will pay $394 less for a combined contract, or $39.40 annually per
employee enrolled with this coverage.
Blue Cross offers groups of 300 or more three options for purchasing
insurance. (1) A guaranteed risk which provides that at the end of a contract
year, any losses incurred by Blue Cross in the payments of claims over and
above the income derived from the contract, will be absorbed by Blue Cross.
Any profits will be retained. Cost for this option is 855 per employee per
month. (2) A self-insured method with settlement at the end of a contract
year which provides that any losses will be paid by the group, or any profits
will be refunded to the group. (3) A modified option of (1) and (2) in which
any losses will be recovered in adjusted rates, and any profits will be used
to reduce rates, or retained in the group's account in whole or in part for
minimizing the impact of a ~ubsequent year's loss. If the contract is cancelled
or not renewed, option (2)' would apply.
Conclusions:
The objective of eqlu'alizing health insurance benefits for all County
employees has boent met'.
The average age of School employees is younger than other employees.
Therefore, combining into a single group contract improves only the
costs associated with employees of the County general government.
The rates are quoted on the experience of two separate contracts.
Health insurance is experience rated on an annual basis. The
principle on which any insurance coverage is based is to spread the
risk over the largest base possible. The combined group should
therefore offer everyone concerned the advantages of the broadest
base on which future experience rates are calculated.
Recommendations:
1. That a combined contract for all 1292 employees be purchased.
That the additional cost to School division employees ($13,461) be
shifted to the County's costs.
That the rates thus established by this shift be appliaable to all
employees, and be the basis for the ratio of the rates paid by the
County as employer, and those paid by employees who choose to provide
coverage for their one minor or multiple family members.
That future increases or decrease~ in these rates be borne equally by
the County and its employees by applying the percentage change to all
rates.
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
That appropriations for FY 79 for the additional costs to the County
be made from the insurance reserve account presently held by the School
Division's carrier which is to be returned to the County General Fund:
FY 79 Budget Appropriation for Health Insurance:
General Fund
School Fund
Total
$ 42,000
154,400
$196,400
Estimated Cost for Contract
Deficit
243,000
$ 46,600
Estimated Refund from Insurance Reserve $50,000
That the Superintendent of Schools and the County ExecUtive review the
contract annually with recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and
School Board for considering annual bidding.
Mr. Agnor noted that the recommended plan was supported by the School Board by a split
vote. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to accept the recommenda-
tion of the County Executive. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
A)
B)
C)
D)
Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments.
Mr. Fisher recommended the appointment to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
be carried over to the next meeting.
Mr. Fisher recommended the appointment to the Manpower Planning Council be carried
over to the next meeting.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by~-,Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mrs.
Jacquelyn N. Huckle to the Advisory Council on Aging; term to expire on June 1, 1980.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher recommended-the appointment to the Welfare Board be carried over to the
next meeting.
Agenda Item No. 12. Set Date to meet with the Highway Department. Mr. Roudabush
offered motion to set 3:30 P.M. on September 20, 1978, as the date to meet with the Highway
Department to discuss Route 29 North. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to sign contract for VHDA Section 8 Rental Program. Mr.
Agnor presented the new contract for' the Virginia Housing Development Authority, saying the
only change from last year's contract is 'a rate'of $12~00 per month 'for-~each 'unit 'on which
a Housing Assistance Payments Contract is in. effect for' any given month, rather than the
original contract amount of $7.85. (This fee covers cost of administration' of this program..
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, authorizing the County
Executive to sign the contract renewal dated May l, 1978. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution app$inting attorney to search title for Nature
Conservancy property. Mr. Agnor read his memo dated September 6, 1978.
The long awaited approval by the Commission of Outdoor Recreation for the
purchase of the Rann Preserve has been received. The County and City have agreed
by joint resolution to provide up to $70,000 each for the purchase and development
of the project. An appropriation for that amount has been made in the County's
capital budget.
To complete the purchase, three actions are required:
1. Appoint Mr. James Bowling, I~ty County Attorney, to examine the title.
2. Authorize the Chairman of the Board to acceptc~-o.nveyance of the property.
Appropriate an additional $37,000 to the already appropriated $70,000 as
a loan to the project in order for the Director of Finance to disburse
$107,000 at time of deed conveyance, which will be the County's share of
one-half of the approved $214,000 appraised value of the land. Having
consumated, the purchase, the County will be refunded in six to eight
weeks an amount of $50,000 from the Commission of Outdoor Recreation which
represents one-half of the $100,000 to be granted the project from State
September 6, 1978 (Regular~Night Meeting)
and Federal funds. An additional refund of between $16,000 and $16,500
will be received by the County at time of deed conveyance from the
Nature Conservancy which is one-half of a $33,000 fund which the Conser-
vancy has pledged to the project, less interest charges which they are
carrying at $25.08 per diem. The net County disbursement for property
acquisition is therefore:
Disbursement
$107,000
COR Refund
Conservancy Refund
Net
50,000
16,000 or 16,500
$ 41,000 or 40,500
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
appointing attorney to examine title to certain real estate and authorizing
the Chairman on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Al'bemarle County to
accept such real estate.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as
follows:
James M. Bowling, IV, a competent and discreet attorney at law, is
hereby appointed to examine the title to certain tracts of real estate in
Albemarle County, Virginia:
First -
Those two certain tracts or parcels of land totaling 62.301
acres, more or less, which were acquired by The Nature Con-
servancy by deed of Joseph W. Richmond and Joseph W. Richmond,
Jr., administrator, C.T.A., of the estate of Mary Carr Greer,
deceased, dated November 19, 1975, recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in
Deed Boo~ 587, page 50, less and excepting a certain tract or
parcel of land containing 1.924 acres heretofor conveyed by
the Nature Conservancy to W. Bedford Moore, III, and Jane
Tarleton Moore, husband and wife, by deed dated January 3,
1978, recorded in the Clerk's Office in the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 640, page 73.
Second - That certain tract or parcel of land containing 18.32 acres,
more or less, acquired by the Nature Conservancy by deed of
E~angeline Greer Jones and Hinton Jones, her husband, by
deed dated November 19, 1975, recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~ Deed
Book 587, page 655.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board, is hereby authorized
in behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to accept the conveyance of
the real property described above and that Lettie E. Neher, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County is hereby authorized to affix the
County's seal and attest thereto on the deed of conveyance. The considera-
tion for this conveyance is $214,000.00 of which $107,000.00 is to be paid
by the County of Albemarle and $107,000.00 is to be paid by the City of
Charlottesville.
Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to aDthorize Mr.
Fisher, as Chairman of the Board to accept the deed. Roll was called and motion carried
by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and .Roudabush.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $37,050 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and
transferred to the General Capital Outlay Fund and coded to 19W.1-600.1, Rann
Preserve.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Information:
was received as information.
The Report of the County Executive for July, 1978,
September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting)
September 132 1978 (Re~ular-Da~ Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Sessio.n: Personnel. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered
by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose
of discussing personnel matters relating to appointments. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
At 11:30 P.M., the Board reconvened from executive session and immediately adjourned.
-- - ~A~airman
September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 13, 1978, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs..~Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Officers present:
County Attorney.
Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M.
Mr. Fisher first reported that a discussion on House Bill #63 was to be held on September 29,
1978, at 9:00 A.M., in the Rockbridge Circuit Court Chamber in Lexington. The bill is
regarding the way local governments operate. Also House Bill 1935 will be opened for
discussion on Monday, September 25, 1978 in Abingdon. This bill is in regard to Mental
Health.
Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes:
February 8~ 1978: Mr. Fisher noted on page 63 in the resolution regarding conveyance
of the Ivy Landfill property, the plat book and page numbers are missing. (Clerk's Note:
Correction made to note, Plat Book IX, pages 209-210.)
On page 78 the Clerk noted the following sentence was left out of the typing of these
minutes: "Mr. Agnor said that only fourteen of twenty-three lottery permit holders have
filed their receipts and disbursements in accordance with Section 18,~2-335. He felt some
action needed to be taken to follow up on those which have not filed."
February 24, 1978: Mr. Henley reported no errors.
March 8~ 1978: Mr. Roudabush reported no errors.
March 9, 1978: Mr. Henley reported no errors.
March 10~ 1978: Mr. Henley reported no .errors.
March 15, 1978~(afternOon): Mr. Roudabush reported no errors.
March 15~ 1978 (night): Mr. Dorrier reported no errors.
March 17~ 1978:
March 21, 1978:
March 29, 1978:
March 30, 1978:
April 5~ 1978:
April 10~ 1978:
April 12~ 1978:
Mr. Fisher requested the minutes of March 29, 1978 be placed on next week'S agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve all the minutes
above, except March 29, 1978, as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Dorrier reported no errors.
Mr. Henley reported no errors.
Dr. Iachetta reported he'had not read the minutes and could not report.
Mr. Henley reported no errors.
Mr. Henley reported no errors.
Mr. Henley reported no errors.
Mr. Lindstrom noted several typographical errors.
Agenda Item No. 3a. Discussion of Route 647:
Mr. Roudabush said the condition of this road was brought to his attention by Mrs.
Gatewood. Mrs. Gatewood was present at the meeting and requested the road be improved
because of dust and drainage problems. Mr, Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation described the condition of the road. He said because the right-of-way is
narrow and the adjacent private property is above the road level, he cannot see any way of
redirecting the water away from the road without full scale reconstruction. He said there