1977-09-28September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting)
September 28, 1977 [Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
It was suggested by Mr. Fisher. that the Albemarle County Service Authority be informed about
the concerns the Board has on the extension of water lines and jurisdictional boundaries for
this property, and that they be invited to meet with the Board on that date to discuss same.
Mr. Fisher noted that it would be a public meeting, not a public hearing. Roll was called,
and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher then requested the staff to contact the Service Authority, and review with
them the possibilities of extending their coverage into this area. Recommendations would
be solicited at the October $th meeting.
Not Docketed: Mr~ Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the Economic
Development Commission indicating a public meeting will be held on October 6, 1977, at
7:80 P.M. at the Gordon Avenue Public Library. The meeting, requested by the County and
City governments, is being held to explain the purpose of the Commission, and to allow the
public the opportunity to voice their wishes. He requested copies of the letter be sent
to members of the Industrial Development Authority,
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an application by the Potomac Edison Power Company for an
increase in rates; hearing to be held in Winchester on Thursday October 3, 1977.
Mr. Fisher said he had received notice from the Division of Legislative Services that
the State is considering eliminating some railroad crossings which are "little used and of
danger to the traveling public!'.
At 11:35 P.M., motion was requested by Mr. Fisher to adjourn the meeting to 1'30 P.M.
on September 28, 1977. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
~2hairman
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was
held on September 28, 1977, beginning at 1:30 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 21, 1977.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and w. s. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St.John,
County Attorney (arriving at 1:55 P. M.).
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P. M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. la. Request for additional deputy. Sheriff George Bailey was present.
He said that three additional deputies had been requested for funding by the State Compensa-
tion Board for fiscal year 1977-78. Originally, the Compensation Board authorized the
employment of one deputy beginning July 1, 1977. A month or so later they had authorized
the employment of a second deputy. At an appeal before the Compensation Board last Friday,
they had compromised by agreeing to allow a process server presently on the payroll to
serve as a road deputy, and at the same time authorizing the hiring of another process
server beginning January 1, 1978. The Sheriff said that because his law officers are tied
up during civil work, he requests that the Board of Supervisors allow him to fill this
position as of October 1, 1977, since he does not feel this will require any new money from
the County. Mr. Agnor said the Board had funded three additional persons in the sheriff's
budget for the fiscal year, but because of delays in hiring, adequate funds are available
in the sheriff's budget to coyer this salary for three months. Motion was then offered by
Dr. Iachetta to allow the Sheriff to hire one additional deputy beginning October 1, 1977;
said deputy to be paid entirely from local funds for the three remaining months in 1977.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher suggested that the
Board begin the discussion today with the Crozet co~unity. Mr. Henley said in the area
where Route 240 crosses Route 250, quite a large commercial area is shown on the map on
page 33. This area is across the road from where the Crozet housing project will be built.
He met with the CrOzet Citizen's Group last night and although they feel some commercial
zoning will be needed in that area, they did not believe it should be left on the map at
this time. Mr. Tucker said that the area proposed for the Crozet Housing Project had been
recommended for high-density zoning by the consultants. However, after the Board's review
and approval of the petition this past summer, the property would fit into a low-density
category. The commercial in this area was proposed to serve the high .and medium-density
areas that form the southern part of Crozet on Route 240. Mr. Henley said he did not feel
this commercial area should be shown on the map since it may be twenty years before it is
needed. He then offered motion that the commercial ~oning at the intersection of Routes
240 and 250 be changed as follows: Upper portion to be deleted and changed to medium-densit
residential. Lower portion to be cut in half; with part fartherest from Route 250 being
designated as low-density residential. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
No~?,
Mr. Tucker said there were several changes which the Planning Commission recommended
which have not been discussed. !) Recognize Claudius Crozet Park as a park on the Crozet
community plan. 2) The Crozet and Hollymead communities to be reviewed with citizens
living in those communities having input, but plans to remain in a generalized format.
3) Change the proposed high-density area shown on the west side of Route 240 to low-density
in order to reflect the Board's action on the recent proposal for a housing complex for the
elderly. Motion to accept these three changes was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mrs. David,~and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Board discuss Scottsville. Mr. Dorrier said the
people in Scottsville are very concerned about not being designated as a community. In
the 1971 Comprehensive Plan, Scottsvil~e waz designated as one of the six growth areas in
the County, and although that growth has not occurred during the past five years, growth
has not occurred in other parts of the County as was projected. Mr. Dorrier said he
recently met with the Town Council of Scottsville and the Scottsville Chamber of Commerce,
and both have endorsed the concept of Scottsville being designated as a community.
Sndividuals in and around the Town also feel that Scottsville should remain a community;
~'if for no other reason, because it functions that way. Scottsville has doctors, schools~
an arterial highway, a major industry, a railroad, a rescue squad,-a volnnteer fire depart-
ment and banks. Its charter was obtained in 1818 and .it is the oldest community in
Albemarle County. Many people in Fluvanna, Buckingham and Nelson Counties come into
Scottsville for socializing and business. Scottsville has an adequate water supply in its
reservoir. In fact, it has capacity to treat one million gallons per day, and presently
only one quarter of a million gallons per day are being used. If Scottsville is designated
as a village, it will make it harder for the Chamber of Commerce and the Town Council to
go out ~mother businesses and sell the Town. If it is designated as a community, it will
help ir/$~lic relations program. The reasons for maintaining it as a community far
outweigh the reasons for downgrading it to a village.
Mr. Roudabush said he agreed with what Mr. Dorrier had said. However, he asked if
Scottsville's designation is changed to a community, if it is the intent of the Town to
have their Comprehensive Plan made a part of the County's play, with land use controls that
would be developed and adopted~by ~h$ Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and
thus made a binding part of th~~r~hensive Plan.
Mayor Raymon Thacker was present, and' said he did not know the answer. Balzer and
Associates are the planners for the Town of Scottsville, and are presently working on
Federal Programs. It is possible there may be some money unexpended after completion of
the Mink Creek Dam project. If this is true, HUD may let the Town use this money to develop
a Comprehensive Plan, a Zoning Ordinance and establish a Planning Commission. He said
Scottsville is a full service community. If it is downgraded to a village in the County's
plan, he is concerned this may jeopardize their dealings with Federal Agencies.
Mrs. David said Scottsville is the only incorporated town in the County. An incorpo-
rated town is different from a village. The State Constitution designates towns, although
Scottsvitle could not qualify ~oday because of the constitutional requirement that there
be a population of 1,000. Mrs. David s.aid it is possible to recognize Scottsville as a
unique entity in the County. It is a town and it is a regional center. The Planning
District Commission said a regional center means that it has importance to surrounding
counties, but it does not necessarily mean it will be a growth area of the County.
Mr. Dorrier said he would support Mrs. David's suggestion to designate Scottsville as a
town, with the provision ~hat the County Planning Office and the Mutua~Boundary Committee
work with the Town to coordinate a plan for the area. Motion to change Scottsville's
designation from that of a village to that of a town was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Saptember 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
378
Mr. D0rrier said he had discussed with.Mr. Bernard Chamberlain and Miss Virginia Moore
the fact that no historic landmarks (not State historic landmarks or Federal Histori~
landmarks) deserving a recognition are designated in the Plan. Mr. Chamberlain has contacted
the Albemarle Historical Society and he recommends that the Board meet with representatives
of the Society to designate these places so they can be protected. Miss Moore is' in the
process of drawing up a list of landmarks in the Scottsville district.
Mr. Roudabush said he could see nothing wrong with the Historical Society publish±ng a
list giving qualifications, but he was afraid if they were all included on a map, nothing
else would show because there would be so many places in the County considered worthy of
consideration for preservation. Mr. Fisher said this idea has been discussed for years.
This Plan states that effort should be made to attain protection and recognition by the
Virginia and National Registers of historic places, as well as by local historic regulations
and support. However, the details of those steps will have to be worked out at a later time.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that on map number 1, Historic Landmarks and Areas, "Charlottes-
ville Courthouse" be changed to "Albemarle County Courthouse".
Mr. Fisher said that in his district, quite a few comments have been received regarding
the designation of the Crossroads Village. Citizens feel the area should be designated as
the NOrth Garden Village. Since so many citizens have objected to the name, he wo~ld
recommend that it be changed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the village of
Crossroads be renamed the village of North @arden. The 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.
Dr. Iachetta said not many comments have been received from the Hollymead area
principally because it is at this time mostly undeveloPed. However, there was an objection
raised to designation of an industrial site next to the railroad in that area. Secondary
roads in the area are not able to handle traffic for such an activity. Route 643 is a
gravel road and the prospect for improvement is questionable. Proffit road (Route 647) is
already carrying a sizeable quantity of traffic and there is nothing in the six-year
highway plan for upgrading that road. Although this seems to be a legitimate use for the
area shown, the designation is premature. He then offered motion to delete from the Plan
the industrial zoning on the railroad south of Proffit; said ~oning to be replaced by
agricultural. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded
vo~:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta.
Mrs, David and Mr. Roudabush.
Mr. Fisher said the time a~lotted for this subject had lapsed. He suggested that the
conversation be continued on October 3, 1977, at 2:30 P. M. in the Board Room.
Agenda Item No. 3. Review of Subdivision Plat. (Plat showing proposed subdivision of
a~ 8.00 acre tract owned by Magruder Dent, located on State Route 676 about two miles
northeast of Owensville in Albemarle County, Virginia; said plat being drawn by Thomas D.
Blue, Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor; plat dated July 1, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker said the plat came before the Planning Commission on September 20th and it
was called up for review by Mr. Roudabush. This plat entails...the division of an eight-acre
parcel on Route 676 into four, two-acre parcels with a 30-foot,wide private access easement
off of Route 676, serving the four lots. The staff initially had a problem with the plat
in that it showed lot No. 4 as having only 1.7 acres. The staff told Mr. Dent that he could
not have less than a' two-acre lot without a rezoning. Mr. Dent then requested the Planning
Commission to waive the: requirement for dedication of 25 feet for future road purposes. The
Planning Commissi~on has given conditional approval of the plat with four conditions:
1. Highway Department approval of entrance and location of easement.
2. Health Department approval.
3. Maintenance agreement for the easement to be recorded.
Note on final plat. "If widening of Route 676 is undertaken by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, then a 25-foot
strip from the! centerline of Route 676, will be dedicated at that
time Without cost to the County or State."
Mr. Tucker said Mri. Dent wants to subdivide the land into four lots, but without this
waiver he cannot do thils without buying additional land. The first time this ~as heard by
the Planning Commissioni it was deferred so that Mr. Dent could contact Mr. Easter who Own~
land behind this property. Mr. Easter could not sell the additional 3/10ths of an acre
because of a deed restriction on his property. Mr. Dent came back to the Planning Commission
and they did waive the requirement for the 25-feet on the basis that there was a lack of
development activity in! the area, and the need for the additional 25 feet for f~ture road
improvement could not ble seen at this time.
Mr. Roudabush saidi he had called up this subdivision plat for several reasons: 1) The
waiver of dedication i2! not consistent with the practices of the Planning Commission.
2) Three of the lots have no legal frontage on a dedicated highway. 3) The only access to
the three lots remote from the road is across an easement that splits the three lots. The
lots would have ownership on both sides of that easement and that would be an unusual
situation. 4) The area of the easement itself is included in the twosacre parcel. Mr.
Roudabush said many tim~s the Planning Commission has been concerned about these things, and ~
was surorised that they~ were not concerned in this situation.
379
September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
Dr. Iachetta said he also would take strong exception to this waiver. The right-of-way
ma~ be necessary to improve the road at some time in the future and the easement itself
splits the three lots almost in half.
Mr. Dent was present. He said he had done research since this matter was before the
Planning Commission and he is convinced that the Board of Supervisors does not have the right
to ask for the 25-foot strip for dedication for road purposes. Therefore, he did not feel
he is asking for a waiver, because he does not acknowledge that the Board has the right to
ask for same.
Mr. Fisher noted that the County At$orney was not present at this Board meeting and
requested a motion to adjourn any further discussion until October 12th. Motion to this
effect was offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Housing. Mr. Agnor gave the Board a brief review of
the Crozet Housing project. The HUD grant was approved, conditioned on approval of a firm
financial commitment from FHA for construction of the housing itself. The necessary
advertisement for release of the funds for the first phase of the HUD project was initiated
in September. An environmental assessment file was made. available for review by citizens,
however, the environmental impact statement which was required by FHA has been contested
by the Jordan Development Corporation. The date for purchase of the property has been
extended for the third time and the option now expires on October 31st.
Ms. Jane Saunier said the Jordan DevelDpment Corporation had written a letter question-
ing the requirement for an environmental impact statement. The Corporation received a
letter from the assistant administrator of FHA in Washington on September 19th indicating
that all necessary procedures had not been followed, and requesting the applicant to fill
out an environmental impact evaluation. As a result of this, the Richmond office will
determine whether or not an environmental impact statement is required. It may be a month
or so before a final answer is received on this question. HUD has acted on the FHA rental
assistance Section 8 application and obligated those funds. Mr. Fisher asked if there is
any timetable tied to the HUD funds.
Ms. Karen Lilleleht said the timetable depends on action which may be required by the
CountY to solve the pollution problems in Crozet.
Mr. Agnor said the State Water Control Board was to have issued national pollutant
discharge elimination system permits throughout the United States by July 1, 1977. There
is a point source discharge in Crozet that does not have this NPDES permit. The regional
office of the State Water Control Board is waiting to receive a poJitive answer from
Richmond on the availability of ~n~ding from the Environmental Protection Agency to construct
a portion of the interceptor line to take raw sewage from Crozet and pump it to the
Brownsville plant. The CounSy has tried twice to fund this project and been unsuccessful.
Now, with the necessity of issuing the NPDES permit, Mr. Agnor said he feels more attention
will be given this situation. The regional director of the-State Water Control Board has
said he has no concern about the housing project, but the opponents to the project have
~ocused all of their attention on the raw sewage problem in Crozet, so it is conceivable
that a solution to this pro~e~ must be found. Mr. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service
Authority has made calculations and said that even if the raw sewage in Crozet were pumped
to the Brownsvi!le plant, there Would still be adequate capacity to handle this housing
project.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Charlottesville Housing Foundation had looked at the property
on Route 250 which was recommended for this project by the opponents. Ms. Lilleleht said
the front of the property, which is 500 feet deep, is zone~ B-i; the remainder is R-3. The
topography is sloping and partially wooded, although public sewer and .water are available.
The residential section was considered unfeasible unless a fee simple right-of,way could be
purchased through the commercial portion. The residential portion is divided by the flood
plain and two streams, and only eight to ten acres of the 16.7 total residential acreage is
available for construction. Jordan's architect reviewed the site and rejected same in a
letter to Richard A. Moyer, dated July 13, 1977, for the following reasons: 1) A large
part of the parcel is unbuildable because of topography. 2) The entire frontage is zoned
B-1. At the present time there are no plans for development for the com~.ercial portion.
The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance lists 47 uses by right and 12 by special permit; many
of which would be unsuitable in close proximity to elderly residents.. 3) The traffic noise
at the 250 site is considerably greater than any other alternative site due .to speed and
volume of traffic on 1-64 as well as 250. 4) Although use of sewer availability reserved
for this site would leave more capacity in the Brownsville Treatment Plant than the proposed
Route 240 site for treatment of existing raw sewage discharges in Crozet, there are current-
ly no resources available to utilize~the Brownsville plant in any way to resolve ~the Crozet
raw sewage problem.
Ms. Lilleleht said the Charlottesville Housing Foundation had requested the Crozet
Citizen's group to help pay some of the costs which would be incurred in shifting sites,
since only a part of these costs would be recoverable. The group was somewhat insulted
that this was even suggested. There was oneother problem and there was no resolution that
was found possible. Since there has been so much opposition to the site on Route 240, there
is no guarantee that there would not be the same opposition to the site on Route 250, there-
fore, the option was rejected. The option that was signed for the site on 240 will expire
on October 31st, and that may not be enough time. Further action on the part of this Board
may be required to keep this project alive.
At 4:16 P. M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:23 P. M.
september 28~ 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
380
Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion of tax exemption for disabled persons. Mr. Ray ~ones,
Director of Finance, was present and said the 1977 session of the General Assembly had
amended the State Code so as to provide tax relief for people who are permanently and totally
disabled in the same manner as tax relief is now provided for the elderly. After a short
discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush authorizing the staff to draft an amendment
.to the tax relief for the elderly ordinance to include people who are permanently and totally
disabled. The motion was 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. Jones said that the legislature also raised the limit on income to $10,000, and if
the Board wished to, that could be considered in this same amendment. Mr. Jones noted that
in March of 1975, the Board had amended the ordinance to raise the net financial worth of a
person applying for this exemption from $20,000 to $35,000. He felt that $7,500 income was
realistic for Albemarle County. There being no consensus on whether there should be a change~
the subject was dropped.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones to research the question of whether the tax on
utilities could be changed so that the rate being paid would be the same as that on the State
sales tax, with the implication that this would be deductible under the Federal Income Tax
laws.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation for Airport Board.
"Memo to: Board of Supervisors
From: Guy B. Agnor, Jr.
Re: Airport Budget
Date: September 23, 1977
In April, during budget preparations, you ~ere advised that the County
and the City were being requested to provide $20,000 each in FY-77 for the
Airport budget. $10~000 of this amount was for operations, and $10;000 for
capital expenditures anticipated to be needed for payment to the Fixed Base
Operator~ Eagle Aviation, at the expiration of their lease in AuguSt for the
remaining balance of unamortized capital improvements made by Eagle, as
provided in their lease.
I recommended the operations budget be funded, and the capital appropriation
be delayed until a new lease, which was being prepared for bid at that time,
could be executed. My reasons were several:
Eagle Aviation was planning to bid on a new twenty-~ lease, and
if they were successful bidders, the repayment to them by the Air-
p~rt Board of the unamortized improvements would not be necessary.
Other firms were also interested in the new lease, and it was my
recommendation that they be required to invest in the improvements
and complete the amortization, thereby repaying Eagle Aviation.
The Airport Board was considering operating the fixed base operation
without a contract operator, and if that were accomplished, a larger
amount than $10,000 for capital investment would be required from
the County and City. ~
The bids were let, and were not accepted. The Airport Board considered
the alternative of assuming the operation, and rejected that approach.
Negotiations with one of the bidders, Piedmont Aero, for a five-year lease
~ere attempted and brought to a successful conclusion in late August.
The length of the new lease and the terms do not provide for ~apital
investments or improvements in airport facilities. Rental rates for hangar
and office space have been established at a square footage cost that reflects
the use of the improvements. The Airport Board is therefore in th~ position
of having to honor the terms of the expiring lease which provides for the
cash settlement for capital expenses less appropriate depreciation, calculated
to be $19,817.72, or $9,908.86 each from the County and City.
It is requested an appropriation for that amount be made to Code 19J,
Joint Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Improvements, ,with the funds being
derived from the General OPerating Capital Outlay Fund Balance, which had
a balance of $769,534.97 on September 1." ~
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Super¥isors of Albemarle County,
Virginia,. that $9,908.86 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and Coded to 19J-Joint
Charlottesville/Albemarle ~irport Improvements.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs..David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
Agenda Item No. Sa. Appropriation: NIMLO Suit. (Unemployment Insurance). Mr. Agnor
said that on September 8~ 1977, the Board agreed to enter the National Institute of Municipal
Law Officer's suit on Federal Unemployment Compensation Tax Insurance. The agreement signed
said that $2,500 would be paid into a trust fund, and such appropr±ation is now needed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CountY,
Virginia, that $2,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and Coded to lA-!03~ Professional andi~e:~l Services.
AYES:
NAYS:
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mr. Dorrier.
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he had received several letters.
A request from parents for the County to sponsor a soccer program.
David sugge'sted this request be referred to the Parks Committee.
Mrs.
A letter from the General Services Administration concerning the move of
the Federal Court out of the Post Office building. '
3. ~ letter from the Highway Department on Route 860.
"September 23, 1977
Route 860
Project: 0860-054-159, C-501, FS-709
This is to advise that the Industrial Access Fund request~made by LOuisa
and Albemarle Counties for access to the Klockner Pentaplast facility has been
approved. $150,000 from the 1977-78 Industrial Access Fund has been allocated
to this project. Ail of this money will be charged against the eligibility of
Louisa County. The use of the fund has been made contingent upon Klockner
Pentapl~st entering into a firm contract for the construction of its facility,
and the necessary right of way and adjustment of utilities being provided at no
cost to the Commonwealth~"
Mr. Fisher also noted receipt of a letter from the High~ay Department dated September 23
1977, giving a summary of the expenditures on ~.he secondary system during the 1976-77 fiscal
year.
Mr. Roudabush noted that ~he Highway Department is starting work on the southbound lane
over the bridge on the North Fork of the. Rivanna River.
Mr. Fisher said he had several matters that needed to be discussed in executive session
concerning acquisition of property and legal matters. Dr. Iachetta said he had a personnel
matter he would also like to discuss, and at 5:30 P. M. offered motion to a~journ into
executive session to discuss acquisition of property, legal matters, and personnel matters.
The 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.
The Board reconvened at 7:40 P. M. in the Albemarle County CourthouSe.
Agenda Item No..6. Public Hearing: Solid Waste Collection System. (Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 14 and September 21, 1977.)
Mr. Fisher noted that this matter has been discussed for many months. After the last
public hearing in 1976, this matter'was referred to a committee composed of three'members of
the Board of Supervisors, and several citizens. The Committee made a report to the Board on
July 1, 1977, and he then asked Mr. Dorrier for a report.
Mr. Dorrier said that Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Roudabush and himself had worked closely with
the County Engineer, and Dennis White, an intern in the Planning Department, on this subject.
There were several meetings over a period of ten months, during which they discussed various
alternatives. The Plan presented tonight basically calls for transfer stations to be located
throughout the County. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. White, who summarized the
report for those citizens present'.
Mr. Fisher asked for other comments from Committee members. Mr. Roudabush said that the
system proposed is flexible. The equipment would be rented and hauling contracted. Also,
private haulers would be allowed to use these transport stations so placement of these would
not infringe on their businesses. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said that 100% of
the County would be effectively covered by these transport stations. The Committee had set
as a goal that 80% of the population would be within five miles of a receiving station, and
this is a big improvement for individuals who must haul trash to one of the landfills.
September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977)
382:
Mr. Fisher noted that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on
SePtember 27, 1977, by unanimous ¥ote, said the solid waste collection system report
substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing convenience
and efficiency to the populous of the County in terms of solid waste disposal facilities.
However: 1) While the Planning Commission agrees with[~ithe generalized service areas as
presented in the report, no endorsement of specific collection sites is made, and 2) the
Planning Commission has not reviewed the report in terms of proposed cost, equipment, staff-
ing or institutional arrangements, and makes no comments in respect to these considerations.
Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing.
Ms. Darlene Samsell said she lives in the ~eswick area and is in favor of the system.
HoweYer, there should be enough money budgeted to be sure the sites are kept clean~.
Ms. Ruth Wadlington, League of Women Voters, said they feel the County should have a
solid waste collection system to correct inequities. The Keene Landfill should be eased out
becaUse of the earlier leaching problem. Although they did not consider financing, they
exPect public education will be a problem, and if the County is not able to fund the program
properly, the League of Women Voters suggests that a demonstration project be considered in
only one or two areas of the County.
Mr. Robert Barber from Howardsville said they live in a remote area of the County and
they have no way to dispose of trash since there are no private haulers in the area. The
landfill at Keene opens at 7:30 and closes~at 5:30, so the working people do not h~ve any
way to transport their trash to the landfill. He then presented to the Board a petition
signed by 87 persons, requesting a portable dumster for the Ho~ardsville area. The petition
stated that Howardsville is experiencing a steady growth in population and is showing
definite signs of becoming a recreational retreat.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 P. M.
Dr. Iachetta said there is presently no information available on which to base esti-
mates of the amount of trash that will be collected at'these stations, so he is hesitant to
recommend that this solid waste collection system be started with all six sites recommended
in the Committee Report. He felt the program should be begun with a modigication of the
Keene Landfill and one pickup station in the most remote corner of the County, or the Cismont
area, designated as No. 3 in the report. Experience gained while using th. is one transfer
station would give information on whether to expand or drop the program.
Mr. Fisher asked if the committee had considered charging private haulers who would be
using these transport stations. Mr. White said ~here was no suggestion made for a fee
because the County would need accurate figures on the cost per ton to haul the trash from
the outlying areas Go the landfill. Several months of operation would give accurate figures.
haul to the Ivy Landfill
the Resource Recovery St
was optimistic on how m
one person living in th
and he cannot support i
Mr. Fisher said he
ing tonight supports th
many people spoke in fa
asking why the Board di
felt that if the County
couple of pilot program
Study Commission report
of the year. There hay
Mr. Henley said it has been mentioned ~hat the Ivy Landfill is remote from some areas
of the County. However, when he served on the Landfill Committee several years ago, every-
body wanted the landfill to go somewhere else, so he was not bothered that they must now
.. He felt it would be better to wait and start this program after
;udy Commission has made a recommendation. Also, he felt the report
~ch money would be saved on the Keene operation. Mr. Henley said not
White Hall District has spoken to h:~m in support of this project,
at. this time.
has had only a few people ask for this service and the public h~ar-
~t feeling. Mr. Roudabush said at last year's public hearing, not
~or of the project, but afterwards he had quite a few telephone calls
1 not do something about a solid waste collection system~ Mrs. David
is to undertake this project, it should be started with only a
· She asked a target date for completion of the Resour'ce Recovery
Dr. Iachetta said the consultant is to file a report by the end
.already been two i~t~rim reports and one of the reports says that
solid waste cannot be p: ocessed economically in Albemarle County. The only aspect that is
viable is recovery for ~nergy.
Mr. Fisher said if the Board decides to enter into a pilot program for two sites, if
the planning, drafting of contracts, and the budgeting, could be accomplished so the program
can begin on or about July 1, 1978. Mr. Agnor said he felt this would allow enough time.
Dr. Iach~tta then offered motion authorizing the Engineering Staff to prepare a detailed
plan for implementing recommendation Number 4 in the Solid Waste Committee's Report of
July 1, 1977; also authorizing a pilot operation for the Cismont area, designated as Area
Number 3 on figure IA in the Committee's Report; implementation date for this pilot program
to be July 1, 1978, if plans and financing of same are completed by that date. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the foIlowing recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mr. Henley.
Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said Mr. Wendell Wood had requested that the Board witness
a noise test for helicopters relative to his petition which will be before the Board on
October 5th. It was the. general consensus of the Board that they would prefer to wait
until after the public hearing.
Agenda Item No. 9. At 9:2~ P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until September 29, 1977, at 7:30 P. M. in the Albemarle
COunty Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and R~udabush.
None.
C~airman