1977-09-07NSeptember 7, 1977 ~Afternoon-Adjourned from August 17, 1977)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on September 7, 1977, at 2:00 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 17, 1977.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and Wi~!iam S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
County Attorney.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John,
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 2:06 P. M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Reservoir Ordinance. Mr. Fisher noted that this
meeting had been adjourned from August 17th in order to continue the Board's work on the
proposed reservoir ordinance. A new draft of the ordinance, noted as No. 3, has been
received this last week, but the Board has still not seen any detail on the appendices.
He then turned the meeting over to Mr. Agnor.
Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Frank Browne had brought the appendices with him today.
He noted that the revised draft ordinance No. 3, which was .received this last week, is
different from the one presented to the Board on August 9th. Also included with this
ordinance are several other documents; namely 1) suggested organization of the office
of the runoff control officer; 2) job des=ription for runoff control official; 3) pro-
jected cost of administration of runoff control ordinance; 4) comments on estimated
costs relative to implementation of the runoff control ordinance-construction and
maintenance, which includes projected costs for the construction of a typical develop-
ment of a tO-acre tract, and the projected costs of operation and maintenance over a
twenty-year period that would be incurred for these facilities once they are in place.
Mr. Agnor then noted changes made in the ordinance. Article II, Section 4,
Sub-paragraph (a) now provides that the runoff official has the right to enter upon
property at reasonable times to do any monitoring that is necessary. Article II,
Section 4, Sub-paragraph (d) has been added to state that the holder of a permit
,may dedicate" to public use facilities that are required by the permit. A new
Article III has been included to provide that appeals go to a technical review board;
the previous version provided for this review by the Board of Supervisors. The staff
suggests that the Board, as a legislative body, may not want to be the review board
for an appeal which will be of a technical nature. However, adoption of this Article
is at the option of the Board. Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Browne has completed work on
the technical appendices. They have been reviewed by the technical advisory committee
of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Au~:hority, the Citizen's Advisory Committee of the
Rivanna Reservoir Study, and by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors.
These appendices are entitled, "Guidelines for Preparation and Review of Runoff Control
Permit Applications"
Dr. Browne was present. He noted that in the proposed ordinance under Article II,
Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), there were two blanks which should be filled in as
follows: "...will have a maximum suspended solids loading of 135 pounds per acre per
year and a maximum total phosphorus loading of 0.68 pounds per acre per year; whichever
of the foregoing shall be less .... " Basically these guidelines will be used by the
developer, or his agent, to design non-point source control structures and for calcu-
lations required in the permit. The guidelines will also be used by the runoff control
official when reviewing applications. Instead' of having attachments, as were presented
at the last meeting, there is now an explanation of what is required by the ordinance,
how to fill out a permit application, what has to be included in the application, and
then this handbook also gives several guides on different calculations. Dr. Browne
then proceeded to explain the procedures as set out in the handbook.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor the results of the reviews of these appendices by the two
panels. Mr. ~gnor said they are presented for the Board's consideration and are ready
for use as an attachment to the Ordinance to be advertised. However, there must be a
decision made by the Board on Article III; the appeals section. Mr. Fisher asked if there
were any suggestions from the Rivanna Authority on Article III. Mr. Agnor said no. It
was the consensus that this is the decision of the Board of Supervisors and not the Rivanna
Authority. Mr. Fisher. then asked for comments from other persons who have been working on
the ordinance.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, 'said these are positive steps toward better
runo£f control conditions, but there are variables and imponderables in this type of work
that make it impossible to cite a number to be reached. The Citizen's Committee wants
this regarded as a first step which concerns principally the developer and the general
public. Other steps will have to address the effective, control of pollutants to the
reservoir.
Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority,
said more is known at the present about this type of situation than was known a year ago.
Hopefully, next year there will be even more advanced knowledge. He said Mr. Mike McGovern
of the Rivanna staff had worked through a sample application utilizing the guidelines.
Mr. McGovern said since he completed the application, Dr. Browne sent a format to use.
He feels anyone with engineering capability can handle this application. ~e then proceeded
to review an application such as that which would ~r~ runoff control official. Mr.
Roudabush asked how long it took to work out this application. Mr. McGovern said about
forty hours. Mr. Bailey said this was just in preparation to present an application to
the runoff control officer. No one knows how much work will have to be done after the
application is
September 7, 1977 (AfternOon-Adjourned from August 17, 1977)
Mr. Fisher said he felt this was a good exercise and felt it might save problems in
the future. He then asked for comments from the County Attorney. Mr. St. John said he
was satisfied with the way the ordinance is presently drafted, but a decision still had
to be made about the appeals process. He noted'that this is a regulatory ~and not a
prohibitory ordinance.
Mr. Fisher said it was time to consider the ordinance itself and determine a date for
public hearing. He said it appears that development will be permitted on slopes, no matter
how steep, or how densely developed, as long as the standards spelled out in the application
forms are adhered to and the designs appear to be adequate, but if the facilities do not
work and the public has to correct problems, they will'be worse on steep slopes and in
high density areas. It is a much greater risk for the public to assume in those areas.
He likes the idea of saying in the ordinance that a piece of property will not be consider-
ed unusable, but obviously there is a difference in the risk the public will assume upon
completion of such a project. Dr. Iachetta said he feels there are places around the
reservoir which are unusable~for anything other than very modest densities. Mr. Henley
felt the cost of taking care of the runoff facilities would limit these things. Dr.
Iachetta said he felt this was a serious flaw in the ordinance. He said the Board is
addressing an unknown area of technology and ignoring another equally mnknown area; that.
being the impact of the population itself. He feels the ordinance is too broad in that
it does not address the impact of people, but talks only about the water.
Mr. Fisher said after the reviews by all of the persons concerned, he now has enough
confidence in the technical matters to believe that they will work. Dr. Iachetta said he
felt the fines contained in the ordinance were ridiculous. If a fine is to be included,
it should be meaningful or left out. Mr. St. John said $1,000 a day is the maximum fine
for a misdemeanor and there is no way a violation of this ordinance can be made a felony.
The other Board members found no great difficulty with the way Article IV, Section 1,
was written. ~
Dr. Iachetta said he had a real problem with Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b)
which reads, "the runoff control official shall review the plans and specifications so
submitted to insure that there will be occasioned by such development no significantly
greater rate of surface water runoff than would be present in the absence of such develop-
ment; and he shall further review such plans and specifications to insure that such runoff,
after development, (1) will be of substantially the same quality, upon leaving the site, ....
Dr. Iachetta asked the meaning of the words significantly and substantially. He felt this
should state that no greater rate of surface water runoff would be present and wo~ld be
of the same quality. Mr. St. John said Dr. Iachetta had a point about the words
substantially and significantly. He would like to see those words removed except for the
fact that there may be a decrease in one type of loading', or one category of loading, and
an increase in another, so that the end result is that the general quality of the water is
better. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the Board should invoke the principal of no degradation.
Mr. Bailey said you might measure the quality on successive days and probably come out
with., different results. Dr. Iachetta said you would still have that problem if you leave
the standard in or if you do not. Mr. Fisher said he could understand what Dr. Iachetta
was saying. If the Board ever went to coUrt, these two words would have to be defined by
the judge. Mr. Dorrier felt that if these words were taken out there would not be much
room left for flexibility. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to strike the word,
"significantly". The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fish~r, Henley, Iachetta and Eoudabush.
Mr. Dorrier. ~
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to change the next sentence to read~ "will be of
no lesser quality, upon leaving the site, than would be the case in the absence of such
development". The motion was seconded by Mr, Henley and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Hentey, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None. '-
Dr. Iachetta said he had another question. Why saddle one person on the County staff
with the full responsibility of the administration of this ordinance when the County
presently has a three-person technical committee to look at soil erosion control plans. Mr.
Agnor said this had been discussed by the staff and presented to the Board at an earlier
meeting. The staff does not feel that the soil erosion review board actually serves a
productive function. The staff feels that the soil erosion ordinance should be amended to
provide a technical appeal board just as this ordinance will provide. Dr. Iachetta said
this ordinance is written so that the appeal is only at the developer's request. He feels
there should be an overview of the runoff control official's decision with respect to
planning. Mr. St. John said whichever Article'III the Board chooses to adopt, the person
aggrieved is limited to the applicant, owners of adjacent and downstream property, and any
interested governmental agency or officer thereof. There is no appeal for granting af a
permit, but~ there is an appeal for interpretation of the regulations. Mr. St. John said he
has a problem with the fact that no notice is given to the public of the pendency of an
application for the granting of a permit. He asked if the Board wanted to turn this into
a public forum or have this solely as an administrative decision-making process, with only
those directly involved participating, and only those directly involved knowing about the
application. Mr. Agnor said this will be an administrative procedure open to the public,
but there would be no notification process. Dr. Iachetta said he was not thinking of a
public hearing, but more of a workshop so the public could be informed by observing what
takes place. Mr. Roudabush did not think the general public would understand what is taking
September 7, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 17, 1977)
place when applications are reviewed because it will be technical checking to see if the
numbers provided.comply with the guidelines. The purpose in having the guidelines is to
channel this so there will be very little interpretation left to individuals. The Board
could have gotten by with just an ordinance and held public hearings on these applications,
but it was felt that the guidelines were needed so that whoever reviews these applications
would be using a standardized system and standardized quantities.
Mr. Agnor said there will be a professional registered engineer, or surveyor,
preparing the application. This application will then be reviewed by another registered
professimnal engineer. He could see no need for the public to review what a professional
engineer is doing because they probably would not understand what is being talked about.
Mr. Roudabush said he felt any project with consequence wo~ld first be sent to the
Planning Commission where public input could be gained. Mr. Fisher asked if the runoff
control permit would be approved prior to any subdivision approval. Mr. St. ~John said
Article II, Section 1, Sub-paragraph (b) states that "no permit shall be issued by any
officer, board, commission or agency of the county for any development requiring a permit
for which a runoff control permit is required hereby unless and until the requirements of
this article had been complied with ...U? This permit would be issued before any grading,
building, or Zoning permit. Mr. St. John said the runoff control official can consult
with any other authority he feels necessary to consult with, so not having public input
will not create a lack of available facts or knowledge on which to base his decision.
However, it is a matter of policy for the Board to decide whether the public is to be
kept currently informed about the workings of the runoff control official's office.
Mr. Fisher said the Board should decide on some timely notice so that people will
know an application has been filed and approved and that there is an appeal period. Mr.
St. John said he has another problem. Even if notice is provided for downstream and
adjacent property owners, this particular ordinance is not primarily desigmed to protect
downstream and adjacent property owners. The ordinance is designed to protect everyone
who drinks this water. Dr. Iachetta said the Board had earlier discussed the fact that
if the runoff control facilities do not work after the developer has completed his work
and vacated the premises, then the water user will pay, so the Board is obligating
everyone who uses the water to pay for whatever it takes to accomplish this ordinance.
If the citizens are going to pay, they should be informed about what the County is trying
to do, even if they do not understand all of the technical words. Dr. Iachetta said
he had discussed one po~sibi!ity with Mr. Dorrier, that of a review panel consisting of
the Runoff Control Official, the County Attorney, one technical person from the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority and one technical person from the City's Department of Public
Works. This panel would automatically review the plans before they are submitted for
execution. Mr. St. John said if you have people of that caliber holding~those types of
offices sitting on a review board, it would seem unrealistic that any decision approved
by that panel would be appealable to another review board rather than directly to the
court. Dr. Iachetta said if there were such a review board there would not need to be
a technical review. If the Board of Supervisors took on the appeal function as currently
proposed, there would be no technical review and Dr. Iachetta did not feel that is what
is wanted. However, if an automatic review is included, the Board of Supervisors could
act as a legislative appellate review; a last resort before going to court.
Mrs. David said she felt this whole thing had been blown up out of proportion. This
is supposed to be only one stage in the total c~nsideration of a new development. Even
the experts do not know if what is being proposed will work. Since there will be all
kinds of different people reviewing everything that is going on, she felt the Board will
have to get the right answers by making some mistakes. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. David
was indicating she wanted to go to public hearing with the ordinance as written. Mrs.
David said she would choose the technical review board alternative rather than appeal
to the Board ~f~Supervisors. Dr. Iachetta said he did not consider this as a vehicle
· 'to accommodate development but looked upon it as a measure to protect the public water
supply. Mrs. David said the Board had started out by asking the question, "can
development be accommodated in the watershed safely", and this ordinance is the answer.
Mr. St. John said the ordinance was not drafted with the view of accommodating development,
but rather to restrict owners in.what they can do with their land. Unless the Board can
show some rationale behind the diminishment of their right to develop their property,
the Board will be found to h~ve denied them their rights without due process. To give
them due process and avoid undue delay is not accommodation, but rather a recognition of
their legitimate rights.
Mr. Fisher said he would prefer the alternative of the technical review board,
although he does not feel this is the best solution. He feels there should be a better
mechanism so the people who are concerned will know what is happening. He suggested the
Board make a decision to advertise the ordinance and advise the staff to start working
on another alternative since he understands that if it is no more restrictive than what
is being advertised, a change could be made after the public hearing. Mr. Roudabush
then offered motion to amend Article IV, Section 2, to read, "The runoff control official
shall have the power to establish reasonable procedures for the administration of this
ordinance, which shall be available to applicants. These administrative procedures shall
be approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors". The motion was seconded by Mrs.
David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and RoudabuSh.
NAYS: Dr. Iachetta. (He did not feel this addresses the problem he was talking about.)
Mrs. David said she had a problem with Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (a),
beginning with the second sentence, "Unless otherwise specified by the runoff control
official"...and continuing through Sub-S
and (8)." She said all of these procedu
in the guidelines. She did not like to
are the things which are changed over an
runoff control officer shall establish s
them for approval by the Board of Superv
some ways confusing.
ab-paragraphs "(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7),
~es are included in more understandable language
ee standards put into:an ordinance because they
over again. Since the ordinance says the
~andards for administrative procedures and submit
[sors, these sections are unnecessary and in
September 7, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 17, 1977)
Mr. Agnor said this came about as a result of timing. The ordinance was prepared first
and then the guidelines were drawn. Mr. Dorrier said he felt Mrs. David was right because
the ordinance should be general in nature and leave procedural aspects to the handbook.
Dr. Iachetta alsked if the handbook could be amended without public notice. Mr. St. John
said yes. Dr. Iachetta felt the standards should be left in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher
said this created a problem for him. The Board has been struggling to come up with such
an ordinance for some months. At sometime in the future, a Board of Supervisors might
eliminate three-fourths of the handbook by resolution without giving any public notice.
He wanted to be sure the public would have a way of knowing that these amendments were
proposed.
Mrs. David then offered motion to delete the language from the ordinance that she had
just mentioned. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Dr. Iachetta said he could not
support the motion because that would mean everyone would have to read the handbook to
know what the ordinance requires. Mr. Henley and Mr. Roudabush said they would support
Mrs. David's motion. Mr. St. John suggested that Section 2 of Article IV as just amended
by Mr. Roudabush's motion, be moved and incorporated as a part of Article II, Section 2,
Sub-paragraph (a).
Mrs. David then amended her motion to incorporate Mr. St. John's suggestion. The
motion was again seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher and Dr. Iachetta.
No other Board member having further amendments to suggest, Mr. Fisher said he would
entertain a motion to advertise for a public hearing on September 29, 1977, at 7:30 P. M.
in the Albemarle County Courthouse, An Ordinance for the Protection of Water in Public
Drinking Water Supply Impoundments, with amendments as proposed this afternoon, namely:
Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (a), deleting the second sentence, and continuing
through Sub-Sub-paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8).
Insert under Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (a), the words "The runoff control
official shall have the power to establish reasonable procedures for the administration
of this ordinance which shall be available to applicants. These administrative procedures
shall be approved by resolution of the Board of Supervisors.
Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), strike the word "significantly".
Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), strike the words "substantially the same"
and replace with the words "no lesser".
Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), strike the word "as", replace with "than".
Article II, Section 2, Sub-paragraph (b), include the numbers 135 and 0.68.
Include Article III for technical review board, as drafted.
Under Article IV, delete Section 2.
Mrs. David suggested in Article II, Section 3, Sub-paragraph (a) the title of the
guidelines "Guidelines for the Preparation and review of Runoff Control Permit Applications"
be inserted. Also in Article III, Sub-paragraph (C), the' words "technical review" be
inserted.
Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Mr. St. John noted that the advertisement for this ordinance should refer to the
availability of the guidelines on the runoff control ordinance as received on September 7~
1977. Motion to this effect was made by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush;
NAYS: None.
Mr. Fisher then thanked Dr. Frank Browne for the good job he had done in the time
which the Board had allotted.
Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Agnor said he had a matter of land acquisition which needed to
be discussed in executive session. The Chairman called for such a motion which was made at
5:10 P.M. by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 7;30 P.M., and immediately adjourned the meeting which had
begun at 2:00 P.M.
September 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
/
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of~Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on September 7, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Li~dsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., and Fo Anthony Iachetta.
Absent: Mr. William S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairma~ Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Ordinance.
Jean Granger:
Request for waiver of sewer requirements of Subdivisio
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, read the following staff report into the
record:
"Location: West side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended)
Zoning: B-1 Business
Proposal: Division of 1.35 acre parcel into two lots containing
32,897 square feet (0.76 acres) and 25,912 square feet (0.59
acres). Property is served by public water only. A waiver
of the public sewer requirement is needed since 40,000 square
feet is the minimum lot size permitted with only one utility.
History: Site plan for auto sales lot was approved by the Planning
Commission on April 19, 1977. A variance was obtained on
April 12, 1977, to locate the building 15' from the rear property
which is zoned A-1.
Purpose: If approved, Allied Foods may locate a warehouse on this
parcel.
Staff comment: This parcel is physically divided from adjacent
property to the rear by a steep drop-off. Obtaining additional
land in the rear would probably not improve the lots relative
to area for septic fields. However, staff cannot recommend
approval of this waiver. This division will be possible when
public sewer is available."
field requirem
meet the minim
use to this pa
parcel B. Mr.
are not availa
condition that
Mr. Tucker said on August 30, 1977, the Planning Commission denied.the waiver because
they did not feel the parcel was adequate for a septic system. Mr. Tucker said Mr. ~Collins
of the Health Department has indicated approval of the two lots for Septic fields.
Mr. Ed Bain, representing the applicant, was present, and said originally more than
one and one-half acres were available but as part of site plan approval the owner was
required to dedicate some 10,000 feet for the widening of the pubtic road. Mr. Granger
could put another building on the property under existing ordinances and lease it without
subdividing the property provided the Health Department approved the property for septic
ents. Mr. Bain said Mr. Granger could purchase additional land in order to
um lot size, but the topography is very steep and this land would be of no
rcel. The Health Department did issue a septic permit in September 1977 on
Bain said the waiver would be temporary and noted public sewer connections
ble at the present time. He asked if the waiver could be granted with a
connection to the public sewer system take place when a hookup is available.
Mr. Fishe~? asked if percolation tests had been made. Mr. Tucker said percolation
tests are not .lone anymore; instead a soil analysis is performed. Mr. Fisher emphasized
his concern that the Health Department does not abide by the County's Subdivision Ordinance
requirements which they helped to draft. Mr. Fisher felt a contractural agreement or a
bond should belrequired if thiS request is approved, with a condition ~that this property be
connected to the public sewer line when connections are available. Discussion then followed
on the grantin~ of the waiver with this condition. Mr. St. John felt it could be imposed,
however, he dil not feel it was necessary to require a large bond. Mr. Tucker noted the
nearest sewer hain would be 600 feet from the property near Moore's Creek.
~ Mr. St. J
property, b~t
request for'~a
for lease and ~ecause of the dedication of property for widening of a public road. Mr. St.
John did not £~ael buYing additional land would help this parcel because the additional land
would essentially be unusable. He felt the Board needed more information and ~he~pra~osed
user, Allied FOods, should be present to discuss their use of the parcel. Mr. Bain noted
no contract has been drawn with Allied; they have just had discussions. The applicant
would be agreekb!e to deferral of this matter until Such time as questions asked today
could be resolved. Mr. Dorrier suggested that a percolation test and some type of 'bond be
required to assure sewer connections would be made when the public sewer is available.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this matter to September 21, 1977. Mr.
Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. DaVid and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Rbudabush.
)hn noted for the record that his firm was involved in title work on the
~e did not have any conflict of interest on this request. He felt this
~aiver was different from most requests because a warehouse could be constructed
Agenda Item No. 2.
1977.)
ZTA-77-05.
Gelletly Properties, Inc.
(Deferred from August 17,
September 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 4. Lottery Permit: R.O.T.C. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve a lottery permit for the Naval R.O.T.C. at the University
of Virginia for the calendar year 1977 based on the Board's adopted rules for issuance of
such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Resolution of Intent to amend Chapter 18 of the
Albemarle County Code as it relates to fees for subdivision approval in order to require a
fee for the inspection of roadway construction. (Deferred from July 20, 1977).
Mr. Tucker requested thi~ item be deferred indefinitely because the Highway Department
still has problems with the language of the ordinance pertaining to the administration of
the fees and the billing process. Presently, the Highway Department is performing the
inspections at no charge. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this item to
October 12, was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 6. Floyd A. Bates: Request for Dance Hall Permit.
Mr. St. John reviewed the County Code sections pertaining to dance hall permits and
the change in the issuance of such permit from the Circuit Court Judge to the Board of
Supervisors. He noted approval has to be obtained from the Building Official and the Fire
Marshal before a dance hall permit can be issued. The applicant has complied with these
requirements. However, he does not comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
because the dance hall is in the A-I zone and same is not a permitted use by right or
special permit in that zone. Ms St. John then summarized the history of this situation.
In November, 1962, (before enactment of zoning in the County) Mr. Bates obtained a building
permit as well as a blank certificate of occupancy and started building his dance hall. In
1971, water and sewer were approved by the Health Department and approval of the Fire
Marshal and Building Official were obtained in July 1977. The question is whether Mr.
Bates has a vested interest to occupy the dance hall since his building permit was obtained
before zoning went into effect. After considerable research by Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy
County Attorney, Mr. St. John said they both agreed that Mr. Bates does not have a vested
interest in the dance hall unless:~the building cannot be used for any other profitable
actiVity. Mr. Agnor noted the Zoning Administrator advised the applicant that a site plan
would have to be presented for Planning Commission review and his application was properly
before the B~ard. Mr. St. John felt the Zoning Administrator has made a determination that
the building cannot be used for any other activity because he has indicated by letter to
Mr. Bates that he felt he has a vested right to this use. Mr. Dorrier felt the weight of
evidence seems to be in favor of Mr. Bates. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. St. John felt it
would be difficult to deny the request. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve
the dance hall permit. Mr. Fisher suggested action be deferred until Mr. Roudabush was
p~esent since the property is in his district. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to
defer this item to September 14, was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
Agenda Item No. 7. Crozet Civic Association.
Ms. JoAnn T. Stanley, Director of the Crozet Civic Association, was present. She
outlined two requests the Association had made to the Environmental Protection Agency: 1)
Release funds to complete a small portion of the interceptor line to Crozet before 1981; 2)
A grant to provide a pumping station which can be reused and a four-inch collector pipe to
the Brownsville Plant. Ms. Stanley said the Association also requested Farmers Home Administ:
to provide a grant for a pumping station and a four inch collector line. She said the
following three inquiries were made to the State Water Contro!'Board and response has been
received: 1) Has a NPDES permit been issued for the old sewer line point source? 2) Can
such a permit be issued when raw sewerage is involved? 3) What can the State Water Control
Board do to help solve the problem since construction of the interceptor has been delayed?
She then read the following response from Mr. R. Bradley Chewning of the State Water Control
Board dated August 23, 1977, which she felt explained the concerns of the Association and
the urgency of the situation:
"As another alternative, should efforts eventually fail to achieve a
resolution, the State ultimately could seek an order again~st~the~.±nd±~idual
dischargers to the collector system to cease and desist their discharge.
Any such cease-and-desist order would have to include all other nonpermitted
discharges to the received stream. Obviously, this would be an extreme
measure which would result in the loss of homes or businesses. It's
impact would be felt on others not associated with the Crozet sewer lines
since a number of homes atong Lickinghole Creek apparently use the stream to
dispose of kitchen wastes and the like."
.tion
September 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
She asked that the Board authorize enough openings to the Brownsville Treatment Plant
to handle the present flow of sewage from the old sewer line. She noted that FHA and EPA
give grants to incorporated civic groups but the Association prefers the Board to represent~
them in this matter.
Mr. Fisher expressed his appreciation for the work the Association has done and noted
this matter has been continuously delayed by the State Water Control Board for years. They
had stated that the interceptor line would be in place by 1976 and they would not permit
any additional sewage treatment facilities in Crozet. Ms. Stanley said she would appreciate
any help the Board could give on the matter. The Association has restricted its requests
to grants rather than loans so as to avoid a burden on taxpayers. She felt the situation
not only effects the Crozet area but all in the watershed. Mr. Fisher then suggested the
Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority review all the
information submitted by Ms. Stanley because specific proposals are being made including
reservation of allocations in the Brownsville plant. This matter will be discussed at a
later date when answers are received from the two authorities.
Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution to authorize execution of agreement for purchase of
Post Office property.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a resolution for purchase of the Post Office property.
He said once the resolution has been executed by the City and the County, post office
officials will have thirty days to accept or reject the offer. Verbal conversations With
post office officials indicate their willingness to accept the offer. The document also
provides that during January 1978, the current postal station in the Market Street facility
will be moved. The property will be transferred to the City and County with payment in
full due thirty days after notice of vacation of the premises from the Postal Service.
Indicated in the document is the Department of Interior's evaluation that the building may
be nominated as having historical significance. This would have some bearing on the Code
requirements for the renovation of the building which could result in a cost savings for
the City and County. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following res
and authorizing the Chairman to execute same:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has recognized
for sometime the pressing need to provide and improve central library
facilities for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Library Board has recommended the renovation and
linkage of the existing central library and the building presently occupied
by the Downtown Post Office as the most economical and desirable method
of providing such an improved facility, which recommendation the Board
of Supervisors has concurred in by directing the County Executive to participate
in negotiations to acquire the Post Office Building; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle, in conjunction with the City of
Charlottesville, desires to make an offer to purchase the United States
Postal Service property for $250,000, payable in cash at closing, the terms
of which are attached to this resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that Gerald E. Fisher, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
County of Albemarle a document entitled "Offer to Purchase United States
Postal Service Property", a copy of which is attached hereto, and to bind the
County of Albemarle to the terms thereof.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing resolution is a true, correct
and complete copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on September 7, 1977, in
accordance with law and that such resolution has not been appealed, revoked,
rescinded or amended, but remains in full force and effect on the date hereof.
OFFER TO PURCHASE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE PROPERTY
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, Virginia, and CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Virginia, hereinafter
called the Offerer, hereby offers to purchase the United States Postal Service
property located 200 East Market Street, in the-City of Charlottesville
(Independent City), Commonwealth of Virginia, bounded and described as follows:
(1)
Beginning at the northeast corner of Market and Second Streets, N.E.
(formerly Church Street), and running northward along the east side of
said Second Street 137 feet to corner of C. R. Randolph's lot; thence
eastward along said Randolph's line 87 feet to corner of M. Goldsmith's
lot; thence southward along said Goldsmith's line 22 feet 6 inches to
corner in said Goldsmith's lot; thence eastward along said Goldsmith's
line 68 feet 3 inches to corner of John T. Antrim's lot; thence southward
along said Antrim's line 115 feet 5 inches to the north side of Market
Street; thence westward along the northern side of Market Street 154 feet
7 3/4 inches to the beginning, and ALSO
(2)
Beginning at the southeast corner wall Post Office lot and on the northern
margin of Market Street; thence with line of the PoSt Office lot North
23 degrees, 40 minutes East 115.2 feet to northeast corner wall Post
Office lot; thence with the Catholic Church lot South 66 degrees, 47 minutes
East 52.1 feet to N.E. corner stone on West margin of Third Street, N.E.;
thence along said margin South 23 degrees, 53 minutes West 115.9 feet
to S.E. corner stone set at corner of Third Street, N.E. and Market Street;
thence-along margin of Market Street North 66 degrees West 51.7 feet
September 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Being the same premises (1) conveyed to United States of America by
Deed of B. Oberdorfer and Isaac Leterman, Trustees of the Congregation
"Beth Israel" of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, Louisa E.
Zimmermann, and John T. Antrim and Ellen L. Antrim, dated June 2, 1903,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the City of Charlottesville in Deed
Book No. 14, Page 52, and
Being the same~premises (2) conveyed to United States of America by
John T. Antrim and Ellen L. Antrim, dated August 1, 1930, and recorded
in the Clerk's Office of the City of Charlottesville in Deed Book No.
71, Page 444.
Containing approximately 25,700 square feet of land.
Improved with a two-story brick and ornamental stone building with a
full basement, providing a total gross area of approximately 35,853
square feet, with a one-story storage room of approximately 225 square
feet and platform area of approximately 579 square feet, subject to
the following terms and conditions:
1. The purchase price shall be Two Hundred Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars
($250,000.00), payable in cash on closing.
2. Attached is a check in the sum of One Dollar ($1.00], payable to United
States Postal Service, as a deposit, subject to:
(a) Upon acceptance of this Offer to Purchase, the deposit shall
be applied toward payment of the obligation to the Postal Service.
(b) Upon rejection of this Offer to Purchase, the deposit shall be
returned to the Offerer, without interest, as promptly as possible
after rejection of this Offer to Purchase.
3. Notice by the Pastal Service of acceptance or rejection of this Offer
to Purchase shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given when telegraphed
or mailed to the Offerer at the mailing address herein indicated.
4. Notice by the Postal Service of acceptance or rejection of this Offer
to Purchase shall be given not later than thirty (30) calendar days after
the date of execution by Offerer.
5. Immediately upon receipt by Offerer of funding approval for purchase
of subject property, Offerer shall forward to the General Manager, Real
Estate Division, United States Postal Service, P. O. Box 8601, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19101, a check in the sum of Twenty-Four Thousand Nine
Hundred Ninety-nine and 00/100 Dollars (24,999.00) as an additional deposit
to be applied toward payment of the obligation to the Postal Service, said
check to be payable to United States Postal Ser¥ice~
6. Offerer shall attach to this Offer to Purchase documentary evidence
affirmatively establishing authority of the persons to execute this Offer
to Purchase to bind the Offerer for which they purport to act. Such resolution
must contain the essential stipulations embodied in this Offer to Purchase,
and the names and official titles of the officials who are authorized to sign
the Offer to Purchase must appear in ~he document.
7. Offerer agrees that this Offer to Purchase is submitted on a "where is -
as is" basis, and its failure to inspect or to be fully informed as to the
condition of all or any portion of the premises or property will not constitute
grounds for any claim or demand for adjustment or withdrawal of this Offer to
Purchase.
8. The description and location are based on the best available information
and are believed to be sufficiently specific for purposes of identification.
Any errors or omissions therein shall not constitute any ground or reason for
non-performance of the contract or claim by Offerer for any allowance, refund, or
deduction from the stated purchase price. The Postal Service makes no guaranty,
warranty or representations, expressed or implied, as to location, quality,
quantity, kind, character, size, description, or its fitness for any use or
purpose, and no claim will be considered for allowance or adjustment, or
for rescission of the sale based upon the failure of the property to correspond
with the standard expected.
9. This Offer to Purchase is contingent upon the Offerer obtaining funds
in accordance with the County of Albemarle and/or City of Charlottesville
procedures as follows:
The County of Albemarle, by resolution of its Board of Supervisors,
shall appropriate the necessary funds from its General Fund. The City
of Charlottesville, by resolution of its City Council, shall
appropriate the necessary funds from its Capital Projects Fund.
10. The Postal Service has completed the Historical Significance Evaluation
of the subject property. The evaluation concluded that it was questionable
as to whether or not the building would be placed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The matter was referred to the United States Department of the
Interior, and as a result of its evaluation, the building will be placed in
nomination. The nomination shall be in accordance with the attached copy of
Form WASO-185 9/75, signed on June 30, 1977 by the Acting Keeper of the'
National Register, and with the attached copy of letter dated June 30, 1977 from
William J. Murtagh, Keeper of the National Register. (Copies of the documents
S~ptember 7~ 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
11. Possession
(a) Possession of the property will be assumed by the Offerer at
the time of closing.
12. The offerer shall assume responsibility for payment of all utilities
required for operation of the building on the date of conveyance.
13. Risk of Loss
(a) As to the date of conveyance, Offerer shall assume responsibility
for care and handling and all risks of loss or damage to the property
and have all obligations and liabilities of ownership.
14. In the event of revocation of this Offer to Purchase after notice of
acceptance, ~or in the event of any default by Offerer in the performance of the
contract of sale created by such acceptance, or in the event of failure by
Offerer to consummate the transaction, the deposit, together with any payments
subsequently made on account may be forfeited at the option of the Postal
Service, in which event the Offerer shall be relieved from further liability,
or without forfeiting the said deposit and payments, the Postal Service may
avail itself of any legal or equitable rights which it may have under this
Offer to Purchase.
15. Title Evidence
(a) Any title evidence which may be desired by Offerer will be procured
by the Offerer at its sole cost and expense. The Postal Service will,
however, cooperate with Offerer or its authorized agent in this connection,
and will permit examination and inspection of such deeds, abstracts,
affidavits of title, judgments in condemnation proceedings, or other
documents relating to the title of the premises and property involved, as
it may have available. It is understood that the Postal Service will not be
obligated to pay for any expense incurred in connection with title costs
or survey of the property.
16. Title
(a) Conveyance of the property will be accomplished by a Quitclaim Deed.
17. Tender of Payment and Delivery of Instrument of Conveyance
(a) The Postal Service anticipates completion of its alternate facility
during January, 1978. Offerer agrees to tender to the Postal Service the
balance of the purchase price on a mutally agr;eeabte date within thirty (30)
calendar days following receipt of a notice from the Postal Service that it is
prepared to vacate that portion of the subject property now occupied by the
Postal Service; said mutually agreeable date, 'however, shall not occur
prior to January 31, 1978. Upon such tender being made by Offerer, the
Postal Service shall deliver to Offerer the instrument of conveyance.
18. It is understood that the Offerer shall make its own arrangement with
General Services Administration relative to continued occupancy of other
Federal Agencies within the property, by lease, or the vacating of space
presently occupied by other Federal Agencies..
19. Documentary Stamps and Cost of Recording
(a) Offerer shall pay all taxes imposed on this transaction, and shall
obtain at its own expense and affix to all instruments of conveyance and
security documents such revenue and documentary stamps as may be required
by Federal and local law. Ail instruments of conveyance and security
documents shall be placed on record in the manner prescribed by local
recording sta-t, utes at the expense of the Offerer.
20.
(a) This Offer to Purchase, when accepted by the Postal Service, shall
constitute an agreement for sale between the Offerer and the Postal Service.
Such agreement shall constitute the whole contract to be succeeded only by the
format~strument of transfer, unless modified in'writing and signed by both
parties. No oral statements or representations made by, or on behalf of
either party shall be a part of such contract. Nor shall the contract or
any interest therein be transferred or assigned by Offerer without consent
of the Postal Service, and any assignment transaction without such consent
shall be void.
21. No member of or delegate to the Congress, or resident commissi~oner, shall
be admitted to any share or part of the contract of sale or to any benefit that
may arise therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to the
contract of sale if made with a corporation for its general benefit.
22. The instrument of conveyance shall name the following Grantee:
County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia.
The
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following
~e~edbvote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush.
September 7, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. Consideration of approval for Industrial Access Funds for Klockner
Pentaplast of America, Incorporated.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Peter O. Ward, Industrial Development Representative, requested by
letter dated August 26, 1977, the Board's approval for use of industrial access funds to
construct a road from a proposed plant i~n Louisa County to Route 231 in Albemarle County
for Klockner Pentaplast of America, Incorporated. Mr. Fisher then recommended adoption of
the following resolution based on recommendation contained_in letter of Mr. Dan Roosevelt,
Resident Highway Engineer, dated August 30, 1977. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to
adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, a request has been received from Klockner-Pentaplast of America,
Inc., for improvements under the Industrial Access Law (Section 33.1,221 of the
Code of Virginia), and letters from said Corporation have pointed out the need
for such improvements; and
WHEREAS, the industrial development will be located entirely within
Louisa County, but will be of benefit as an employment source for the citizens
of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, it is acknowledged that access to this industrial development
from Route 231 in Albemarle County would be in the b~st interest of the
traveling public and the citizens of Albemarle County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and it is hereby requested to make improvements to the access to this
development under the Industrial Access Law provided the following conditions
are met:
Allocations from the Industrial Access fund are not counted
against the dollar eligibility of Albemarle County for use of
these funds in either this or any future year.
Any costs for right of way acquisition or utility relocation
made necessary by the location, design, or construction
of the access road will be borne by others than Albemarle
County. In addition, any funds normally allocated to the
State maintained highway system within Albemarle County will
not be used for this purpose.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County agrees to guarantee to
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that any right of way
and drainage easements within the County dedicated to the public use for this
access road will be accepted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of
Circuit Court of Albemarle County.
Mrs. David seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messms. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.
At 9:15 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to September 8, 1977, at
7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
None.
Mr. Roudabush.~J~/~- ' ~ CHAI~'~'~~~~