1976-05-12186 /
May 12, 197~6
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on May 12, 1976
at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher
(arrived at 10:00 A.M.), J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush.
Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. J. T. Henley, Vice-Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:02 A.M., in the
absence of Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, who was welcoming students for Youth in Government
Day.
No. 2. Approval of Minutes: January 14, 1976 (Night), page 454, fourth paragraph,
date should be January 14; page 461, change "intent" to "intend", and "or" to "for"; page
454, third paragraph should read "Mr'. Dorrier said he, as an attorney"; page 457, "of"
instead of "or"; third line, "thas" should be "this"; last paragraph, "lots or record"
should be "lots of record"; page 458, second line, "closed" should be "foreclosed"; eighth
paragraph "iver" should be "River"; third line "Mr. Bailey is" should be "Mr. Bailey if";
page 459, middle of second paragraph "taken only is" should be "taken only if"; three lines
down, insert the word "by" between the words "made the"; page 460, first vote, change "Davis"
to "David"; page 453, last paragraph, insert "executive session" in place of "meeting."
January 28, 1976, page 005, third paragraph, change "purposedly" to "purposely"; page
007, third paragraph change "pound" to "gallon"; eighth paragraph, first line, "AP" should
be "SP"; fifth paragraph, change "forty years" to "four years"; page 003, "present" should
be "prevent"; page 004, ninth paragraph, "effect" should be "affect"; page 009, sixth
"Areaa" should be "Areas"; seventh paragraph, "ndicates" should be "indicates"; page 010,
fifth paragraph "additional date" should be "additional data".
Motion to approve the minutes with corrections as noted above was offered by Mrs.
David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
No. 3. Highway Matters.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, read the following two letters into the
record:
"April 19, 1976
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
In accordance with a resolution passed by your Board on February 19, 1976,
changes in the Primary System made necessary by relocation and construction
on Route 29 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Highway and Trans-
portation Commission on April 15, 1976, as shown on the attached sketch,
described as follows:
SECTIONS DISCONTINUED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-144 OF THE 1950 CODE
OF VIRGINIA:
Section 1 -
Old location of Route 29, west of the new
location, from the new location at Station
845+50 northeasterly 0.28 mile to the new
location at Station 860+00.
Section 2 -
Old location of Route 29, north of the new
location, from the new location at Station
870+60 northeasterly 0.30 mile to the new
location at Station 886+20."
"May 10, 1976
City Council of Suffolk and
Boards of Supervisors of all
Counties in the Secondary System
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Highway and Transportation Commission at its meeting on April 15,
1976 allocated funds for fiscal 1976-77 in accordance with the appropriate
Acts of the General Assembly. Attached is a copy of the allocations which
are available for use within each of the several counties and the City of
Suffolk.
The allocations for the Secondary System reflect an increase of approx%
mately $10 million. This was brought about by increased Federal funds and
slight increase in State revenue.
Your attention is invited to the fact that a large portion of the
Federal funds are for safety purposes such as railroad grade crossing
protective devices, removal of roadside obstacles, and correction of
May 12, 1976
187
high-hazard locations. Since these Federal funds are for these specific
types of activities and cannot be used for general construction, it is
necessary that an appropriate number of eligible projects be selected
on the Secondary System to utilize these funds.
A review of our overall program on the Secondary System reveals
that a combination of the spiraling inflation and reduction in revenue
has made a tremendous impact upon our improvement program. We are,
however, striving to continue with a balanced program of improvement.
These allocations reflect a slight recovery insofar as funding is con-
cerned,' but costs continue to rise and the continued pinch of these
circumstances makes it difficult to carry out a comprehensive plan.
We continue to be most grateful for your counsel and cooperation
in carrying out the objectives of the Secondary System program. The
resident engineers have been furnished instructions for the preparation
of the 1976-77 fiscal_budgets, and they will be consulting with you
regarding plans for improvements within the respective counties.
This splendid cooperation exhibited during the past year is sincerely
appreciated by the Highway and Transportation Commission as well as our
engineers, and we look forward to its continuance during the coming year.
With high regards and best wishes,"
Sincerely,
(Signed)
..... Douglas B. Fugate, Commissioner"
Mr. Henley asked why no progress has been made on construction of the Route 250 By-
Pass. Mr. Agnor said he would check on this.
Mr. Agnor said inquiries have been made about the change in weight limit on State Route
692 in the North Garden area. Mr. Robert Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, has said he
will submit to the Board plans scheduled for correction of the problem by the end of this
week. Mr. Agnor said he has asked the schedule of improvements to railroad crossings and
signal devices at certain locations in the county. He has been informed that the Highway
Department has been billed for the work, thus feels the work is imminent.
Dr. Iachetta asked for a status report of repairs to the bridge on Route 651, off of
Huntington Road. The repairs were to have been done by Southern Railroad but have not been
made as of this date.
Mr. Roudabush asked for a status report on the ~rip~ing of Rio Road.
Mr. Dorrier said he had received numerous calls about Route 727 going by Blenheim Farm.
Due to an increase of modular homes in this area, passing has become difficult. The road
needed to be graded and scraped.
Mr. Roudabush inquired about House Bill 151 which was passed by the General Assembly in
the 1976 session. He understands this bill permits the acceptance of subdivision streets
into the Secondary System under certain conditions. He inquired about this bill because it
might qualify Airport Acres provided the County agreed to contribute, from county revenue,
one-half of the cost of bringing the roads up to standard. He had been contacted by the
secretary of the Homeowner's Association of Airport Acres and the Homeowners have. agreed to
raise approximately $14,000.00 to get the roads paved, but the roads would still not be
acceptable to the State. He asked the homeowners to wait until he could find out the status
of this bill. He requested the County Attorney to give an opinion on donation of this money
to the county, with the County then contributing the money to the state as their one-half
pro rata share.
Mrs. David said Senate Bill 305 amended the code to provide that the governing body of
any county could accept gifts for construction and/or maintenance of secondary roads and
could make matching appropriations for same. She said Senate Bill 219 raised the maximum
local match to 15% of revenue sharing funds and that legislation might be useful.
Dr. Iachetta said since the last discussion of the turnaround on Bennington Road he has
been informed by the Highway Department that they will take the turnaround into the system
without any upgrading if it is surveyed and a new plat put to record. After discussion of
this matter, the Board felt they could not absorb any of the costs and suggested the property
owners contact the original developer and ask for his assistance.
No. 4. Request from VEPCO for easement across the Ivy Landfill..
A request was received dated April 23, 1976 from the Virginia Electric and Power
Company for an easement giving them the right to provide service to the Albemarle Landfill
on Route 637 as shown on a plat numbered CH--57--76.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Board be and
he is hereby authorized to execute a certain agreement of
easement to bear date as of May 12, 1976, conveying to the
Virginia Electric and Power Company, a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, a right
of way across the property of Albemarle County, as shown by
plat bearing number CH-57-76 exhibited to the Board of
Supervisors, same to be signed by the Chairman of the Board on
behalf of the County of Albemarle and attested and seal
8'8
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
No. 5. Resignation: Extension Agent.
A letter was received from Mark J. Manno, submitting his resignation as Extension Agent
in Albemarle County to be effective May 31, 1976.
Motion to accept the above resignation and to send a letter of appreciation was offered
by Mrs. David and seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called at this time and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
No. 8. John ~Dezio--Vacation of plat-Flordon Subdivision.
Request was received from John A. Dezio representing property owners in Flordon subdivis
that the Board approve a vacation of Plat "A" to be replaced with Plat "B". The change
involves the location of the cul-de-sac on Blackwood Road, which is actually constructed as
shown on the corrected plat. The acreages in the lots will be altered slightly, but will
still comply with the zoning and subdivision ordinances. Motion was offered by Mrs. David
authorizing the Chairman to execute the following deed:
THIS DEED OF CORRECTION, made and entered into this 2nd day of April,
1976, among CHARLES WM. HURT, widower, party of the first part; MARTIN I.
VERON and ENID VERON, his wife, parties of the second part, E. GERALD
TREMBLAY and ELEANOR W. TREMBLAY, his wife, parties of the third part;
THOMAS C. TANTON and ALEXANDRA H. TANTON, his wife, parties of the fourth
part; and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, party of the
fifth part,
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, by deed dated March 12, 1975, of record in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 572, page
117, Charles Wm. Hurt, widower, conveyed to Martin I. Veron and Enid Veron,
his wife, a certain lot of land in Albemarle County, Virginia, more
particularly described as Lot 19A, Block C on a plat of Flordon
Subdivision of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 435, page
351; and
?D
WHEREAS, by deed dated October 17, 1967, of record in said Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 435, page 348, Charles Wm. Hurt and Letitia H. Hurt,
his wife, conveyed to E. Gerald Tremblay and Eleanor W. Tremblay, his
-wife, a certain lot of land in said county, more particularly described
as Lot 19, Block C on said plat; and
WHEREAS, by deed dated August 11, 1974, of record in said Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 558, page 471, Charles Wm. Hurt and Letitia H. Hurt,
his wife, conveyed to Thomas C. Tanton and Alexandra H. Tanton, his wife,
a certain lot of land in said county, more particularly described as
Lot 15A, Block C on said plat; and
WHEREAS, Charles Wm. Hurt is the owner of a certain lot of land in
said county, more particularly described as Lot 16, Block C on said plat,
being a portion of the property conveyed to the said Charles Wm. Hurt by
deed of William A. Powe and others, dated August 17, 1959 of record in
said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 354, page 305; and
WHEREAS, it was the belief of the parties hereto, as evidenced by
the actual location of Blackwood Road which actual location is described
on the attached plat of B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, dated August
14, 1975, and made a part hereof, that the said Lots 1SA, 16, 19 and 19A,
Block C, Flordon, conveyed as aforesaid, were as described on the attached
plat, even though conveyed according to the plat of record in Deed Book
435, page 351; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties hereto to correct the last
mentioned plat and the deeds in Deed Book 572, page 117; Deed Book 435,
page 348; and Deed Book 558, page 471, so that the said Lots 1SA, 16, 19
and 19A will be owned in the same manner as if the plat attached hereto had
~been recorded in Deed Book 435, page 351 had not been so recorded, as to
the said Lots 1SA, 16, 19 and 19A.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto
unite for the purpose of correcting the said plat and deeds; and to perfect
title in the parties according to the attached plat, the parties further
unite as follows:
(a) Charles Wm. Hurt, widower, hereby grants, bargains, sells and
conveys with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto Martin
I. Veron and Enid Veron, his wife, as tenants by the entirety with full
right of survivorship as at common law and not as tenants in common, that
portion of Lot 19A shown on the attached plat that was not included in
Lot 19A~sh~wn~on~hh~pla~ of record in Deed Book 435, page 351;
~n
May 12, 1976
(b) Charles W~, Hurt, widower, hereby grants, bargain, sells and
conveys with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto E. Gerald
Tremblay and Eleanor.-W. Tremblay, his wife, as tenants by the entirety
with full right of survivorship as at common law and not as tenants in
common, that portion of Lot 19 shown on the attached plat that was not
included in Lot 19 shown on the plat of record in D.eed Book 435, page 351;
(c) Charles Wm. Hurt, widower, hereby grants, bargains, sells and
conveys with GENERAL WARRANTY AND ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto Thomas
C. Tanton and Alexandra H. Tanton, his wife, as tenants by the entirety
with full right of survivorship as at common law and not as tenants in
common, that portion of Lot 1SA shown on the attached plat that was not
included in Lot 1SA shown on the plat of record in Deed Book 435, page 351;
(d) Charles Wm. Hurt, widower, and Thomas C. Tanton and Alexandra
H. Tanton, his wife, hereby dedicate by the recordation of the attached
plat those portions of Lot 16 and 15A, respectively, shown on the plat
in Deed Book 435, page 351 that are included in Blackwood Road, as shown
on the attached plat.
Ail roads shown on the said plat of record in the said Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 435, page 351 are hereby vacated insofar as said roads are in
conflict with the roads as shown on the attached plat and all roads shown
on the attached plat not previously dedicated to public use are hereby
~endered for dedication to public use.
The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, join herein
~-gor the purpose of agreeing to said vacation.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Charles wm. Hurt
Martin I. Veron
Enid Veron
E. Gerald Tremblay
Eleanor W. Tremblay
Thomas C. Tanton
Alexandra H. Tanton
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia
BY: Gerald E. Fisher
Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. St. John noted that this vacation was being done pursuant to Code Section 15.1-
482(a). (Old and new plats are in the permanent file of the Clerk.)
At 10:00 A.M., Mr. Fisher arrived at the meeting and introduced the student members of
the Board of Supervisors for Youth in Government Day. They were as 'follows: Mary Jane
Gentry, White Hall District, W. A. Wells, Charlottesville District, Klm Eubanks, Sue Lacy,
Anita Mahone, and also Miss Perry Rush, all from the Scottsville District.
At this time, Mr. Agnor introduced Miss Lucinda Supleo, an intern from the Phillipines
who will be with the county for eight months. He noted she is currently employed as an
assistant to the undersecretary of the Department of Local Government and Community Deve!opmen'
of the National Government in the Phitlipines.
disposal?
Discussion:
Should the County furnish a container system for solid waste
Mr. Fisher noted that this matter has been discussed in the past and some studies were
made by the County to determine costs. He asked Mr. Dorrier to introduce the problem for
discussion.
Mr. Dorrier said a study was made by John Pollock in October 1972. At that time, it
was estimated that 186,000 cubic yards of trash were generated in Albemarle County each
year.~.. The rate of trash was rising 25% each year. The report also said that one-half of
this waste was brought to the landfills, of which there are two in the County, by commercial
haulers or residential users. Of this amount, only five to ten percent brought by private
residents of the County. The report indicated the Ivy Landfill handled twO-thirds of the
wastes at a cost of 285 per cubic yard. The Keene Landfill handled one-third at 395 per
~briC yard. The report introduced several ways in which to have trash containers in the
county. One, establish a program throughout the county or in the rural section of the
county and have it contracted out or run by the County. The costs of such a system would
depend on the number of containers, their placement and the number of pickups. Mr. Dottier
said during previous discussions, Mr. St. John had questioned the legal ramifications of
serving one section of the county and not serving others. Mr. Dottier said as many people
May 12, 1976
as possible should be served within a reasonable cost to the county. He felt the question
to be one of cost and 'when a system could be implemented and whether it should be run by the
county or contracted. He mentioned the fact that the Resource Recovery Study Commission is
also studying the problem.
Mr. Roudabush said some of the people in his district live more than thirty miles from
the landfill. No private hauler will come around due to the scattering of the people.
Door-to-door trash collection'is not economically feasible. He felt the rural people would
benefit by this service.
Dr. Iachetta agreed that the~collection of wastes in rural areas needed to be studied.
But, felt it basically incorrect, from an engineering point of view, to look at collection
before looking at what will be done with this refuse. He said the question.should be
pursued in the light'of disposal first then collection of material to a place where the
wastes would be processed. A grab sample of the waste contents should be categorized and
these records kept on a regular basis. The total problem should be addressed as part of
the Resource Recovery Study Commission.
Mr. Henley agreed that information on such a system is basically incomplete and it
would be premature to turn this into ~a county wide system. He agreed there is a need for
~.ha~SyS~em~in~i~the?rural~areaS~
Mrs. David stated that her district is different from the others. Most of the residents
in the Jack Jouett District are served by contractors since'there is a large concentration
of subdivisions and apartment complexes. She felt two problems were being talked about.
One being t~e disposal of the wastes and the other resource recovery. From the discussion
today, it seems that a limited use of containers within the rural areas is something that
would turn into a later plan involving recovery. The establishment of containers in rural
areas where there is some concentration of population might be feasible at this time.
Mr. Fisher said he did not want the County to compete with the contractors now hauling
trash. He felt a container system needs to be studied carefully; perhaps leasing private
property so this would not involve rights-of-way on secondary roads. He also suggested some
type of screening. Waiting for the Resource Recovery Study Commission's system will delay
the project for a long time. Almost all of the solid waste is'now taken to the joint landfill
at Ivy. He did not see a great difference in the way waste now gets to landfill as opposed
to the way it would get there with a container system.
Dr. Iachetta felt the economics of a total disposal system should be examined as a
package. He felt the ultimate disposal system might be three to six years away.
Mr. Henley said he is not in favor of spending a large amount for such a study. The
County Attorney has said that serving the rural areas and not the urban areas would be no
problem-. He felt two or three areas could be selected as sites for the containers such as
eastern and northeastern Albemarle County and near Scottsville.
Mr. Fisher said having a few regional collection centers where there might be a number
of dumpsters available to take care of the quantity instead of a container every two miles
might be an alternative. This would take care of screening and placement problems.
Mr. Agnor felt this approach to be preferable. He agreed with Mr. Henley to have the
study done in-house instead of spending money for outside help. He also agreed with Dr.
Iachetta that accumulation of accurate statistics is very important and the keeping of such
records may require funding.
Dr. Iachetta offered motion authorizing the staff to make a preliminary study of the
whole problem in the rural areas with the Rivanna District and the northwestern sector of
the county being chosen as possible first sites, with a report being made to the Board as
soon as reasonable. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
_ Mrs. David suggested that the private haulers be contacted and asked for some ~~
· ~-~ operation of such a system. Mr. Henley said to "tip-toe" on eliminating competition.
No. 3. Highway Matters.
Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, presented to the Board a response from
Mr. Gentry Ray, property owner on Route 637. Mr. Ray has agreed to give Mr. Purinton a
better entrance which amounts to 800 - 900 square feet of his property at the corner. Mr.
Ray said he would like to have the same consideration given to him for his entrance. Mr.
Williams said in order to do this for Mr. Ray the entire road Would have to be moved. Mr.
Fisher said he was not ready to make a recommendation to the Board at this time and asked
that this matter be deferred until he could talk with both property owners about the personal
recommendation.
No. 9. DiscuSsion:
of a Library Building.-
How to Request a Referendum on the Issue of Funding Construction
Mr. Fisher said the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board has made a request to the
Board-for funds to construct a new library building. He is not sure what type of building
is being talked about, how it will be built or where. The Library Board had made a recommend
and the costs for architect fees has tentatively been placed in the budget. He asked the
County Attorney's office to make a report on setting up a referendum in the event a request
for funds is received in the next month or two.
tion
May 12, 1976
191
Mr. St. John said the procedure is simple. It would be a general revenue bond issue.
A resolution would have to be enacted by the Board to establish the purpose of the bonds and
the maximum amount. The Circuit Court would have to enter an order calling for either a
special election or putting it on the ballot for a general election. The order would have
to be entered no earlier than sixty days prior to the special election. Thus, the court
order would have to be within sixty days prior to the election to be held this November.
The County Attorney's office would need thirty days prior to ~ that date to draw up the
negessary pleadings.
Mr. Fisher said he had placed this question on the agenda because the Board has received
a request for $750,000 over the next two years. He felt a referendum is a way to deal with
the request.
Mr. Henley did not feel the Board had anything to worry about for a while since there
still the question of location and the possiblity of using an existing building.
At this time, Mrs. David noted that on May 19, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. she is to meet with
Mr. Christopher DeVan, the Library Director, to view the crowded conditions that exist in
the present Jefferson-Madison Regional Library. She invited any interested Board member and
Mr. Agnor to attend this meeting.
No. 10. Discussion: Cable T. V. Franchise.
Mr. Fisher noted that the question of franchising cable television had been before the
Board for two years without any resolution. There is a single cable television company
operating in the City of Charlottesville and in some suburban parts of the county. No
requirements as to the level of service provided, reasonable cost structures, or future
areas of service are set out by the County. The existing cable company is reluctant to
invest funds in expansion of its system until the County can give them an idea of what is
going to be required.
Dr. Iachetta noted a complaint from Mr. Gregory Johnson of the Four Seasons Townhouse
Homeowners Association. The homeowners feel some franchise action is necessary because they
are paying for inadequate service rendered by another private company.
Mr. St. John said his office has drafted a sample ordinance governing the franchising
of cable television in Albemarle County. This draft, and a memorandum which addressed
problems unique to Albemarle County, was sent last summer to the Board members. The memorand'
stated the ~possibi!ity of the Jefferson Cable Company providing this service since it now
operates in some of the urban areas of the county. He felt this company would have an
advantage over any other bidder. The choice would be whether or not to unite with the City
in this franchise to a bidder.
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, who worked with the intern resPonsible for
preparing the memorandum on this matter, spoke next. He said this is a complex area since
it~fwas regulated on three levels. .They are local, state and the Federal Communications
Commission. The County has three problems. The first is economics. In order for cable
television to be profitable, a certain density is required. Technology is the second problem
As the television signal precedes from the head end out along the line it weakens, Amplifier:
are necessary; about five per square mile. The Federal Communications Commission strictly
regulates the technology employed in providing a television signal to viewers. For that
reason, it is apparent cable television is going to be limited to citizens li~ing in the
urban areas. The ordinance was designed With the purpose of requiring competitive bidding.
The Board would have to adopt an ordinance for the bid process. Once this is done, the
solicitation of bids begins. The process takes about one hundred and twenty days. Once the
bids are received and the bidding closed, ninety days should be allowed for the staff to
evaluate them. Once these ninety days are up, the Board has to advertise for a public
hearing. This should be thirty to sixty days after receiving the recommendations of the
staff. The FCC requires a large amount of public input before awarding a cable T.V. franchis.
~After the public hearing is held, the Board makes the decision and awards the certificate
which ~is the first stage. After the award of the certificate, the applicant takes it to the
Federal Communications Commission. The FCC then rules upon the applicant's proposed plan of
operation. The Commission looks at the technological standards which the applicant proposes
to meet, what the applicant proposes to do to serve the public, and looks at the county's
ordinance to make sure it complies with the FCC regulations. The FCC then grants a certifica'
of operation. The applicant is then ready to go into business. Two years is estimated for
the process which involves the adoption by the Board of the ordinance and the solicitation
of bids to finally award what is called the franchise.
Mr. Henley inquired about the length of the franchise. Mr. Bowling said economically
it should be around ten years. This way it gives the applicant enough time to recoup his
economic costs and yet is short enough to enable the County to change the ordinance for new
technological renovations. There is a provision for the county to charge a certain percentag~
of the operating expenses to recoup the county's~expenses in regulating the franchise once
the franchise is granted. Formerly, there was a maximum limit of three percent of gross
income.
Next to speak was Mr. David Hake, representing Four seasons Townhouses. He said'their
developer entered into a contract with a corporation providing cable service. The'homeowners
were originally charged $6.00 but are now being billed for $7.80. They have been offered a
superior service by Jefferson Cable for $4.40. They have brought suite and a date for this
case has been set for August. He felt it would be better to have one good service rather
than having two.
At this time, Mr. Fisher suggested that the new Board members get a copy of the ordinanc
and ~he memorandum which was prepared last year and continue discussion of this matter in
JUne.
~ES:
l~]gYS:
No. 11. Discussion: Motorcycle Noises, Present County Ordinance on the Subject and
EnfOrcement of Same.
Mr. Fisher said he is concerned and has received several Complaints about the noise
factor of motorcycles. A new ordinance was enacted by the Board two years ago requiring
that motorcycles carry original equipment to control noise whether they are on the public
highways or private property.
Sheriff George Bailey was present. He said in 1974 a suit was brought by one property
owner against another due to the use of one's property as a racetrack. The Judge allowed
the people to ride their motorcycles up to 6:00 P M. on weekdays and on Sunday from 2:00 to
6:00 P.M. He said the problem he has is that most of the offenders are juveniles. In
Section 12-20 of the Albemarle County Code, it states that the noise emissions must be
hazardous to the health and well-being of the county citizens, and that no person shall
operate any motorcycle not equipped with an exhaust system. His office finds it impossible
to get a neighbor to testify against a child riding a motorcycle. He felt if there were
someway to get the section eliminated pertaining to one testifying and go to State Code
Sections 46.1-301 and 302 which apply only to highways of the state, he could enforce that
section.
Mr. St. John said the problem with Section 46.1-301 and 302 is that it applies only
to highways. The Sheriff has no authority to arrest a person unless he sees the person
create a misdemeanor in his presense or if a citizen swears out a warrant.
Mrs. Lucian R. Scruggs, a resident of East Market Street, spoke in regards to the
motorcycles on property near her. She stated they were there all afternoon during the
week and on Sundays until dark.
Mr. John Embree felt people would be willing to testify if they thought it would be
up held in court.
Mr. Agnor said the RTM zone is the only zone in the Zoning Ordinance where noise is
controlled by a certain decibel level at the property line. He wondered if that is
~orceabie, if it could be included in other residential zones in the county and enforcement
mede by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. St. John said instruments to measure the decibels
and trained people to use the equipment would be needed to enforce such a provision.
Mr. Fisher felt requiring motorcycles to have mufflers would help. Mr. St. John said
an ordinance can be drafted requiring mufflers but wherever motorcycles race there will be
noise.
Discussion ended at this time and Mr. Fisher said he hoped the County Attorney's
office, the Sheriff, and the Board could work out a reasonable solution to this problem.
No. 12. Question and Answer Session by Students.
Several of the students spoke in support of the School Budget for 1976~7 and
expressed
their concerns about any reduction in teachers salaries.
No. 13. Resolution: Clustering of Houses in Subdivisions.
Mrs. Martha Selden requested that the Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend the
Subdivision Ordinance to allow for clustering of houses in subdivisions.
Mrs. David asked if roads would be a problem since the Board has changed road requiremen' s
requiring that all subdivision streets be built to meet state highway requirements. She
felt this would be a place where narrower roads might be desirable.
Mr. Roudabush said there were two things about this resolution that would be useful.
One would be not allowing people to strip the roads and the other would be by clustering
and allowing smaller lots, you could get more lots on a road. Thus, the road costs would
decrease. The roads would still have to meet highway standards.
At this time, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution of
intent:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that the Board intends to amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and the Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance to provide for the development of clustered
residential subdivisions. To that end, be it further resolved
t~t%~h~ ~ ~ -
s~aff.,.and~,th~,lann~ng Commission be,
and:~t~he' ,~ reby is, requested to prepare appropriate amendments
to the aforesaid ordinances providing for such development
by right in every residential zoning district and for
appropriate subdivision controls.
Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 14. Appointment: Liasion Officer for Census Bureau Data.
Mr. Agnor said in a letter dated April 9, 1976, from Mr. John A. Banks, Jr., the Board
of Supervisors had been requested to make an appointment of a liasion person for Albemarle
County to provide contact with the Divisio~ of Legislative Service~~aration of the
1980 census. It provides for the review-~t~~a~-~n~ ~--6~ precinct
and election maps of districts within the county. Ultimately, these maps would be returned
to the Board for their certification and verification. He stated that in the 1970 census
_~ ~Ma¥ 12, 1976
principally to planning this appointment should be someone from the planning department.
At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to accept the county executive's recommendati¢
of Mr. Robert Tucker to be appointed liasion officer. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and
same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
No. 15. Regional Health Disaster Plan for Planning District Ten.
over to June 9, 1976.
Ordered carried
No. 17A. Special Appropriations: Equalization of Pay Ordinance.
The following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachetta:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that $800.00 be, and the
same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and transferred to the General Operating Fund and
coded to the following codes for the payment of
compensation:
18A.2 - Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
18B.4 - Piedmont Virginia Community College Board
18B.11- Community Action Agency Board
$150.00
500.00
150.00
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.
AYES:
NAYS:
No. 17B. Special Appropriations: Expenses - Fleming Case.
The following resolution was offered for approval by Dr. Iachetta:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,825.54 be, and
the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund
and coded to iA-103.1, said funds to be used for
payment of legal fees on the Fleming case.
Motio~uwas~seconded~by~MrS~-D~idDa~d~ca~riedr~BY~he following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 18. Resignation -- George Gilmer as Delinquent Tax Attorney.
Mr. Fisher read the following letter into the record:
"April 13, 1976
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I have been collecting delinquent taxes for the County for
over 30 years. The arrangement has been attractive to me and I hope
to the County, but all good things must come to an end. I am now
88 years old. I cannot work as long or as fast as I used to. To do
work promptly and satisfactorily, I have to reduce my volume. I
therefore regretfully have to ask that the contract be cancelled as
to all taxes that would normally be turned over to me after January
i, 1977.
Mr. William H. Muller, III has been helping me this year with the
work and I recommend him to you. He has a nice manner and is a good
worker. I recommend Mr. Muller for your consideration and believe
you will find him satisfactory and well qualified for the work.
Thank you for our long and pleasant relationship.
old age may be delayed, but are eventually inevitable.
The effects of
Yours truly,
(Signed)
George Gilmer"
Mr. St. John said Mr. Gilmer's job has been to bring chancery suits for the purpose of
holding auctions to auction land on which taxes have not been paid for a period of more
than three years. Mr. Gilmer started this job in 1940 or 19~1 which was at the start of
World War II. He got the situation under control and set up a system whereby automatically
at the end of three years, when a piece of land became delinquent he would bring a chancery
suit and auction the property off and account for the proceeds. This involved looking at
the titles so orooer notice could be ~iven. advertise in the oaoer and a~count for the
194
May 12, 1976
If a piece of property is delinquent for three years, Mr. Gilmer sells it.
the amount attributable to the third year.
He gets 15% of
At this time, Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to consider some commendation from the
County for Mr. Gilmer's services performed. Mr. St. John noted that Mr. Gilmer had rendered
a number of services to the county in his thirty years of service and felt he should be
commended for such. The Board agreed to acknowledge receipt of the letter and take the
appointment under advisement. The Board concurred in Mr. Gilmer being commended in some
way.
No. 16.. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Create the Industrial Development Authority of
Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 27, 1976 and May 4, 1976.)
Because the ordinance as originally advertised had been drastically revised since the
first public hearing on this matter in December 1975, Mr. Agnor read the 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
Commonwealth 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.
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. Any 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 Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia.
6. There shall be no more than three bond issuances of the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, in existence at any
one time.
7. Ail by-laws, standards and priorities of the Industrial Development
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.
This ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after the
of .
At this time, the public hearing was opened. No one from the public spoke for or
against this matter. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, spoke next and said the ordinance as proposed is a
~verbatim of the recommendation of the committee which was composed of himself, Mr. Roudabush
and Dr. Iachetta.
Mr. Dorrier felt the development authority was in the best interest of the citizens of
the county. He also felt it should be reviewed periodically to see how it is working.
Mrs. David asked how long the bond issuances were likely to run. Dr. Iachetta said twenty
years unless the ordinance is amended. Mr. Roudabush said he had talked to several people
in the county about this and they all felt it a good idea to have this authority. Mr.
Fisher said he had reservations about this earlier but after some thought decided it was a
good idea since jobs would be provided.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta moved the adoption of the ordinance to create the Industrial
D~velopment Authority as set out above and to insert the date of May 12, 1976 in Section 8.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, tachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Roudabush suggested that each board member submit the name of one person from his
district to serve on this commission and select another member to be an at large member.
Mr. Fisher agreed with the suggestion but felt as many interests as possible should be
represented. He asked the Board members to submit names to the Clerk within the next three
weeks.
No. 1Sa. Refunds.
Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve the following personal property refunds for
1974 and 1975.
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia,
has appeared before this Board and certified that Mary J. Viles was
erroneously assessed on an automobile for 1975 personal property taxes
-on Ticket No. 113048, said refund to be $18.80 and Lewis D. Romano was
erroneously assessed for 1974 personal property taxes on Ticket No.
110304, said refund to be $136.90; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney h~s examined supporting evidence and
consents that such assessments were erroneous;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Code of
Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby direct the above stated refunds.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying these requests are to
be filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 19. Policy: Appropriations to Fire Companies.
As recommended by the Director of Finance for the County of Albemarle, the following
resolution amending a similar resolution adopted on April 16, 1976 was offered for adoption
by Dr. Iachetta:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state that amounts
appropriated in the County budget for approved volunteer
fire companies shall be made available to such volunteer
fire companies for any legitimate fire equipment or
operational expense that they see fit during the month
of July of each fiscal year;
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that each volunteer fire company
shall forward to the County a copy of their budget at the
time this payment is made.
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David seconded the fo:
Mrs. David and Messrs. D
None.
No. 22. Claims Against th
The Board had asked the Co'
approve each and every claim ma
handle this claim. Also, in a
killing animals, if the dog war.
claim to the Board for payment.
Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy Co'
each and every claim made for d
who has a claim for damages has
brought to the Board for their
for such a claim. The Section
of livestock killed or injured
?egoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
~rrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Dog Tax FUnd (4).
nty Attorney his opinion as to whether the Board had to
[e for damages to animals and fowl or if the staff could
~ituation where the dog warden knew the owner of the dog
len could try to collect for damages before presenting the
~nty Attorney said the Board of Supervisors must approve
~mages. Section 29-202 of the Code states that the person
the claim against the County. Thus, all claims must be
~ction. The Board is the only body that can give compensation
~lso requires the Board to pay any valid claim to the owner
ly any dog not his own, whether the Board knows the owner of
the dog or not. He suggested t? the Board to consider this
package for the next session of/the General Assembly~
At this time, claim was presented from Mr. Roy Bailey
January 9, 1976. On motion
for the amount of $120.00. The
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. D.
None.
A second claim was receive,
1976. Motion to approve this c
Motio~ was~eco~d~ ~y Mrs. Dav
again when it adopts its legislati
for eight sheep killed on
~r. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, this claim was approved
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
~rrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
from Mr. R. W. Underwood for 7 hens killed on March 17,
.aim in the amount of $21.00 was offered by Mr. Henley.
.d and carried by the following recorded vote:
196
May 12, 1976
Next was a claim from Mr. J. W. Sparks for one calf killed on April 15, 1976. Motion
to approve this claim in the amount of $25.00 was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The last claim was received from Mr. Thomas Wetsel for a shoat killed on April 27,
1976. Motion to approve this claim in the amount of $35.00 was offered 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.
No. 23. Appointment: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Dr. Iachetta moved to reappoint Dr. Lawrence QUarles to serve another term on the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board with term to expire on May 1, 1978. 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.
No. 24. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1976, was
received in accordance with the Virginia State Code, Section 63.1-52.
No. 25. Statement of costs incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Joint
Security Complex for the month of April, 1976, along with statements of prisoner days,
paramedic salaries, jail physician and salary of the classification officer were received.
On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
No. 26. Statements of Expenses of the Office of the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's
Attorney and the Sheriff's Department for the month of April, 1976, were received. On
motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Commonwealth's Attorney, John Dezio be invited to meet with
the Board to discuss how the ordinances of the county are enforced. He asked that this be
set at a time suitable to Mr. Dezio.
No. 27. Statement of Expenses for the Joint Security Complex for the month of April,
1976 was received. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, this statement was
approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At this time, Mrs. David brought to the Board's attention a report she had received
from Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, entitled "Administrative Review of the
Albemarle County Department of Social Services." She noted that this survey had been
conducted by the regional office in Verona, Virginia and showed a result of better than
average.
No. 28. Monthly Report - Fire Hydrants.
Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a memorandum from the Albemarle County Service
Authority which indicated that all parts are on order for seventeen hydrants to be raised,
ten sets of threads to be replaced and eight to be relocated. He noted that since the last
board meeting four hydrants had been raised. The number to be raised in the last report
was nineteen and should have been twenty. Completion of the remaining items will be handled
as rapidly as possible. He then noted that in a memo from Kelly P. Reynolds, County Fire
Marshal, five hydrants had been added thus making the total 508 public and private hydrants
in the County. Mr. Reynolds also said the County Attorney's office is drafting an ordinance
requiring water suppliers to maintain the hydrants on their system in working condition.
Also, Mr. Agnor read a letter from Congressman Kenneth Robinson regarding the Scottsville
hydrant problem. The letter is set out below:
"April 23, 1976
Mr. Kelly P. Reynolds
Fire Marshal
Albemarle County
404 East Market Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Marshal Reynolds:
I just want you to know of my desire to cooperate in any further
practicable way toward a solution of the water supply system problem
in Scottsville.
The Public Works and Economic Development Act, as amended, would not
seem to be applicable to the situation, as it is intended primarily
to assist economically depressed communities which can meet criteria
'~' ~' including a high unemployment rate.
I have suggested that Scottsville explore further the possibility
of assistance from the program of the Farmers Home Administration for
water supply systems in small communities, if it is not possible to work
out a reprogramming of some of the HUD money earmarked for the flood
protection work.
As you are close to the situation, I should be glad to hear
further from you at such time as comments might occur to you with
respect to this serious situation.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed)
J. Kenneth Robinson"
Mrs. David stated she had a petition from residents of Old Forge Road indicating their
interest~ in haVing adequate fire protection. At this time, only one hydrant is on Georgetown
Road. She has talked with Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority and
Kelly Reynolds. In cases such as this, it is left to the residents to finance the protection
or for the county to do same. Mr. Fisher said if the county starts installing fire hydrants
in subdivisions where none now are installed, then the county will be beseiged with requests.
Dr. Iachetta asked if this situation could be taken care of in a community development
block grant application. Mr. Agnor said it would require a complete analysis of all water
systems in the county. Dr. Iachetta suggested this be checked into for next year's grant
submission.
No. 29.
information.
Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1976, was received as
No. 30. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from Board Members.
Mr. Fisher read into the record the following communication from the Judge Advocate
General's School:
"10 May 1976
Mr. Gerald Fisher
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
Route 5
Sheffield Road - West Leigh
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Our observance of Armed Forces Week 1976 at The Judge Advocate
General's School, U. S. Army, will come to a conclusion Saturday,
May 15, with an open house from ten until two o'clock.
Our successful operation has depended in no small part upon the
cooperation and assistance which we receive from our University
and Charlottesville-Albemarle community friends. Accordingly,
we are indeed pleased to have this opportunity to extend our
hospitality to you and members of your Board and to welcome you
to our new home.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
William S. Fulton, Jr.
Colonel, JAGC
Commandant"
He also read a request from Charles Barbour, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville in
which he requested that Mr. Agnor, serve on the Central Piedmont Urban Observatory Policy
Board as a representative of Albemarle County. He noted that this Board is jointly set up
by the City and the University of Virginia. Mr. Agnor said he had served on the Board
since its inception. It is a three year program and requires one afternoon per month. Mr.
Agnor said he would be willing to serve in this capacity. The Board was in agreement with
the request.
No. 20. 3:00 P.M. - Subdivision Plat:
property owners.
Westridge.
To be heard on appeal from adjoining
Mr. Roudabush abstained from participation on this matter because his firm is involved
in the project.
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, presented a background of what has happened
tb ~date. The subdivision plat indicates a 25% slope. The Planning Commission approved
this subdivision plat on April 27, 1976 subject to: 1) a grading permit; 2) the Virginia
198
May 12~ 1976
Department of Highways approval of the entrances; 3) source of title needed on the plat; 4)
pipe stems granted to lots 2 and 3 with a waiver of frontage because of the topography and
shape of the lots. (Under the subdivision regulations the agent for the Board or the Board
of Supervisors must approve that waiver. He concurred with the Planning Commission's
recommendations. He felt their reasons were justified and provide a safer entrance to the
lots since only one entrance would be built to serve four lots as opposed to four separate
driveways;)5) no building on slopes of 25% or greater. (This is part of the Soil Erosion
Ordinance in the watershed area;)6) lots numbered one and four must share an entrance. Mr.
Tucker said prior to signing the plat, he had instructed Mrs. Scala to contact the property
owners in the area and tell them he was approving the waiver~ ~ut, he would not sign the
~lat until they had an opportunity to appeal this to the Board. This is the reason this
matter is on the agenda at this time. Many issues have been brought up. The slope is one.
The Health Department has given its approval. Percolation tests have been performed on all
of the lots and they meet the Highway Department requirements. Mr. Tucker read a letter
from Mr. Ed Roseberry, sanitarian, which answered several questions pertaining to possible
pollution of surface and subsurface water on and near the Westridge Subdivision. Number
one, the septic tank drain field systems were considered on an individual basis, but with
the impact to the entire subdivision and surrounding properties kept in mind. An overall
soil study was done on all six lots to determine soil suitability in regard, to subsurface
absorption. In addition to this, percolation tests were established by, digging test holes
on each lot and measuring the rate of drop. Number two, with the rate that subsurface
absorption takes place on these lots there should be no possible chance of surface water
pollution. Mr. Roseberry also stated he could not predict the runoff of pesticides, fertili~
and so forth. That would depend somewhat on the area which would be grass cultivated. Ail
septic drainfields are required by law to be at least fifty feet from any body of water or
stream. The stream runs basically down the geographical center of these lots.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had received letters from eight of the adjacent property
owners. He noted this to be a very unusual procedure and one which he had never been
through before. At this time, he opened the hearing for the persons appealing approval of
this subdivision plat.
First to speak was Mrs. William Trench.
record:
She read the following letter into the
"May 12, 1976
To the Board of Supervisors.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I live on the south side of the Hill Property. I have a longer
adjoining frontage than anyone else concerned with this matter.
I therefore will speak to my own personal concerns. After my
husband's death in 1969 I and my three children returned to
Charlottesville where I had grown up and I used my insurance
money to buy a piece of land for a small horse farm. In choosing
this location I looked at the character of the area and the size
of other plots nearby. They were all in the fifteen acre range or
more. I thus proceded to buy a house with 16.6 acres and build a
$10,000 barn and put in $2,500 in fencing and finally establishing
four horses in the pasture.
Mr. Hereford's lot just next to this pasture is such an odd
shaped lot that it will require putting the house very close to
this field and thus make the continued use of that field for
horses very difficult if not impossible. My farm and barn will
no longer be salable for its present use and thus I will face a
considerable financial loss.
In addition to this, I am faced with the fact that a developer
(Mr. Hereford) wants to come into the middle of a quality
neighborhood and put too many lots on a very marginal piece of
land. Of course he can make a quick profit with this procedure.
Many other developers have done just this in the past, but his
profit is my loss. The issue here is a moral one as well as a
legal one, are we as taxpayers and voters expected to take
unknown financial losses for the benefit of developers. Mrs. Hill
has told me that Mr. Hereford has a contract on this land which
is contingent on his plans being approved. If he does not see
his way clear to an adequate profit, he can walk away from the deal.
I cannot walk away from my losses, this is my home. Perhaps this
will explain why I would consider court action on a technicality
in order to try to protect the_value of my own property.
Please excuse the personal nature of this comment but I am worried
and a little scared about the outcome of this procedi~ng and your
actions as a concerned board.
Respectfully,
(Signed)
Margaret Trench"
Next to speak was Mr. Graham Tull. He said he had not written a letter but was asked
by several landowners to come in and comment. He lives in the neighborhood. The topographic
map indicates the slope of the pipe stems to-be in excess of 20%. The frontage requirements
for the two lots in the back is waived. The plat should at least meet the restricted road
requirements which it does not at present. The shape of the lots violates Section 3-19 of
the Subdivision ordinance. It specifically prohibits pipe stems. Another section 3-6
states "there is a mutual responsibility between the County of Albemarle and the subdivider
to divide and develop land in an orderly manner in accordance with the intent of the
comprehensive Dian." The comprehensive Dian saws that this area should be five acre zoning.
rs
.i
1.98
May 12, 1976
Dr. Lawrence Meem was next to speak. He said this area has traditionally been in much
larger acreages than two acres. The original master plan showed the area for a five acre
minimum~~ He bought his property, fifty acres, in 1958. Since that time, he has subdivided
it into five lots, and restricting it so that it can never be subdivided in smaller lots
during his lifetime. He noted there are acreages in the area, one being Westridge and the
other Ivy Brook, which are proposed to be divided into two acre lots. He said this is
raping the land. The property owners need protection and the Board is the only one that
can give this protection. After six houses are built, and sold, the runoff after each rain
will go into his lake. He felt it is only fair to warn the property owners in Westridge
that they will be subject to legal proceedings if the lake downstream becomes contaminated.
In conclusion, he had two requests to the Board. One, declare a moratorium on the su~
of~ property in the area along State Route 676 northwest of Ivy. The second request was to
not approve the subdivision of Westridge until a plat has been presented showing the location
of residences, wells, septic tanks and drain fields; each of these locations approved by
the appropriate officials of local government.
Mr. David Lewis spoke next. He presented the following five points of his appeal.
One, the topographic map dated March 29, 1976 was incorrect in that it does not show at
least one deep ravine that runs essentially perpendicular to State Route 676. This ravine
includes depressions running from eight to twelve feet and is located approximately in the
area noted as Lot 5 on the map. He then submitted photographs showing the ravine and creek
area in which there was a ten foot elevation difference with essentially a vertical bank.
He asked what could be done to assure a Proper map be given to the Planning Commission
before approving a plot with massive areas exceeding a 25% slope. The second point was a
quotation from the Albemarle County Soil Erosion and Control Ordinance, Appendix A. The
quotation read "Land in the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir may be developed
as otherwise provided by law except that on slopes of twenty-five percent (25%), or greater,
no building, grading, or excavative activity, except such activity as shall be necessary
for the construction and/or installation of utilities and/or roads, shall be permitted."
He asked if this 25% slope concept meant building on a patch of land the size of a house.
He then quoted the following from Section 3-6 of the Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance. "There is a mutual responsibility between the County of Albemarle and the
subdivider to divide and develop land in an orderly manner in accordance with the intent of
the comprehensive plan." He asked if the word "intent" could be ignored. He felt the
intent is further exemplified by the proposed zoning map that is presently in the Planning
Office showing Agricultural 5 for this area. This was his third point. Fourth, Mr. William
C'olony, a sanitary engineer, had reported to the Planning Commission on April 20, 1976 that
some of the land could absorb a lot of sewage effluent because of the type of soil and
possibly contaminate the wells in the area. His last point was section 4-6 of the
Ordinance which states that "the minimum required frontage shall be two hundred fifty feet
for single family residential." Also, the Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
Section 3-19 should not be ignored because it says "lots shall not contain peculiarly
shaped elongations which are designed solely to provide necessary square footage of area or
frontage on a public road and which would be unusable for normal purposes." In the area
being discussed, shapes and frontages are involved. He was curious as to this part of the
ordinance being capriciously ignored in that Lot #1 is peculiarly shaped. H6 concluded by
saying he would appreciate the Board's consideration of these points.
Dr. Iachetta asked about the topographical map which was before the Board. Mr. Michael
Boggs, engineer from Roudabush and Associates, said it was prepared from an aerial survey
of the Virginia Department of Highways in 1962.
Next to speak was Ron Hancock, part owner of the lake. He said if there is any
there will be a lawsuit. He did not think more than three lots should be approved.
Mr. Collins Thach who owns a farm adjacent to the property in question spoke next. He
presented a map for Mrs. Peggy Hancock. She had prepared the map to illustrate what the
people feel is in the best interest of the area. The map is a result of a proposal sent to
the landowners in the subject area asking their opinion on a five acre zone. The answer
derived from the proposal was that a five acre minimum is in the best interest of the area.
The landowners would like to suggest that the subdivision in question be modified. Mr.
Thach had four reasons for such a request. One, the road is steep, narrow and winding.
Secondly, the topographical map is not accurate enough for affirmative approval of the
subdivision as proposed. Third, Mr. William Colonyffound that there could be geological
fault underneath the ground which could result in the pollution of the ground water by
~Pt~¢!fi~ld~;[ The landowners feel more extensive testing must be made. Fourth, it should
not be so difficult for property owners to prote~ct themselves from developers. This is a
matter of great concern. They are asking for limited development. They would like to
propose to the Board as they have proposed to Mr. Hereford that these lots be a minimum of
five acres. The property owners would be willing to buy any remaining acreage. They would
also give access of the back lot by a right of way. This would save some expense. He
concluded by stating he hoped the Board had the power to sit in judgment and would consider
the petition the landowners will present in June.
Mr. David Wood, representing Mr. Hereford, presented the following. During discussions,
considerable references has been made to the Comprehensive Plan. The zoning map is the
tool by which the Comprehensive Plan is enforced. He noted there had been attempts to
amend the zoning map from time to time. But the map is the control of development in
Albemarle County. He stated that Mr. Hereford has eighteen acres of land which he wishes
to subdivide. The ordinance states that he might divide this into nine 2 acre parcels of
land. Mr. Hereford felt this density would be too great so he chose to divide the land
into acreages of 4.4, 2.2, 2.4, 2, 3.8 and 3.1 acres. In order to avoid excessive entrances
onto the road, he electedto build an entrance road that would serve four lots. The other
two lots would have entrances onto Route 676. Another question that had been presented
during the discussions was the topographic map. Most every subdivision that has been
brought to the Board has been based on these same aerial surveys and these have been
accepted. Another reference was made to the 25% grade restrictions. Many lots that have
been brought to the Board have been in excess of 25%. In reference to Mr. Colony's concern
about the pollution from the septic system, the Health Department has been out twice to
check the percolation of these lots and from this standpoint approved the subdivision both
times. For these reasons which indicates the applicant has leaned over backwards to comply
with the elements of law, he asked the Board to approve the plat for Westridge.
200 /
May 12, 1976
Mr. Fisher realized topography was of great concern so he had asked the County Executive
to have someone from the Zoning Office go out and look at the property. The following
report was submitted by an inspector from that office:
"TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
H. P. Clarke, ZOning Administrator
D. L. Woodson, Inspector
Westridge Subdivision
May 12, 1976
Inspection was made this morning of Westridge Subdivision for the
purpose of determining the amount of erosion taking place on the creek
which flows north through approximate center of four of the six
proposed lots. The creek begins at a point approximately !00 feet
north of the southern most property line (Lot 1) from an underground
spring. At this point in time, there is an approximate 15 foot ravine
approximately 50 feet in length. The stream flows northward from this
location. For approximately 300 feet N of the above mentioned ravine
there are no unusual features or erosion taking place. However, there
are steep embankments on both sides. At a point located in the general
vicinity of the property line between lots 5 and 6 there is an existing
pond which the dam has been leaking and there is very little standing
water. A large amount of silt has been deposited in this pond and it appears
to have originated from the deep ravine at the beginning of the Stream. The
remainder of the stream from the pond to the northern most-boundary of the
subdivision is very much like the area mentioned above where there are
steep embankments on both sides.
At this time the vegetation that exists on the property consists
primarily of honeysuckle and other heavy undergrowth and the area is
also wooded with approximately 50% of the trees being undesirable. If grading
is to take place in any portion of this subdivision I would recommend very
strict soil erosion control measures."
Mr. Tull said~his topographical map was different from the one shown the Board. Mr.
Boggs said they were the same. One shows where the houses are to be built and driveways
constructed. The degree of the driveway can be kept to 15% or less with grading. Also,'~an
erosion control plan showing strict measures will be presented. The erosion on the property
now will be corrected. Mr. Fisher noted the present Soil Erosion Ordinance states that
there shall be no building, grading or excavating activity, but does permit roads.
Mr. Ed Roseberry of the Health Department said in their investigations of the property,
the soil was better than normal as far as percolation goes. The concern among the people
is that the effluent may get back into the streams. The Health Department has no indication
this will happen~but it can not be guaranteed, Every specification the Health Department rec
as far as the e. ffluent from the septic tanks has been met on a preliminary test.
Mr. David Morris, an adjacent property owner, said without a site plan there can be no
comprehensive study on the question of erosion nor can there be any determination of the
adequacy of the drain fields until the type home and its location is determined. He felt a
more complete site plan indicating the type and location of homes on the lots is necessar
to provide the proper information for the Board to make a decision.
Mr. Fisher said any subdivision approval is always subject to further ~review for such
things as grading permits, building permits, and septic tank permits. The basic county
approval is the subdivision plat. Once that is approved in conformance with zoning the
other factors will be done if they are technically feasible. These are not policy decisions
Dr. Iachetta stated that by looking at the topographical map and the weird shape of
the parcel there was no way to look at lots 1, 4 and 5 and not feel they were drawn to get
minimum acreage. He felt the layout as it stands violates the concept that lot shapes
shall not be so construed to meet the two acre minimum requirement. He said without any
voluntary action on the part of the subdivider to reduce the number of lots he would move
to not allow the waiver for the pipe stems and require this subdivision be reworked to see
a better layout.
Mr. Fisher asked if he was suggesting that the Board defer any action on this appeal
and give the applicant an opportunity to consider an alternative which does not require any
waivers of this pipe stem. Dr. Iachetta said yes.
Mrs. Opal David said she had the original proposal and it involved five separate
entrances on the highway with one pipe stem leading to the back lot. This plat is an
attempt to improve that situation.
Mr. Fisher said he had reservations about waiving the basic requirements of the subdivi:
ordinance relating to pecularily shaped elongations which are designed solely to provide
necessary square footage or frontage on a public road that will be unusable for normal
purposes. He asked the County Attorney what the Board's position was under the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. St. John said the Board has the next-to-last word on whether requirements can be
waived or not. According to the ordinance, if refused a waiver the developer can appeal,
within ten days after any such decision by the Planning Commission. The Board can overrule
the Planning Commission and whichever side does not prevail can file a suit for declaratory
judgment or suit for personal damages or whatever.
Mrs. David asked if the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which was considered
earlier in the day providing for clustering within subdivisions would offer some solution
to this problem.
mires
~on
May 12, 1976
201
Mr. Tucker said no. The minimum lot size for clustering would be 60,000 square feet.
Much of that area would have steep slopes so the number of lots you could actually get out
of it would put it back in the same position.
Mr. Henley asked how this came to the Board. Mr. Fisher said the applicant requested
that the Board waive the provisions of the subdivision ordinance that essentially prohibits
such shaped lots. Mr. St. John said that is not the way it is legally. The Planning
Commission has waived this requirement. Even if the Board takes no action, the waiver will
stand. In order for the waiver not to remain in effect, a legislative act by the Board is
required. Short of a legislative act denying the waiver, the waiver is in effect right now
and will stay in effect.
Mr. Henley f.elt the applicant knows the problems of the property and the ordinances of
the County. The Health Department!s restrictions on locating houses and septic tanks have
been met and he felt the problem could be taken care of.
Mr. Dorrier sympathized with the landowners in the area. He was concerned about the
slope, but said if the Health Department approves septic fields then pollution of the
streams should not be a problem. He did not feel there was any concrete evidence to deny
the plat as being detrimental to the health and welfare of the people. He was in favor of
a lesser number of lots.
Mr. Roseberry said the Health Department did not say there would definitely be no
pollution. Through investigations, they feel there will not be a problem. The Health
Department could not deny the subdivision on soil conditions.
Mr. St. John said the question is whether the Board will hold the subdivider to the
subdivision ordinance or uphold the waiver as recommended by the Planning Commission. The
question is not on the number of lots.
Mr. Agnor said two schemes dated the same date had two methods to get to the back lots
off of Route 676. Both resulted in six driveway entrances onto 676. The "dog leg" approach
attempted to respond to the concerns of the people about the safety on the highway thus
reducing the six entrances to three. If the Board decided not to grant a waiver to the
peculiar shaped lots, then the property owner is back to the original scheme of six entrances
The Board cannot govern the number of lots.
Mr. Fisher asked what type of common road is planned to serve four residences. Mr.
Tucker said no specifications were submitted to the Planning Commission for their review.
There. will be an access way to service these four lots. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board
does not allow restricted roads. Mr. Tucker said it would be very much like a restricted
road.
Dr. Iachetta withdrew his previous motion and moved to deny the waivers granted by
the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Mrs. David said she was unwilling to support the motion because it would result in
the applicant going back to the plan with six entrances onto the highway.
Mr. Henley said he could not support the motion either. He was not a great advocate
of pipe stems but a number of them have been approved. He felt if a person has a right to
have a two-acre lot he could not see creating all kinds of problems.
At this time, the roll ~as called and the motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher and Iachetta.
NAYS: Mrs. David and Mr. Henley.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
(Ail exhibits handed in at this Board meeting are on permanent file in the Office of
the Clerk.)
No. 21. Request: Alcoholism Center.
Mr. Alfred Dofflemyer presented the request. The request was from the alcoholism
center on Chancellor Street for assistance in operating a halfway house. A similar request
was made to the City. He had been asked by Dr. Moore of the Health Department to be an
interim coordinator in order to finalize the plan for the operation of the halfway house.
The halfway house according to the Fire Marshal can be occupied for eight persons and a
resident manager. In talking with Judge Barry Marshall, he was informed that at least
eight people a week come before him that could use the service. The purpose of this house
is to get the alcoholics away from the crowds they normally drink with. Hopefully, this
would direct them in another path. John deK. Bowen, Chief of Police for the City, had
stated that since the halfway house began there had been a decline in arrests. Mr.
said a total of sixteen occupants is being shown for the city and the county. The maximum
time one could stay would be three months. They are confident they would not have to stay
that long. The estimated cost per bed per day would be about $19.79. He felt $80,000.00 a
year could be saved by having this house.
Mr. Fisher asked if the requested amount of $10,564.38 was for the fiscal year be
in July. Mr. Dofflemyer said that was when they hoped to get started.
At this time, Chief Bowen spoke from the enforcement point of view. He said the
arrests have dropped off. The law was changed last year so a judge cannot give time in
jail for drunkenness. He felt alcoholism and alcohol related problems are by far the most
troublesome when one looks at other problems in the City and County.
Mr. Fisher asked if the people would be restrained for a specific period of time.
Bowen thought the idea was to select those that would respond to this type of treatment.
He felt twenty to thirty chronic people could be helped each year.
Mr.
202
May 12, 1976
Mr. Lloyd Wood, a member of the Area Ten Alcoholism Center, spoke next. He was
astonished that as many as 4,800 citizens in the County needed some type of treatment. He
felt the Board of Supervisors would have good control over the amount, of money requested in
the way the program is proposed to be administered. The Judge knows who his repeaters are
and with the cooperation of the Chief of Police in the City and the Sheriff of Albemarle
County, this can be controIled. He realized the request was late, but due to legislative
changes the request was not possible earlier.
Mr. Dofflemyer said the users would be screened by a doctor and make recommendations
to the judge before determining if the users should go to the house or not. The Judge
would give them the option of treatment or being fined.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board if they desired to have this request considered for appropriat
after the public hearing on the budget. It was the consensus of the Board to have this
request considered after the public hearing on the budget.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the request was a one time-grant meaning they would not request
any funds next year. Mr. Dofflemyer said no. The amount requested is the cost for this
year. He said resources may be available next year which could reduce the amount requested
from the city and county.
Mr. Henley said if the request will be coming back next year, he would be interested
in knowing the number of county residents contemplated to use the facilities and what
happens to them. Mr. Dofflemyer said records would be kept.
At 5:01 P.M., Mr. RDudabush offered motion to adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal matters. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recor~d~v~e: ....
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 5:12 P.M.
No. 30. Other Matters, Not on the Agenda from Board Members.
Dr. Iachetta asked the County Attorney to check with the Zoning Administrator about
the erosion problem of the bank beside the Real Estate III office on 29 North.
Mr. Fisher had a communication from Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney for an amendment
to the Soil Erosion provisions of the County Code. It was inadvertently left out when the
Code was readopted and is essential to the administration of the ordinance. Mr. Payne
requested it be adopted as an emergency measure. The amendment is as set out below:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 7-5 OF THE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING CERTAIN
PROCEDURES OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has recently
adopted a new County Code; and
WHEREAS, certain amendments were made to the said County Code., as
originally prepared, upon adoption; and
WHEREAS, in the course of said adoption, three certain subsections
of Section 7-5 of the said Code were inadvertently omitted by editorial
error;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County that there be, and there hereby are, adopted and incorporated into the
Code of the County of Albemarle, as Sections 7-5(d), 7-5(e) and 7-5(f), the
following:
(d) In the event~that the plans and specifications so'submitted
shall be approved, the zoning administrator shall require, prior to the
issuance of an erosion Control permit, a performance bond with surety or
other security of a type satisfactory to the.zoning administrator in an
amount determined by the zoning administrator to be sufficient for completion
of the controls specified in the plans and specifications should the person
receiving the.permit not complete the controls as required.
(e) When a plan submitted for approval pursuant to this chapter is found
to be inadequate, the zoning administrator, in accordance with recommendations
of the advisory committee, shall specify such modifications, terms, and
conditions as will permit approval of the plan and shall communicate these
requirements to the applicant. The applicant may then resubmit a revised
plan showing such corrections as may be necessary to comply with the
standards of the handbook.
(f) The zoning administrator may require the submission of amended
plans and specifications in any case in which insPection reveals that the
controls set forth in the plan are inadequate to accomplish the erosion
and sediment control objectives of this chapter; or where the permit holder
finds that because of changed circumstances as for other reasons the approved
plan cannot be effectively carried out.
At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion 'to adopt the following resolution:
ion
May 12, 19
B:
Virgin
7-5 of
as set
for a
Mr. Ro
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
203
IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
a, enacts on an emergency measure an ordinance to amend Section
the Albemarle County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance,
out above and hereby orders that this ordinance be advertised
oublic hearing at 7:30 P.M. on June 2, 1976.
Ldabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None
ABSENT: Mr
Mr. Ag
the Seconda
"May
Board
Charlo
Gentle:
As req
additi
effect
ADDITI
Dorrier.
aor then read a letter from. the Highway Department accepting Brook-wood Road into
ry System.
BROOKW
Brookw
Sincer
(Signe
J. E.
and Ch
Mr. Ag
Social Ser-
Dr. I~
and same ca
AYES: Mrs
NAYS: Non,
ABSENT: M~
Mr. Ag
permit.
Mr. He
adopted rul
same carrie
AYES: Mrs
NAYS: Non
ABSENT: Mr
ll, 1976
of Supervisors of Albemarle County
ttesville, Virginia 22901
neB:
~ested in resolution by your Board on April 14, 1976, the following
on to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
iv, May l, 1976.
DN
DOD SUBDIVISION
ood Road - From Route 1221 to Route 1204·
~ly,
Earwood, Deputy Commissioner
ief Engineer"
LENGTH
0·07 Mi.
aor read a request from Alice Satterfield, Service Worker, Albemarle
ices for leave without pay on May 20th, 21st, and 24th, 1976.
chetta offered motion to approve this request.
rried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David seconded the motion
David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
· Dorrier.
nor then presented a request from the Greenwood Ruritan Club for a lottery
nley offered motion to approve this request in accordance with the Board's
es regarding issuance of such permits. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and
d by the following recorded vote:
David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Dorrier.
Mrs. David said she had been receiving calls about the traffic on Lamb's Road in
connection with Dr. Hurt's construction· She had checked with Mr. Perry of the Highway
Department and Dr. Hur~ had agreed to
25 P.M. motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn this meeting to May 19 at
The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and same carried by the following recorded
At 5:
3:00 P.M.
vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier.
CHAIRMAN