1976-04-07N124
April 7, 1976 (Adjourned from April 6, 1976)
April 7,~ 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April 7, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes-
ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 6, 1976.
PRESENT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier,-Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
the County Executive.
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Robert Sampson, Assistant to
The meeting was called to order at 2:15 P.M. by the Chairman, at which time the Board
conducted a work session on the 1976-77 County budget. The following items were listed on thc
agenda:
I)
2)
3)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
15)
16)
17)
Code 5B - General District Court. Judge Herbert Pickford.
Code 18B.12 - Housing Committee. Jason Eckford, John Taylor, Ken Martin.
Code 5C - Commonwealth's Attorney. John Dezio.
Code 5A - Circuit Court. Harry Young.
Code 4A - Clerk of the Circuit Court and Commissioner of Accounts. Shelby Marshall.
Code 18C.5 - Contributions to Regional Jail.
Code 190 - Regional Jail.Budget. Marian Rabinowitz and Albert Shank.
Code 18C.7 - Magistrate's Office. D. D. Hudson.
Code 5D - Juvenile Court. Judge Ralph Zehler.
Code 18C.6 - Juvenile Detention Home. Robert Sampson.
Code 18C.t - Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad.
Code 18C~-8 - Scottsville Rescue Squad.
Code 18C.2 - Highway Safety Commission.
Code 18C.3 - Emergency Services Office.
Code 20 - Regular Debt Service.
Code 19 - Capital Outlay Fund.
Miscellaneous Codes - Revenue Sharing Proposals.
At 5:55 P.M., at the end of the work session, Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 7, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederic~
W. payne; Deputy County Attorney, James V. Bowling, IV; and Assistant Director of Planning,
Ronald Keeler.
(Note: Notice of change in meeting dates for the calendar year 1976 was advertised in
the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 30, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Agnor who began his duties as
County Executive on April 1, 1976.
Agenda Item No. 1. SP-17-76. Albemarle County Service Authority. To bring into
conformance the existing, nonconforming water treatment plant located on four acres zoned A-1
Agricultural. Property on the south side of Route 240 near intersection of Route 68'0.
County Tax Map 57, ParCel 29B, White Hall District. (Notice of this public hearing published
in the Daily Progress on March 17 and March 24, 1976.)-
Mr. Payne noted that the County Attorney's Office also represents the Albemarle County
Service Authority and would not participate in the discussion of this petition.
Mr. Tucker said this area is rural in character, however, the site is clearly visible
from three houses on the opposite side of Route 240. There are 14 homes within 1000 feet of
the site. The property surrounding the site is wooded. The site presently contains con-
struction and maintenance vehicles as well as pipe and construction materials. The applicant
wants to make the existing water treatment plant conforming with the Zoning Ordinance so that
a vehicle shed may be constructed to house the mobile equipment which is currenly parked
outside. This area is surrounded by a chain link fence. The Planning Commission recommends
approval with the following conditions attached to the permit:
l)
2)
3)
Screening from dwellings and from Route 240 with evergreen trees with
a minimum height of five feet; to be planted on ten-foot centers.
Relocation of pipe and construction materials.
Site plan approved by the planning staff.
Mr. E. E. Thompson, Director of the Service Authority, was present in support of the
petition. No one from the public spoke for or against the request. Motion was then offered
by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-17-76 with conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush.
None.
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Industrial Development Authority Ordinance. (This
matter was deferred from March 3, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said this matter has been on the Board's
agenda since it was first introduced on December 30, 1975. A committee was appointed to
study setting up a joint authority with the City of Charlottesville. The committee has
recommended against such action. Dr. Iachetta then summarized the committee's report which
was given to the Board at their meeting on March 18, 1976. He then read a revised, proposed
ordinance into the record:
AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PURSUANT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REVENUE BOND
ACT, CONSTITUTING CHAPTER 33 OF TITLE 15.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA OF 1950.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. There is hereby created a political subdivision of the Con, on-
wealth of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 33 of Title 15.1 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, in the manner hereinafter set out.
2. The name of the political subdivision created shall be the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia.
3. The public and corporate powers of the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, are solely and exclusively
limited to the power to finance industrial pollution control facilities
for industries presently located in Albemarle County, Virginia; the
power to finance industrial plant expansion for industries presently
located in Albemarle County, Virginia, requiring minimum local public
utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which
shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and the power to finance new industrial facilities in
Albemarle County, Virginia, which new industrial facilities shall be
exclusively limited to light manufacturing and research oriented
industries, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing
new jobs, the substantial majority of which ,shall be filled by prior
residents and domiciles of Albemarle County, Virginia.
4. No financing of any industrial pollution control facility or
industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall take place
without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia.
5. ~ny industrial pollution control facility or industrial
plant expansion or new industrial facility financed by the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, must occur within
the legal boundaries of Albemarle County, Virginia; and the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors must approve the proposed location of any
industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or
new industrial facility prior to any financing by the Industrial
Development of Albemarle County, Virginia.
6. There shall be nor more than bond issuances of the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia.
7. Ail by-laws, standards and priorities of the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be approved by the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, prior to their adoption
by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
any revisions or changes of said by-laws, standards and priorities shall
require the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia.
8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the day of , 1976.
Mr. Fisher said the question now is not that of adopting the ordinance, but one of
readvertising this revised ordinance for another public hearing. He said since there were
interested people present, he would allow comments' from the public.
Mr. Alton Garrett, United ~irginia Bank, asked for a rapid decision and suggested that
the blank it paragraph six be filled in so all details are clear.
Mr. Fred Ferguson was present to represent the Economic Development Commission.
they feel this ordinance satisfies their original request.
He said
Mr. Roudabush said the committee had discussed several items of concern with Mr. Bowling.
It was thought that a lot of these concerns could be covered in the by-laws which would al~so
need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said the ordinance should be
advertised for a public hearing. If it is adopted, the board would appoint an Authority and
then adopt by-laws. This would be a long process.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to advertise the ordinance for a public hearing
on May 12, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building; inserting
"three" in paragraph six. The motion/carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
126
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3.
March 10, 1976. (Note:
SP-468. James R. Armstrong.
Mr. Dorrier abstaining.)
This public hearing deferred from
Mr. Keeler noted that a letter had been sent by the Planning Office on March 11, 1976,
asking Mr. Armstrong for a sketch or site plan as requested by the Board on March 10. This
was sent by certified mail, "return receipt requested", but no site plan has-been received,'
therefore, no recommendation is available from the staff.
Mr. Roudabush said Mrs. Armstrong had called him two weeks ago and asked if she and Mr.
Armstrong could come and talk to him regarding the site plan. He had indicated he did not
think it was good idea to speak with only one member of the Board. She had noted receipt of
the letter from the Planning Office. Mr. Roudabush said he had consulted with the Chairman
and other members of the Board who had indicated it was not wise to have a non-public hearing
Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney's Office had received any communication from Mr.
Armstrong since March 10. Mr. Payne said no. Mr. Fisher said the Board is back where they
were eight weeks ago. He then asked Mr. Armstrong what difficulties he was having telling
the Board what he wanted to do with the-property.
Mr. Armstrong said he was having no difficulties. He was, and still is,~satisfied
with the decision handed down by the Court. A site plan was submitted to his attorney and
apparently there had been a mix-up because his attorney was not present. No screening has
been ~ncluded on the site plan for reasons stated many times, however, the property has been
considerably landscaped since he purchased same. Mr. Armstrong said since he had taken this
matter to court once, he did not think he would at this time accept a long list of additional
conditions.
Mr. Fisher said there were people present who had an interest in this petition and he
would allow time for statements.
Mr. Dave Wood, representing several property owners in Esmont, said he understands that
since the last Board meeting, Mr. Armstrong has planted some very short pines (18" in height)
in front of Mrs. Tapscott's property and four dogwood trees (36" in height) on the railroad
right of way running beside his property. On behalf of his clients, Mr. Wood urged the Board
to either revoke the permit, or place restrict~on~ on the permit that will prot~ect his
clients' property.
Mr. Payne said there was a court order entered last October which stated that one of the
conditions on the permit was invalid, but the rest were valid. In November the applicant
filed a motion in circuit court. In January, the County Attorney's Office filed a responsive
pleading, but no hearing has been held. Mr. St. John has advised the Board that the permit
can be revoked on the basis that the condition struck down was e~sential to passage of the
original permit. The Board can, if they feel there is enough factual information from the
public, revoke the permit on the basis that the use is a public nuisance. There was a condit
on the original permit which stated: "If in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors, the use
of this property creates a public nuisance from the standpoint of noise or appearance, the
permit will be revoked."
Dr. Iachetta said since last. year there have three hearings on this petition, each
directed toward finding a reasonable set on conditions to ~hich the applicant would agree.
The applicant has not agreed to anything proposed and made no counter proposal even though he
was given an opportunity to do so. Dr. Iachetta asked if this is grounds for revoking the
permit. Mr. Payne said no. If the Board chooses to impose a condition on the applicant
which is reasonable and can be sustained by court, there is no need for the applicant to
agree. It then becomes a question of whether the Board's action is in accord with the court'
decision. If the applicant does not think so, he can go back to court for another hearing.
Mr. Fisher asked which condition was struck down by the court. Mr. Payne read: "No
more than six Vehicles which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair and maintenance or
restoration shall be left outside of the structure at night at any one time."
Mrs. David asked if the Board~cou!d revoke the permit on the g~u~ds that it was mistakel
granted in the first place in opposition to the recommendations of the Planning Staff and
Commission. Mr. Payne said no, but there is some evidence in the record which sustains the
position that the condition w~ich was struck down was essential to the original passage of
the permit. ~
Mr. Fisher said the whole history of this case makes him think that the Board was too
lenient in granting the permit in the first place and then liberalizing t~e number of vehicle
that could be kept on the property. Special permits are a meahs by which people can use
their property for ways not included b~ right in the zoning ordinance. If conditions cannot
be set which can be enforced, then the whole special permit procedure i~ in jeopardy.
Dr. Iachetta noted that screening was a condition on the original permit granted
in 1972 and that condition still ha~ not been met. Mr. Payne said the applicant appeared
before the Board in 1975 and requestedi~reliefLfrom two conditions on that ~iginai appiicatio~
Relief was given by changing ~he condition to rea~: "Existing landscaping be maintained."
Dr. Iachetta said the permit was granted with conditions prior to the time the property
was purchased. Thereafter, objections were~?aised. He did mot know how the Board can
resolve this problem if the applicant is unWilling to do anything~sUggested.
~M~. Roudabush said at the previous meetings on this question, he had tried to formulate
a scheme wherey Mr. Armstrong could continue to use his property for the use granted in the
original permit, but with conditions that would alleviate problems stated by his neighbors.
Mr. Armstrong was even~asked to help the Board arrive at a set of conditions to which
he was agreeable, but to no avail. Mr. Roudabush said he did not know how~to resolve
this question. ~
Mr. Jack Camblos asked to be heard. Mr. Fisher asked that the record show that Mr.
Camblos had arrived just ~efore 8-:~30 P.M., after discussion with the applicant. He asked
if the Board members wanted to hear further from the applicant. It was agreed that Mr.
Camblos should be heard.
.on
ly
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Camblos apologized for being late. He said his office had "goofed" Mr. Armstrong
had submitted a sketch to his office several days ago, but inadvertently this was not taken t
the Planning Office. He then submitted the site plan/sketch to the Board.
Mr. Fisher said the patience of the Board and the citizens of the County have been tried
almost beyond endurance on this issue. He woul. d recommend that the Board not accept the site
plan, but did no~ want the citizens to have to come back to another meeting. At 8:40 P.M.,
Mr. Fisher declared a 15 recess so that Mr. Keeler could study the site plan and make a
recommendation to the Board. The Board reconvened at 8:55 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said this matter has put Mr. Keeler on the spot, but requested an opinion on
the site plan. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission has spent a good deal of time develop
a site plan ordinance. This ordinance is very explicit in setting out what is required on a
site plan. This plan lacks much of the technical data required. Existing facilities and
proposed facilities cannot be differentiated. He also felt that accepting a site plan 15
minutes before acting on same was unfair to other citizens and might set a precedent.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he had looked at the plan. Mr. Agnor said he had diffi-
culties trying to orient the written document submitted with the drawing submitted. He also
felt approval of this site plan might set a precedent.
Mr. Roudabush said there was no site plan ordinance in effect on the date the permit was
originally approved. The Board had requested Mr. Armstrong to bring back a drawing, not
specifically a site plan drawn by requirements of the site plan ordinance, sufficient to show
landscaping, parking and screening. He did not believe the Board intended that this be a
site plan under terms of the site plan ordinance. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. He
asked Mr. Roudabush if the plan, other than being delivered to the Board late, was in sub-
stantial compliance with the Board's request. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Armstrong seems to have
done what was requested of him. Whether or not it is acceptable as a condition on the permit
is another question. He then read the following undated letter, received at this meeting,
into the record:
"Our intentions are and always have been to have a small family run
garage to service the needs of our community.
We~intend in the very near future to plant evergreens at the northern-
most corner of the property and several ornamental bushes from there
down towards the parking area to break up the visability of other
neighbors cars that are in our care for repair.
On the northern and southern borders of our property there is existing
privet hedge which will grow 10 - 15 feet in height. We have been
cutting it back, but will let it grow. With the existing hedge,
enbankments (very steep), proposed plantings and a three board fence
along the front of the property, we feel this should be sufficient.
We are perfectly content with the Judge's decision and are willing to
go along with it, ie: that conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 remain in effect.
We hope to have our building completed within six months.
more anxious than anyone else in this regard.
We are much
The proposed plantings are, spirea, forsythia, mock orange, coralberry,
deutzia, weigelia, hydrangea, rose of sharon, tulip tree, silver maple,
redbud, dogwood, azalias and roses, plus a few evergreens."
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Armstrong if he was the author of the letter just read. Mr.
Armstrong replied yes. Mrs. David asked the existing conditions on this permit. Mr. Payne
handed to Mr. Roudabush a certified copy of Judge Berry's order and Mr. Roudabush read the
following:
3)
5)
Existing landscaping to remain in effect.
This special permit is not transferrable.
This special permit shall become void if the use of the property becomes
a public nuisance in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors from the
standpoint of appearance or excessive noise created.
Bond in the amount of $300 be posted to clear the site if this special
permit becomes voided or the property vacated.
Mr. Fisher said the sketch shows a total of 10 delineated parking spaces. Numbers 4, 5
and 6 are shown against or at the eastern end of the rock wall of the building with a three-
board fence on line. Mr. Fisher asked the height of a three-board fence. Mr. Camblos said
it would be a normal 36 to 42 inches high.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dave Wood for comments on the sketch. Mr. Wood said he had not
seen the sketch but suggested that a three-board fence does not protect the community from
this garage. He urged that the Board requ~ire an opaque fence of sufficient height to hide
the automobiles and the garage from sight. Mr. Wood said he feels the applicant has been
given every opportunity to cooperate and has not-dOne so. He felt the Board had grounds to
revoke the permit because the appearance of the property has not been corrected.
Mr. Fisher said this permit has consumed more hours ~of the Board's time than any other
matter he could remember. He then asked if the Board was ready to make a decision. Mr.
Roudabush offered motion that the special permit granted to Mr. Armstrong (SP-468) be amended
that conditions #2, #3, #4 and #5, presently in effect, and set out above, be retained; that
the following additional conditions be imposed on the permit: Operation and vehicle storage
be confined to the property owned by Mr. Armstrong; that the landscaping and planting plan
shown on the drawing submit'ted by Mr. Armstrong and outlined in his letter, be~accepted; that
the parking shown on his sketch plan be accepted; that the three-board fence from the apex of
the triangle on the north of the property running in a sou~h~r~y~ dire'c~n~-~fo~.a~di~an~e~f
167.63 feet be accepted; that ~ommencing at that point on the front bo~ndary~ an opaque fence
of Sufficient height and construction be ~rected to insure that no vehicles are visible from
outside of the orooertv l~ne for theft d~t~n~ ~f ]~.TP ~t~ ~t f~ tw~ ~n~~ ~
128
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Nigh~iMeeting)
Mr. Fisher noted that the sketch referred to in the motion was marked "James R. and Mary
Go Armstrong, and he had marked same received at 8:30 P.M. on April 7, 1976, and had initiale~
same "GEF" He also had put the s~ae markings on the letter. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion
were clearly understood.
Dr. Iachetta asked if any time limit was to be established for completion of these
conditions. Mr. Roudabush amended his motion to add a condition reading: "Completion on all
plantings and fencing within 90 days from April 7, 1976." Mr. Henley accepted this amendment
to the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he would oppose the motion on the grounds that he feels Mr.
Armstrong is already in violation of the special permit and the appropriate action would be
to revoke the permit. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley and Roudabush.
NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier.
Agenda Item No. 4. Request from Region X Mental Health & Retardation Services Board to
purchase building. Mr. Jim Peterson was present. Letter making this request is set out in
the minutes of March 18, 1976.)
Mr. Peterson said since the last meeting with the Board, he had researched the question
of how the County of Albemarle had accu~mla~d~ a surplus balance. He has determined that as
of June 30, 1975, the County's surplus funds amount to $18,425.00, broken down as follows:
duly 1, 1971 - June 30, 1972: $890.00 resulting from underexpenditures. 2~%?
July 1, 1972 - June 30~>1973: $5,254.00 resulting from unfilled personnel
positions and unused budgeted overhead.
J~lya.1; 1973 - June 30, 1974: $10,109.00 resulting from underspending in
wages and receipB of fees in excess of budgeted amount.
July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975: $2,172.00 resulting mainly from program
expansion, particularly in the children oriented (Part F) program.
Mr. Peterson said he also sought an opinion from William P.-Webb, Administrative Service
Supervisor, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, on the question of dispositio~
of unexpended local funds. In a letter dated March 29, 1976, Mr. Webb had noted the followin
options: a) the program is permitted to retain the balance for program use; b) the program
retains the balance for local match in the subsequent year, serving as a supplement to or as
a reduction of normal local funding; or c) the participating localities may request return of
their pro rata share of the local balance. Mr. Peterson said the original request still
stands. The Region X Board would like to apply a portion of Albemarle County's surplus funds
toward acquisition of a building.
Mr. Fisher said the question is not just whether the Region X Board can use the accumula
funds for a down payment on the building, but whether the participating localities are going
to commit themselves to additional debt service payments in future years. Mr. Roudabush
asked what funds would be used to repay a mortgage. Mr. Peterson said these would be funds
normally used for ren5. In the fiscal year 1976-77 budget, additional funds have been
included for either rental of space or acquisition of this building.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said there is a comparable situation with the
Regional Health ~Department where each year after their records are audited all surplus funds
are returned to the County. This agency is no different from other County departments in
that any unexpended balance reverts back to the County's General Fund at the end of each
fiscal year. This is a separate question from that of purchasing a building.
Mr. Dorrier said the State has forced upon the communities the need to create decent
mental health care facilities. This community has a good mental health program which is
funded mostly by Federal monies. He asked that the Board help with purchase of the building.
Dr. Iachetta said the County has many space requirements and he felt this request
should be considered with other such requests.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted the $18,425 surplus accumulated from 1971 to 1975
as estimated by Mr. John Derr in a letter to Mr. Jim Peterson, dated March 31, 1976, returned
to the Albemarle County General Fund, with a separate request being filed for an appropriatio~
of $12,338 under capital outlays. Mrs. David offered motion to this effect. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher noted that since the Board has now voted to have the surplus funds returned,
this will be the policy for all future years.
After a short conversation about the type of building being purchased and use of same~
motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the Board request the Region X Mental Health and
Retardation Services Board to submit a request for purchase of this building; such request to
be considered with other requests for capital outlay funds. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
ed
April 7, 1976 (Regular.- Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. (JAUNT).
Present were Mr. Jim Peterson from the Region X Mental Health and Retardation Services Board
and Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Region X Planning District Commission. The following infor-
mation was given:
"The proposed project will provide for the continued operation and
expansion into rural areas of a transportation system which currently
utilizes pooled agency vehicles to service client groups in the urban
and suburban areas of Planning District 10. The expanded system would
provide daily work and service related trips for the rural residents
of the Planning District. Initially, one van would serve each of the
outlying counties of Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson, with daily
trips within the County to shopping, medical, business, recreation and
other services. A trip to Charlottesville would be provided once a
week. Charlottesville and Albemarle County would be provided daily
service as well.
The planned expansion of the system would involve a rural transportation
advisory group composed of persons from all parts of the~ planning district
to monitor and evaluate the system to insure local participation and
satisfaction with the regional system. The goal of the proposal is to'
develop, operate, and monitor a flexible, self-sustaining, transportation
system serving rural residents built on the consolidation of human
service agency transportation resources. Uniform access by all rural
residents to safe, efficient, inexpensive travel within five counties
and between these counties and the regional urban center will be
provided, with special emphasis on service to the poor, the elderly,
and the handicapped."
Mr. Peterson said this plan has been endorsed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission and two rural localities. The budget attached to the staff report from the Planni~
District clarifies earlier questions about administrative costs.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, public transportation for persons who live in rural areas is
virtually nonexistent, and mobility depends on ability to own and drive an
automobile; and
WHEREAS, for those persons who are unable, because of age, physical
disability, or lack of resources, to use an automobile, this lack of
transportation seriously reduces their choice of activities of daily
living, and is a barrier to active participation in jobs, medical and
social services and other aspects of community life; and
WHEREAS, the Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. (JAUNT, Inc.)
is engaged in providing transportation services to these transportation
disadvantaged persons in a manner designed to utilize existing community
resources and reduce duplication;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County endorses the request made by JAUNT, INC. to the Federal Highway
Administration for funds under Section 147, Federal-Aid Highway Act
(1973 as amended) to expand and enlarge its capacity to include service
to the citizens of the locality.
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.
Mrs. Saunier noted that a public hearing on this request will be required later.
Agenda Item No. 6. Lottery Permit. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by
Dr. Iachetta to approve a lottery permit for The Museum of Commerce, in accordance with
adopted rules of the Board for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Special Appropriation: It was noted that the advertisement required
by State Code before adoption of the new business and professional license tax code has been
billed in the amount of $3,117.42. An appropration of $3,000.00 is needed before this bill
can be approved for payment. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating
Fund and coded to l-A-200, Advertising, Board of Supervisors.
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.
130
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a letter from David E. Morine,
Director of Land Acquisition, The Nature Conservancy, containing the following proposal:
' "in October, 1975, the availability of a unique parcel of land on the Ivy
Creek portion of the Rivanna Reservoir was brought to the attention of
The Nature Conservancy, a national, non-profit conservation organization.
The Conservancy investigated the property and found that, given its loca-
tion, the land was of unusual ecological significance. Its importance
was heightened not only by the fact that it borders the areas' major water
supply but also that it lies in a section of Albemarle County that is
undergoing tremendous developmental pressure. Consequently, the acquisi-
tion of this particular tract appeared to be one of the last opportunities
to puchase a significant amount of open space around the Reservoir.
The Conservancy's concern for this property was shared by anonymous donors
who pledged an initial $10,000.00 seed-grant to the project. Since there
is considerable public interest in the preservation of the Reservoir, the
Conservancy's Board of Governors decided to advance the projec~ an addi-
tional $180,000.00 from its own Project Revolving Fund. This fund is used
to finance the Conservancy's conservation efforts across the country, and
it is the hope of the Board of Governors that the advance will be fully
repaid within three years.
As indicated on the attached map, the 80.62 acres of land, with over .7
mile~frontage~ that makes up the Conservancy's Rann Preserve, completely
encompasses a 38 acre peninsula presently owned by the City of Charlottes-
ville. This peninsula has an additional three-fourths mile of frontage on
ivy Creek. The City also owns another 25+ acre parcel across from the
peninsula and all of the land below the 400' contour line. In addition,
there is also a very good possibility that the project will be further
enhanced by the donation of conservation easements from major landowners
along the Reservoir. Thus, the Conservancy feels quite confident that the
total project could result in the preservation of the entire Ivy Creek
section of the Reservoir.
Given the above, the Conservancy thinks that this area wouid make an
excellent city, county or regional park. Consequently, the Conservancy
strongly recommends that the City, County or special regional park auth-
ority consider acquiring the total project from the Conservancy and
designate it as a local park. From the Conservancy's initial studies, it
would seem that the most suitable use of the land would be as a nature
preserve to be used for scientific, educational and passive recreational
purposes by the local school system, area colleges, scout organizations
and individuals. The Nature Conservancy has done initial studies of the
property, and there is no question that it is populated with a rich vari-
eity of local flora and fauna.
The Conservancy would expect to transfer the entire project to the City
and/or County or a regional park authority without requiring the use of
any City or County funds. Given the fact that the total fair market value
of the project, excluding lands already owned by the City or County, could
be approximately $300,000.00, we would hope that the City or County, with
the full endorsement of both agencies, would make an application for
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation matching funds. The application would be for
50% of the property's fair market value of $300,000.00, plus 50% of any
developmental funds that the County thinks necessary. It is the Conser-
vancy's opinion that little developmental funding will be needed, given the
intended use of the property. The Conservancy has already accumulated
considerable data that might assist in the preparation of a BOR matching
fund grant proposal and would be willing to assist in any way possible.
As of this date, the Conservancy's total cost in the project is approxi-
mately $200,000.00. This figure includes purchase of land, title search
and legal fees, interest, taxes, renovations and improvements on the house
and other direct expenses. The Conservancy would hope to recoup its in-
vestment by selling all of its interest in the project to the City and/or
County for one half of the fair market value, or approximately $150,000.00.
Furthermore, the Conservancy intends to raise an additional $50,000.00
locally, $i0,000.00 of which has already been committed.
Considering its recommendations for the property, the Conservancy does not
see management to be a major problem. Furthermore, any management of the
property could be enhanced by the fact that the existing house on the Rann
Preserve could be used as a warden's residence. Such a use is usually
beneficial to both the warden and the managing agency.
Since the Conservancy will not place use restrictions in its deed to the
City and/or County or regional authority, it expects the future management
of the property will, in fact, be regulated by the intended use as out-
lined in the BOR proposal.
In light of the above, the Nature Conservancy hereby requests that the
City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle:
(1) Agree to acquire all of the Conservancy's present and future
holdings along the Ivy Creek portion of the Rivanna Reservoir;
April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting)
131
(2) that the City of Charlottesville, to the extent that it is
~legally possible, incorporate the land that it owns along Ivy
Creek into the total project;
(3) the City or County, with the endorsement Of both parties, submit
an application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation requesting acqui-
sition and possibly development funds in an amount equal to half of
the project's total fair market value, and;
(4) if the City and County-feel that it is necessary, they will
create a regional park authority to manage the area.
Again, it is the Conservancy's hope that if the County and City agree to
act favorably on this proposal, the land will be managed as a natural area
for scientific, educational and passive recreational purposes."
Mr. Fisher said he had discussed this proposal with Mr. Francis Fife, a member of City
Council, who will also discuss the proposal with City Council. They feel a joint committee
should be formed to look into ~h~apo~sibility of joint acquisition of the property, financial
arrangements, and management ~r~sumh an arrangement. Mr. Fisher then appointed Mrs. David
and Dr. Iachetta to this committee and said this proposal needs to be explored since use
of the land for this purpose will reduce demands for high density residential use~on lands
adjacent to the Reservoir and will provide recreational space for people already living in
the hig~ density areas of the County.
Dr. Iachetta said the T. J. Planning District Commission has a request from Dr. Charles
Hurt for a $2,147,700 insured loan from F.H.A. for construction of 100 rental units in
Hollymead Square. He had asked that the Planning District delay any action since the Board
of Supervisors had not seen the request. The principal question involved is the intent 'of
this project to provide low and moderate income housing. He then offered motion requesting
the Planning Staff to review the plan for Hollymead to see that this proposal is consistent
with the approved PUD plan and to request Mr. Jason Eckford to respond for the County's
Housing Committee~ and that this matter be included on the Board's agenda of April 14.
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.
At 10:39 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
Chairman