Loading...
1977-08-03NAugust 3, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 3, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse~ Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Mrs. Opal D. Da~ and Messrs. Lindsay Go Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. '~isher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. A~thony Iachetta and William S. Roudahush. Officers Present: 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: Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Pursuant to Section 15.1-467 of the Code of Virgir (1950) as amended, to review a proposed subdivision ordinance for the Town of Gordo~s~il~e. (Advertised in Daily Progress on July 20, and July 27, 1977.) Mr. Tucker read the County Planning staff's report: "History On May 16, 1977 the Town of Gordonsville adopted a Subdivision Ordinance to be effective JuLy 1, 1977 which contains provisions (Section 3-1, ~age 4A of Ordinance) to make the ordinance applicable within the Town and within a two-mile radius of the corporate boundaries thereof. Such application of this ordinance would affect properties in Albemarle County. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors have previously disapproved the request of the Town of Gordonsville to apply its ordinance to properties within Albemarle County (action letters attached). Planning Commission action which was affirmed by the Board of Supervisors, was based on the opinion that "the public interest is adequately protected by the County's existing development control ordinance (Zoning, Subdivision, Soil Erosion, etc.) and that ~a~ review by the Town of Gordonsville would serve no useful purpose and would impose an unnecessary burden on the citizens of the County." Subdivision Ordinance The staff has perused the text of the Gordonsvi!le ordinance as adopted and is of the opinion that application of this ordinance within Albemarle County would ~t best be awkward. The following are a few examples of staff's concern: Subdivide: This definition is considerably more stringent than the County definition. Apparently, there are two exemptions provided in the definition and in all other cases, an~ division of a parcel constitutes a subdivision. Staff opinion is that this is a compara- tively burdensome provision for application within the County. Other Definitions: As presented in Section 2-30 (Pa~e 4), this is awkward in that it provides three potential sources of definitions to be applied to subdivisions in the County. This provision also permits interpretation of Albemarle County's ordinance by another jurisdiction, which in staff opinion is inadvisable. Town Zoning Ordinance: The Gordonsville subdivision ordinance states that provisions for lot size, building setback lines, and corner lots (Section 6-6,7-3,7~4 respectively) shall be ~overned by the regulations of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Since the Code of Virginia does not provide for extra territorial jurisdiction with respect to a zoning ordinance, these provisions are unworkable with respect to Albemarle County. Therefore, as adopted, the Gordon~ville subdivision ordinance provides no framework for review by the Town Agent of lot size, building setback, or corner lots for proposed subdivisions!W~thin Albemarle County. Exceptions: Section 13-1 a~thorizes the Agent to grant exceptions or waivers from the requirements of the ordinance. Such exceptions apparently may be granted by the Agen~ without notification to any governing body or planning commission a~d without any ~pportunity for public comment. 5. Of equal importance to what is contained in the ordinance is what is not contained in the ordinance. No ~rovision is made for notifi- cation of adjacent property owners nor is there a clearly-outlined vehicle for public comment with respect to proposed subdivisions. Likewise, no procedure or requirement for notification by the Town ~o any other jurisdiction is outlined in the ordinance· In view of the v~s%~ and administrative problems outlined above, staff weu~d--r~6ommen¢ against the application of the Subdivision Ordinance of the Town of Gordonsville within Albemarle County." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission unanimously recommended disapproval of this request. He said in a letter received by the Clerk to the Board that Mr. Ulysses P'. Joyner, attorney representing the Town of Gordonsvi!le, said he would not be able to attend tonight's Board meeting. He also noted that Mr. Joyner was not present at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, and noted th'at no one either for or against the petition wished to speak. He then declared the public hearing closed and requested comments from Board members. Dr. Iachetta felt the Board should concur with the recommendation of the Planning C~mmission. Mr. Henley requested Mr. St. John's opinion on the matter. Mr. St. John said the State Code says that is the mstter cannot be settled between two parties, it can be Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the followin res olut ion: AYES: NAYS: BE IT RESOLVED pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-467 (a~ amended-) that the subdivision regulations enacted by the Town of Gordonsville on or about May 16, 1977, be, and they are hereby, disapproved as to any area within Albemarle C©unty, and be declared null and void and of no effect within Albemarle County. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudab~sh. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. tachetta, to mail a certified letter to both the Mayor of Gordonsville and Mr. Joyner and the Town Attorney, notifying them of the action taken by the Board. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. FollOwing adoption of the foregoing resolution, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to request the County Attorney to file, in Circuit Court of A!bemarl~ County, the necessary petitions to resolve this matter. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing: Legislative Requests for the 1978 Session~-'~6f the General Assembly. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 20, and July 27, 1977.) Mr. Ray Jones was the only County staff member present with recommendations for legislation. There was no one from the public who wished to speak regarding any legislative matter, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Jones presented his memorandum to the Board dated July 29, 1977, and read his first recommendation: "Section 14.1-33 Code of Virginia - stipulates that localities must pay their apportioned share into the State Treasury by the first day of August of the current fiscal year on Circuit Court Judges' salaries. My question is why localities have to pay their share of any salaries in advance. The State has been investing money in the past from 6~ up to 12%. The state reimbursements are usually two months late in their participation in employee's salaries. I would recommend & quarterly reimbursement to the State on Circuit Judges' salaries."' Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the fol'lowing resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and i~ hereby is memorialized that ~t4.1-33 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, be amended, in the last sentence thereof, as follows: ~14.1-33 Salaries of Judges of Circuit Courts. The judges of the circuit courts and the judge of the corporation courts and city courts of record of cities of the first class shall each receive such salary as shall be fixed from time to time in the general appropriation acts. The whole of such salaries shall be .paid out of the State treasury, but the State shall be reimbursed to the extent of one half thereof by the respective counties and cities served by such courts except that of the salary of the judge of the circuit court of the city of Richmond the State sha~Z ~ay ~h~ proportion w~ich would otherwise fall to the city of Richmond; and it is here- by made the duty of the Comptroller, on or before the '~ first day of April of each year, to apportion between the counties and cities served by such court the salaries of the judges thereof for the fiscal year beginning the first day of July of the~current fiscal year, and transmit a statement of such apportionment to the clerk of the council of each city and the clerk of the board of supervisors or other governing body of each county served by such courts and to the treasurer of each such county and city. The amounts so apportioned between the counties and cities shall be paid into the State treasury e~-e~-~e~-~-~-~a~-e~-A~-e~, ~uarterly, during the current fiscal year. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vove: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. August 3, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Jones then read his second suggestion. "Section 29-213.31 Code of Virginia - requires localities to keep separate fund accounts on revenues and expenditures of dog activities. This should be the localities option. It would decrease revenue~sharing receipts slightly. Also, I don't thi~k these people in Richmond realize how much it costs to maintain a separate set of books on a $18,000 per year operation" Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, to adopt the followin~ resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized to amend ~29-213.]1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended ~s follows: ~29~213.31 Disposition of Funds. The treasurer of each local jurisdiction shall, unless otMe~rwise provided by ordinance of the local governing body, keep all money collected by him for dog license taxes in a separave account from all other funds collected by him. The local jurisdictions shall use the funds for the f~llowing purposes: A. The salary and expenses of the dog warden and necessary staff; B. The care and maintenance of a dog pound; C. Payment for the treatment of any persons biten by a rabid animal as provided in ~29~213.23; D. The maintenance of a rabies control program; E. Payments as a bounty to any person neutering or spraying a dog up to the amount of one year of license fee as provided by ordinance; F. Payments for compensation as provided in ~29-213.25; G. Any part or all of any surplus remaining in such acoount on December 31 of any year may be transfarred by the governing body of such county or city to the general fund of such county or city. Roll was called, and the resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Jones read his third~ and final recommendation. "Section 37~'1-89 Code of ~irginia - requires the County to pay a special justice, attorney, and physician $25.00 each for a preliminary and commitment hearing on each commitment hearing to a mental institution. Both hearings are usually held at the same sitting. So it costs the County $150.00 for each commitment. Then in six months, there is a r~hearing at the mental institution. It is ~ossible and has happened where one resident has three hearings in one year costing our citizens $450.00 in fees. I believe the intent was to have separate hearings (Preliminary and Committment) if necessary and not the two hearings simultaneously. This legislation should be changed whereby fees are to be charged only in event of s~parate hearing dates. Also, there should only be one re-hearing.~' Mr. St. John said he felt that although occasionally there may be double payments because of two meetings in one day, it is probably more common that a hearing would last much more than one day a~ the participants would only be paid once ($25.00 per hearing, not per day). Mr. Dorrier agreed, saying he had participated in a number of hearings, and n~ver received payments for two meetings in one day. Mr. Fisher said he would not be ready to support a resolution of this type for legislation, and requested Mr. Jones to colle more information on this matter for possible future presentation. Mr. Fisher read a portion of a letter received from Mr. Bob Merrill "The General Assembly is requested to defin~ 'Fair Market Value' as mandated by Article 10 Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia in a manner which will include the statement that only the value of the land and structures be considered as taxable real estate and it will specifically exclude the various costs of buying and selling, including real estate commissions and the value of personal property ±ncluded in the transaction. Regarding comments prepared last December, Mr. Ray Jones is inaccurate in his interpretation of the phrase in A~ticle 10, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states 'Fair Market Value to be ascertained as prescribed by law' Certainly, this means that fair market value is to be defined by ~a~aw passed by the General Assembly. The l~gislature makes the ~aws, the courts do not. Mr. Bradshaw is presumptuous to assume that the assessors by themselves have not used various methods of appraising different types of property, and he justifies the positio~ ~ugust 3, 1977 (Regular -Night Meeting) by saying that they are using methods used throughout the nation. Maybe so, but if the metho is not authorized by an act of the legislature, it is a method which the assessors have taken up by themselves and it~turns out it is a method that is unfair to homeowners. Ancther misconception must be brought to your attention again this year, this is the use of the value of recordation stamps as a measure of fair market value. This value may or may not include such things as sales commission, interest points, fees or personal property and is not a reliable figure by itself ........ I trust you will include this request for definition on your list for legislators." Mr. Ray Jones noted that a s'~milar request was received from Mr. Merrill last year. Dr. Iachetta felt the matter of basing taxes on an amount of money which includes a realtors fee is not proper--that taxes should be based on the value of the property alone. Mr. St. John and Mr. Jones disagreed saying the person buying the property was willing to buy the land on the price set even thoUgh it may or may not include a~r~al~or fee. It was the general concensus of the board that no one was ready to act, and Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agn to draft a response to Mr. Merrill's letter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, m~moralized that ~15.1-467, 15.1-468 and 15.1-469 of the ~ode of Virginia (1950), as amended by repealed. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John asked the Board to consider adopting a request for the legislature to allow counties to have contract or conditional zoning. Mrs. David said the Virginia Association of Counties has received favorable responses at all levels, and is probably ready to support. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, that the @eneral Assembly of Virginia be, and i~ hereby is, memorialized to amend ~15'.1-491 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, insubsection ~a) thereof, as follows: (a) For variations in or exceptions to the general regulations in any district in cases of unusual s~tuations or to ease the transition from one district to another or for buildings, structures or uses having special requirements and for the adoption, in counties or towns therein which have planning commissions, w~ere~n the ~a~ county executive form of government is in effect, or in a city completely surrounded by such a county, or in a county contiguous to any such county, and in the counties east of the Chesapeake Bay as a part of an amendment to the zoning map of reasonable ~conditions in addition to the regulations provided for, such conditions shall have been proffered in writing, in advance of the public hearing before the governing body required by ~15.1-493 by th~ owner of the property which is th~ subject of the proposed zoning map amendment. Once proffered and aecSp~ed~ part of an amendment to the zoning ordinance, such conditions shall continue in full force and effect until a subsequent amendment changes the zoning on the property covered by such conditions; pro- vided, however, that such conditions ~hall continue if the subsequent amendment is part of a comprehensive ~plementation of a new or substantially revised zoning ordinance. Motion was seconded by Dr. I~achetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher asked the Board's opinion on legislation for refundable beverage containers. Dr. Iachetta said he would only support it if all areas would enforce laws giving those caught l~tter fines. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized to enact legislation requiring the use of refundable deposit beverage containers, in a form and with requirements substantially similar to Oregon's Bottle Bill, a copy of which is attached hereto. Motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. August 3, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Section 5-6 of the Albemarle County Code pertaining to removal and/~r re'pair of unsafe buildings and structures. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 20, and July 27~ 1977.) Mr. St. John said this amendment brings the ordinance into accord with the State Code, and puts this into the hands of the Building Official instead of the Board of Supervisors. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this amendment, and the public hearing was declared closed by Mr. Fisher. Dr. Zachetta asked if the property owner had any course of appeal under the law against this type of action. Mr. St. John said it is already part of the law that matters of this type are available to appeal. After a brief discussion as to the owners course of appeal, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE THE REMOVAL AND/OR REPAIR OF UNSAFE BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended, in Section 5-6 as follows: Section 5-6: Removal, repair etc. of unsafe buildings and other structures. (a) Any owner of property in the County shall remove, repair or secure a building, wall or any other structure which the Building Official shall determine to constitute a danger to the health or safety of any resident of the County. The Building Official shall notify such owner of such determina- tion, in writing, specifying particularly the measures needed to eliminate the danger and further specifying the time within which such measures are to be taken. (b) The Building Official may remove, repair or secure, or cause to be removed, repaired, or secured, any building, wall or any other structure which has been found to constitute a danger to the health or safety of any resident of the County, wherein the owner of such property after notice, as hereinabove provided, and a reasonable time to do so, has failed to remove, repair or secure such building, wall or other structure. (c) (d) In the event that the Building Official shall take action under subsection (b) hereof, after complying with the notice provisions of this section, the cost or expenses thereof shall be chargeable to and paid by the owners of such property and may be collected by the County as taxes and levies are collected. Every charge authorized by this section with which ~the owner of any such property shall have been assessed and which remain unpaid shall constitute a lien against such property.~ Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item-No. 6. Report ~ the County Executive for the month of June, 1977. Mr. Agnor presented the monthly report for June, 1977 and Mr. Ray Jones presented the summary of reports for the entire fiscal year of 1977. (Copy of the reports presented are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Agenda Item No. 7. Reappropriation - Housing Survey. Mr. Jones noted that last year a special appropriation in the amount of $700 was made to perform a Low Income Housing Survey. At the end of the fiscal year, no invoice had been received and no one requested that the money be reappropriated. He further noted that an invoice h~s just been received frmm~'~the University of Virginia to the Planning District for ~493.67 so it will be necessary to reappropriate the money from the General Fund. Motion was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that 2493.67 be, and the same hereby is, reappropriated from the ~eneral Fund and transferred to Code 18B-12.1, Low Income Housing Survey. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Other matters not listed on the agenda. Mr. Agnor said he had received notification from the C & 0 Railroad System that a hearing by the State Corporation Commission was to be held on October lid 1977, at 10:00 ~.M. to hear their application for authority to modify its station agency services at Waynesboro, Crozet and Staunton, Virginia. August 3, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said he accepted appointment to a State-Wide Committee being formed to define urban runoff from non-point sources and to draft a handbook on Same. He said he was nominated for the po~ition by Mr. George Long of the Virginia Association of Counties. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agnor to bring the following items to the attention of the Airport Board. First, extending the 10 minute grace period for parking to possibly 15 minute He said he had received several telephone ~alls from people saying that 10 minutes is not enough time to discharge a passenger and unload his luggage. He also requested that Albemarle County's name be included on the parking ticket receipt stub, which presently reads "Charlottesville Airport." Agenda Item No. 5. Application for a Literary Fund loan. Mr. A~or said the standard form of application for a Literary Fund loan for physical education and health facilities at Albemarle High School has been prepared by Mr. Jones. Mr. Agnor then read the following resolution contained within the application and requested its adopticn: WHERE,-S, TH~ School Board for the County of Albemarle, on the 3~d day of August, 1977, presented to this Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $500,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at Albemarle High School to be paid in 20 annua~ installments, and the interest thereon at 3 per cent paid annually. RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education sf Virginia for a loan of $500,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the sa~d amount for the purpose set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sdfficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by law regulating loans fr~m the Literary ~und. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the above resolution. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, H~nley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Adjournment. the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M. There being no further business, Mr. Fisher declared August 10, 1977 (Regular-Day Meeting) Chairman A regular meeting of the Board of.Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was ~eld on August 10, 1977, at 9:00 A.M.,'~.~n~t~he Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. P~~: Mrs. Opal D. David. and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.~ Gerald E. Fisher~ J. T. Henley, ~Jr., and William S. Roudabush. Absent.: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta. Officers Present: County Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agner, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to-~order at 9:09 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.who noted receipt of a letter from Governor Godwin stating the Pres~dent of the United States has officially declared Albemarle County eligible for Federal Assistance programs due to the drought. This aid will be for the period of July 23 to September 1~ 1977, although the Governor is applying for an extension, which if granted, would apply through May 31, 1978 The Governor then listed possible steps which would aid~t, he farmers who take advantage of the Federal Assistance. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr.~Hen~y to keep track of this situation and advise the Board if further assistance is needed. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes for November 3, 1976. No additions or correctio were noted, and motion far approval was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Nons. Dr. Iachetta. .S