1976-11-10November 10, 1976
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of~Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on November 10, 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,
J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony !achetta and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
John, County Attorney.
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9~00 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2a. Highway Matters:
(Deferred from October 13, 1976).
Secondary System Improvement Program.
~ Action on this matter was deferred from October 13, 1977, due to right of way problems
on Route 744. Mr.'Roudabush said the problem still exists because all the residents have
not consented to giving the necessary right of ~ay. The willing residents have suggested tha'
representatives from the Highway Department and himself talk to the unwilling residents in
hope that something can be resolved. He asked that this matter be deferred again.
Mr. Dan~R~o~evelt, Resident Highway Engineer, suggested the $155,000 allocated for two
other projects with right of way problems be transferred to Route 623 from Route 616' to 0.5
miles south of Route 616 and Route 689 from Route 688 to Route 250 which have right of way
dedicated. His third recommendation, Route 727 from Route 627 to 1/2 mile south of Route
627, could wait until the matter on Route 744 is resolved. At this time, Mr. Roudabush
offered motion to accept the recommendations of the Resident Highway Engineer which is
outlined in correspondence dated September 9, 1976, and to also resolve the problems on
Route 744 as expeditiously as possible. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2b.
October 13, 1976.)
Highway Matters:
Airport Acres Road Review.
(Deferred from
Mr. Fisher noted this matter was deferred in order for the County Engineer, Mr. J.
Harvey Bailey, to review the road and the data contained in the letter from Mr. Roosevelt
dated September 24, 1976. (This letter is set out in October 13, 1976 minutes.) Mr. Fisher
said the County Engineer had made a written report of his findings, by letter'dat~d October
29, 1976. (This letter is set out on page 448 of November !0, 1976 minutes~)~r z-/~-~?
Mr. Roudabush presented a petition he had received from homeowners in Airport Acres
indicating their willingness to contribute funds to have the road brought into the Highway
System. Money has been raised for construction of the cul-de-sac which does not qualify for~?
State participation. Mr. Roudabush felt the report done by the County Engineer favorable
to the project. Mr. Bailey recommended ~hat no construction commence until all easements
for right of way have been obtained by the County and the County's financial arrangement
with "others" completed. Mr. Roudabush suggested establishment of a bank account in the
name of Airport Acres and with 'deposits to be made as funds are accumulated. He felt all
easements would be given voluntarily.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Rural Addition Law allows the Highway Department to bring
available funds forward from one fiscal year to the next. ~f funds are available, constructi~
can begin in the spring of 1977. A homeowner asked if construction could start sooner if
funds are available. Mr. Roosevelt said construction canno~begin any sooner, but if
drainage easements are obtained, maintenance could begin on what is already there and con
begin later. Discussion then followed on the procedure for commencing construction of the
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, property owners in Airpor~'tEcres Subdivision have petitioned t~e
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County for a number of years requesting
that the road through this subdivision be taken into the State Secondary System
of Highways; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Highway Engineer, in a letter dated September 24, 1976,
indicated that this road is eliEi~le for acceptance under the Highway Department's
Rural Addition~Law and Policy provided that one-half of the Department's estimated
cost of developing the streets to minimum standards as established by the
Department is donated through the County, and further if initial surface treatment
is ~esired, seventy-five percent of the estimated cost thereof shall be donated
through~the County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has received a petition dated November 2,
1976, containing the signatures of 38 property owners in Airport Acres Subdivision
indicating their willingness to contribute to a fund to be used for the pnrpose
of brinEing~this?road into the State System; said cost estimated by the Resident
Highway Engineer at $25,000, and said property owners have also i~ndicated that
they will contr±bute the full cost of bringing a cul-de-sac street in. this
subdivision'which does not qualify for State participation into the System;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of S.upe~±sors does hereby
accept a report of the County Engineer dated October 29, 1976, (a copy of which
November 10, 1976
FURTHER, l) the Board of Supervisors hereby indicates their willingness
to recommend that this road be accepted into the State Secondary System of
Highways for maintenance as soon as the property owners in Airport Acres have
accumulated in a separate bank account their share of this project (estimated
at $13,800); 2) the Highway Department is to coordinate this project with the
property owners; 3) construction of the road to be undertaken by the Highway
Department on April l, 1977, approximately; 4) location of required drainage
easements to be ascertained by the Highway Department; 5) surveying and
required plats to be accomplished by the County Engineer; and 6) deeds to
be prepared by the County Attorney's Office.
"Office of County Engineer
Report on Road in Airport Acres Subdivision
October 29, 1976
Location: Airport Acres is a subdivision located on the west margin of U.S.
29 approximately 0.10 miles north of the intersection of Hwy. 29 and St. Rt.
649 (ProfOOt Road), Rivanna Magisterial Bistrict.
Description: The road under review is shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in D.B. 350-193, recorded on
July 10, 1959. The right-of-way width is fifty feet. It's total length is
4,771 feet. Although two names are used, this road runs a continuous loop
through the subdivision, from U.S. 29 to U.S. 29. It is one road.
Eligibility: This road meets the requirements for addition to the Secondary
system under thehRural Addition Law and Policy since the subdivimion it serves
was platted within the specified dates, July l, 19~5-November 15, 1959, and
since no more than three of the forty lots which front on this road are under
one ownership, well within the requirement that no more than_.~%uOf~he~o~s
along a street be owned by a subdivider, de~eloper or land speculator. However,
the street and cul-de-sac shown on a plat recorded in D.B. 358-5~1 on May
23, 1960 is not eligible.
Design and Improvements: Because the road in question joins U.S. 29 at
either end, it is assumed that no more than 55% of the traffic will flow one
way. This computes to 15~ vehicular trips per day. The minimum improvements
required fall within the geometric design standards of Class A roads, described
in Section 18-40(c), Supplement #1, 8-76 of the Albemarle County Code.
Scope of Project: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
Proposes to complete the existing road so as to provide a 20 foot wide
pavement composed of a six-inch stone base topped by a prime and double seal
wearing surface, four or five-foot wide shoulders and drainage culverts as
needed. The Department will make all use practical of the existing grade,
base and drainage.
Other Requirements- If the existing 50 foot right-of-way has not been
dedicated to public use, it must be. D~a~nage easements must be obtained.
for the location of utilities (power and telephone) must be obtained.
Permits
Cost Estimates: The County Engineering Department has made an estimate of the
construction costs. Based on the assumption that fifty percent of the base stone
is now in place, the County Engineer agrees with the $25,000.00 estimate prepared
by the Highway Department.
Recommendations: The County Engineer recommends the following: (a) The
Board of Supervisors add the road within Airport Acres, shown on a plat
recorded in D.B. 350-193, to the secondary road system under the provisions
of the Rural Addition Law and Policy. (b) The Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation will define drainage easements wherever they desire them
and the County of Albemarle will determine the ownership involved, prepare
plat and deeds and obtain said easements for the Department of Highways. (c)
The County of Albemarle will be responsible for obtaining from others the funds
in addition to the secondary road funds available which are necessary to defray
the costs involved in performing the work of construction, obtaining easements
and other items of cost incidental to the completion of the project. (d) No
work on the improvements to the road will be started by the Department of
Highways until all easements for right-of-way have been obtained by the
County and the County's financial arrangements with 'others' completed.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed)
J. Harvey Bailey
County Engineer"
Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Pisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NOne.
Agenda Item No. 2c. Highway Matters: Street Signs--Wakefield Subdivision.
Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mrs. John R. Derr, Jr., along with signatures of
adjacent property owners, for erection of street signs to identify Rio Road and Wakefield
Road at their intersection. Motion was offered' by Dr. !achetta, seconded by Mrs. David to
November 10, 1976
WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs to identify
Rio Ro~d~(2ta2e Route 631) and Wakefield Road (State Route 1401) at their
in$~rsec~!~n on the west side of'State Route 631; and
WHEREAS, residents of Wakefield Subdivision have agreed to purchase
~hese signs through the Office of the County Executive and to conform
to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above
mentioned~street~'Signs.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 2e. Highway Matters: Route 637--Federal funds.
Mr. Fisher said this item came to the Planning Commission in November for $196,000 in
Federal Highway Funds for complete reconstruction and a new location for Route 637 between
1,64 and Route 250 West. This was a top priority item in past years fort~the County. He had
asked that this matter be deferred by the Planning District Commission until he could discuss
it with Mr..Roosevelt.
Mr. Roosevelt presented the following background on this type of procedure. The Highway
Department has a six year plan and funds are anticipated for improvements over that period.
The~Department is currently working on a plan which includes Route 637 as a priorit~ in
the six year plan; but scheduled for about four years From now. This plan has been sent
to the Secondary Roads Office in Richmond where a review is made of each project~ This
is -done so various agencies can review same and when the timeacomes it will be e~igible
for funding. He felt Al~e~a~&e County has greater needs than Route 637. He intends to,
if not drop the project completely from the six year plan, push it back to the sixth year
o£~ the plan. He noted that this project met considerable.opposition about five years ago
and was dropped. He felt the same citizens in the area will oppose it again.. The applica~i~
ha~ not actually been made for federal funds. This is a preliminary step before applying
for funds.
Mr. Fisher was ~oncerned that~th~a~road project would be lost if not acted on now. He
disagreed that the citizens in the area had opposed the reconstruction because a~fthe~public
hearings held only one person spoke in opposition.
Nr. Roosevelt said projects for a six year plan will be presented for the Board's
commeh~ ~n~h~Pring of 1977. He feels strongly that Route 637 should be at the end of'
the plan. Mrs. David did not feel this applica~i~w~m~d~$epDa~ize higher priorities but
is~just the paperwork needed before final application is made for funds. Mr. Roosevelt said
a~d~ign public hearing would be needed. Since the Highway Department is trying to obtain
federal assistance for every project possible, the Planning District Commission will be
receiving more of these in the future. Support will be determined by comments of the
Board. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board had any objection to members serving on the Planning
District Commission making favorable comments for the funding of Route 637. No objection
was expressed.
Agenda Item No. 2f. Highway Matters:
Roads into the State System.
Resolution to accept Terrybrook Subdivision
Tn January, Mr. G. C. Gentry, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Lester Terry, requested the
Board to accept roads in Terrybrook Subdivision into the State Secondary System. At that
time, Mr. Gentry was advised that in order for this to transpire, a final inspection of the
roads.had to be made by the Highway Department stating the roads were ready for acceptance,
as-built plans, final plats recording all drainage easements, and deed book page numbers
where the plats were recorded have to be in the hands of the County Engineer before the
Board will consider the request. Mr. Agnor said the as-built plans have been received.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has inspected the roads and a report given°
to the Count~ Engineer. He noted Terrybrook Court from Crestfield Court to a dead end has
no ~ ana ~s no~ e±~glD±e ~or acceptance. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors ofI Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby
requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final
inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads
in Section I, Blocks A and B, in Terrybrook Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 on Terrybrook Drive, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Terrybrook Drive and State
Route 649, as shown on the plan and profile of Terrybrook Drive,
revised dated October 21, 1976, as prepared by W. S. Roudabush,
Jr., and Associates; thence in a northeasterly direction 982.22
feet to station 9+82.22, the end of TerrybroOk Drive, this phase
of Terrybrook Subdivision, and the centerline intersection of
Crestfield Court..
Beginning at station 0+00 on Pineridge Lane, a point common to
the centerline intersection of Pineridge Lane and Terrybrook Drive
station 4+04.100, as shown on the plan and profile of Pineridge Lane,
revised dated October 21, 1976, as prepared by W. S. Ro~d~bush, Jr.
450
~b~emBer i0, 1976
AYES:
NAYS:
Beginning at Station 0+00 on Crestfield Court, a point common to
the centerline intersection of Crestfield Court and Terrybrook
Drive station 9+82.22, as'shown ~on the plan and profile of Crestfield ~
Court, revised dated October 21, 1976' as prepared by W. S. Roudabush,
Jr., and Associates; thence in a southeasterly direction 897.07 feet
to station 8+97.07, the end of Crestfield Court in Terrybrook Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and TransportatiOn
be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements
along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 542, page 323, Deed Book 544,
pages 219 and 220; Deed Book 583, page 366; and Deed Book 584, page 185.
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Dorrier asked Mr. Roosevelt to investigate complaints received
about the bridge on Route 620 between Slate Hill and Woodridge. He said the bridge is
hazardous since it is clOse to the creek and problems arise when it freezes or floods.
Dr. Iachetta asked about the striping of Route 649 since is has been resurfaced. Mr.
Roosevelt said this request has been referred to the Traffic Engineer. Dr. Iachetta asked
about the drainage problem on Route 649. Mr. Roosevelt said he has met with Mr. Price, the
owner of the downstream property, and his attorney. In a~l~tter received from the attorney,
indication is that Mr. Price is willing to accept a monetary figure for the easement.
Mr. Roosevelt said the profile on the landfill road project of Route 637 (I-64 South
to the Landfill) has never been plotted. The highway department is working on a minimum
plan concept. The right of way agents have inquired about procedures for negotiation
without knowing whether the road will be raised or lowered. Mr. Roosevelt said the survey
work for the profile has been completed. He has requested detailed plotting or.the profile
so the right of way agents can use same. If objections are raised when the right of way
work begins, condemnation may be required. This will require cross-sections which is about
a two week job. Mr. Roosevelt requested approval for cross-sections to be made immediately
so as to save time if condemnation problems arise. Mr. J. H. Bailey, County Engineer, was
present and agreed with-Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations. No objections were expressed by
the Board.
Dr. Iachetta requested the brush and branches on Route 643 along Mr. Pritchett's
property he, cut.
Mr. Agnor said he had received a call from Mr. Sam Berry of Sperry Marine Systems
expressing his concern about the egress and ingress highway plans for the proposed Fashion
Mall.. Mr. Roosevelt said Mr. Berry had contacted him. The last traffic signal study
conducted by the Highway Department at the Sperry entrance showed only 200 cars between the
hours of 3:30 P.M. and 4:~0 P.M. At other times, there were only about 25 cars using the
entrance. Traffic signals cannot be installed for problems which occur during only one
hour of the day. The Highway Department has recommended only one cross-over for the Fashion
Mall and this to be at a location where the Sperry entrance can be used and a traffic
signal installed at that location.
Agenda Item No. 2d. Highway Matters: Broomley Road.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a memo from the Director of Planning, drafted at his
request, showing approximately 552 acres of ~undeveloped land in an area primarily served
by Broomley Road. Mr. Fisher said he understands that recently a subdivision of lots in
excess of five acres each was put to record on land owned by the Mary White Estate.
Because of the size of the lots, this subdivision of land is not controlled by the Subdivisio~
Ordinance of the County and there is no requirement that the developer upgrade Broomley
Road. This is contrary to a condition this Board worked out with the owner last year. At
that time, the owner had agreed to participate in the upgrading of Broomley Road to a
certain extent. In that manner as each parcel of land on ~h~oadi.~eve!oped, Broomley
Road would get to a standard so it might be taken over by the State Highway Department or
at least made safer for the citizens. He was concerned that more developments of this
type might occur, thus compounding an a~ready~se~ious problem for the people on Broomley
ROad. If the Board does not require developers to upgrade the road, eventually the
public will have to pay for this upgrading.
Mr. St. John said in order to control this type of situation, the Board would have
to amend the subdivision ordinance~to require~that each ~e~oper would have to upgrade
the road in so far as his particular development occasions the nleed!~Eo~ the upgrading. But,
in order to make such a requirement aPply to d'evelopments of this size, the lot size in
~the subdivision ordinance would have to be increased. There is an Attorney General's
opinion on this question on file. Mr. St. John.said the Board can also take the position
that this is a non-problem for the County because this subdivision of land does not fall
under the County's existing laws.
Mr. Roudabush said he does not feel anyone will ever be able to develop these 552
acres without new roads being required. This would then bring these subdivisions under
the requirements of the ordinance. When the first such development comes before the
the Board can face the question of what to do with Broomley Road at that time. Mr.
Roudabush said ~before the Board takes any action on this matter, he felt a committee of the
Planning Commission 'and the Board should have a meeting to discuss this sort of problem.
He said there are two types of problems relating to this: l) developments on existing roads
that the highway department maintains; and 2) developments on existing roads which the
state does not maintain.
November !0, 1976
4'5 .
the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters, NOt on the Agenda from the Public.
discussed later in the meeting).
(This will be
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hea~ing: An Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County Code
concerning fees for Soil Erosion Plan Review. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened.
was closed.
With no one desiring to speak, the public hearing
Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance as adverti
At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING FEES FOR SOIL EROSION PLAN REVIEW
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY that the
Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is, amended by the addition, in Articles 7
and 18 thereof, respectively, of two sections 7-4(d) and 18-43(c), respectively,
as follows:
ChaPter 7' Article I, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Section 7,
Submission of plans and specifications, sub-section 7-4(d):
Upon submission of any plan submitted pursuant to Section 7-3 hereof, the
applicant shall pay to the County of Albemarle a fee of twenty-five dollars
($25.00) to cover the cost of the County to review and act upon such plan;
provided, however, that in the case of any such plan involving, development for
which site plan and/or subdivision~ap~rov~l is or would be required, a fee shall
be paid for review of such plan required pursuant to Section 17-6-6 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance or Section 18-~3(c) of the County Code, as the
case may be.
Chapter 18, Article IV, Division I, Subdivision of Land, Section 18,
Fees, sub-section 18-43(c):
Soil Erosion Plan: In the case of any soil erosion, control plan required
pursuant to Article 7 of this Code, the approval of which is required as a
prerequisite to the final approval of any final plan submitted pursuant to this
Article, the developer shall pay a fee for the submission, review and approval
of such plan, the amount of such fee to be determined by reference to the
schedule of fees adopted pursuant to Section 17-6-6 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance.
The foregoinE~motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mrs. David abstained from voting
QhLal~ythe ordinances to be heard today in order to enforce her viewpoint that items of
this type can be handled in a way that is easier to understand. Roll was then called and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing- An Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County Code
concerning fees for review of Preliminary Subdivision Plats. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission ~recommended approval of the ordinance as
advertised.
~h~!pnblic hearing was opened.
closed.
With no one present to speak, the public hearing was
Motions;was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CONCERNING~FEES FOR THE REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLATS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Section 18-~3(a)(3) of the Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is,
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 18, Article IV, Division I, Subdivision of Land, Section
18, Fees, sub-section 18-43(a)(3):
(3) Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary
plat for the same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the
same requirements; provided, however, that no fee shall be required for the review
of a preliminary plat of any subdivision involving three or fewer lots.
45,3,
November 10, 1976
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend Section ll-5-1 Of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance concerning payment of costs of newspaper advertisement.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened.
the public hearing was closed.
With no one present to speak for or against the
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval ef the ordinance as advert~ zed.
MoJtion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTT ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING PAYMENT OF COSTS OF NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section ll-5-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby is,
amended to read as follows:
Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the
administrator, the commission, or the governing body which requires notice and
hearing in accordance with Section 15.1-431 of the Code, or in accordance with the
policy of the governing body, shall be accompanied by a fee of $20.00 to defray the
cost of publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the County.
The f~regoinE~motion was seconded by Dr. lachetta and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance by amendment of Section 17-6-6 thereof concerning fees. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened. With no one desiring to speak, the public hearing
was closed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval~of the ordinance
as advertised.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
BY THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17-6-6 THEREOF CONCERNING FEES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 17-6-6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby
is, amended to read as follows:
17-6-6
The governing body, by resolution, may establish from time
to time a schedule of fees for the examination and approval
or disapproval of site development plans submitted pursuant
to this Article. In addition, the fees so established shall
apply, according to their terms, to the submission, review and
approval of any soil erosion control plan required pursuant
to Article 7 of the Albemarle County Code in any case in which
such plan is required as a prerequisite to the approval of
any site development plan submitted pursuant to this Article.
Such fee shall be paid to the County of Albemarle and shall be
submitted one-half at the time of filing of the plan or plans for
which such fees shall apply and the remainder prior to final
approval.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Resolution: To adopt fees for Section 17-6-6.
offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution:
Motion was
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the schedule of fees heretofore adopted pursuant to
Section 17-6-6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
hereby is amended by the addition of the following:
(a) Fees for review of soil erosion plans
$0J002 per square foot of disturbed area or $40.00, whichever~
is greater.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dottier. Fi~h~. Menl~v_ T~ab~tt~ ~ ~~_
November 10, 1976
453
Mr. Tucker said a schedule of fees for review of site plans needed to be established.
Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the following resolution setting fees for review
of site plans:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the schedule of fees heretofore adopted pursuant to
Section 17-6-6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
hereby is amended by the addition of the following:
(b) Fees for review of site plans
(1) For site plans of less than five acres - $50.00;
(2) For site plans of five to ten acres - $75.00;
(3) For site plans of more than ten acres - $100.00
plus $1.00 per acre for each acre in excess of ten.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend Section 15A-9-4 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, said section entitled "Sign Permits." (Advertised
in'the Daily Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance
the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the ordinance as advertised.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 15A-9-4 OF THE ALBEMARLE
COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING SIGN PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of. Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 15A-9-4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it hereby
is, amended to read as follows:
15A-9-4 SIGN PERMITS: No person shall erect or cause to be
erected any sign, except auction and temporary
event signs, in excess of five (5) square feet in
area unless and until a permit therefor shall have
been obtained from the zoning administrator. Such
permit shall be issued upon the payment of a fee in the
amount of ten dollars ($10.00) to cover the cost
incident to the issuance of such permit and upon
a finding by the zoning administrator that the proposed
sign conforms to the requirements of this ordinance.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend Section 14-1-1 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance concerning fees for rezoning. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on October 22 and October 29, 1976.)
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against,
the public hearing was closed. Mr~ Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the ordinance as advertised.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
CONCERNING FEES FOR REZONING
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Section 14-1-1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be, and it
hereby is, amended to read as follows:
14-1-1
By the filing with the zoning administrator of a petition
by owners or contract purchasers of land proposed to be
rezoned, which petition shall be accompanied by a fee to be
determined as follows:
a. For rezoning of less than five acres - $50·00;
b. For rezoning of five to ten acres - $75.00;
For rezoning of more than ten acres - $100.00
Plus $1.00 per acre for each acre in excess of ten.
In addition, the foregoing fee schedule shall be applicable
to any special ~rmit a~l~aat~on m~.d~ u~d~ ~at~nn P-7 ~nd
.454
November'10, 1976
Mr. Dottier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: An ordinance regulating, limiting and restricting
discharge of waste into sanitary sewer system of Albemarle County Service Authority.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on October~ 27, 1976 and November 3, 1976.)
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, introduced Mr. Graham, engineer for the Albemarle
County Service Authority. Mr. Bailey.said the ordinance is in line with the rules and
regulations of the Albemarle Connty~$~r~ce.i~Ui~hori~ The Federal Government has informed
the Rivanna Water and Sewer~ Authority that protection must be provided for its treatment
plants and sewage lines. The provisions of the regulations define what may or may not be
introduced into the sewer lines, the rates at which they may be introduced and any pretreatme
required in case a manufacturer has materials that are denied entrance into the sewers. A
surcharge is also provided when extra strength sewage is introduced. Also provided is order
inspection of manufacturer or commercial interests to determine that they continue to
comply with the regulations. The Albemarle County Service Authority intends to have an
agent to perform the work for them. The State Water Control Board ~nd federal regutatD~ry
agencies have also reviewed the regulations and standards have been met. No abnormal rules
or regulations are being imposed on the community.
Speaking next was Mr. Gene Potter of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He said Pub
Law 92-500, or the 1972 Clean Water Act, requires adoption of an Industrial Waste Ordinance
by municipalities who receive construction grant funds for new sewage water facilities. The
State Water Control Board;.adopted~in~J~y a regulation which required all municipalities to
conduct an industrial waste survey. Without the ordinance, the authority does not have the
mechanism whereby industries can be required to provide this information. Thus, From
the regulatory standpoint, there are two requirements for. the adoption of an ordinance of
this type.
Mr. Fisher asked what responsibility the County has after adoPting the ordinance. Mr.
St. John said the County is immune from enforcement of something ~ike this, thus, there is
no pecuniary liability.
The public hearing was opened.
the public hearing was closed.
With no one desiring to speak for or against the ordina~
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance, inserting November
10, 1976, as the effective date:
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING, LIMITING AND RESTRICTING THE DISCHARGE OF WASTE
INTO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY
(To be known as Chapter 19.1 - WATER AND SEWER, of the Albemarle County Code.)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, pursuant to
Code of Virginia Sections 15.1-292 and 15.1-299, as follows:
That the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt and approve
the following ordinance adopted for the purpose of regulating, limiting and
restricting the discharge Of waste and pollutants into the sanitary sewer system
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and in the sewers tributary to the
sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and thereby
protecting the said sanitary sewer system and waste treatment facilities of the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the health of the citizens of Albemarle
County.
Section 19.1-1. Discharge prohib~ited Wit'hOut permit.
No person shall discharge any industrial waste or pollutants into the
sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority and in the sewers
tributary to the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority
without having first obtained a valid permit from the Albemarle County Service
Authority allowing for said discharge of industrial waste or pollutants, pursuant
to the Rules of and Regulations of the Albemarle County Service Authority
regulating, limiting and restricting the discharge of waste and pollutants into
the sanitary sewer system of the Albemarle County Service Authority.
'Section 19.1-2. Violations; penalties..
Any person violating the provisions of Section 19.1-1 herein shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment
not exceeding 30 days or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day such
violation continues shall constitute a separate offense.
The Board of Supervisors, in addition to other remedies, may institute an
appropriate action or proceeding, at law or in equity, to prevent violation or
attempted violation, to restrain, correct, abate such violation, or to prevent
any act which would constitute such a violation of the provisions of Section
19.1-1 herein.
Section 19.1-3. Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after the
10th day of November, 1976.
Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
.t
-Y
.ic
e~
November 10, 1976
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters, Not on the Agenda, From the Public.
Mr. Lloyd Smith, Chairman of the Library Board,~as present. He wished to speak about
a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on August ll, 1976, for acceptance of
and State grants-in-aid of $50,443 and $70,597, respectively. The County's resolution
stated that any Federal Funds received must be spent within the limits of the Library's
total budget. Since some of the Counties did not appropriate the requested amount for FY
76-77, the Library's total budget is not known at this time. Mr. Smith said he interprets
Federal regulations attached to the notice of these grants as saying that the funds must
be supplementary to local funds and must be spent by December 15th or one-half of the
funds will not be received. He felt Albemarle County's resolution is contrary to the Federal
regulations. The Library Board has adopted a resolution to spend these~grants for books
and items which were not anticipated to be purchased from the FY 76-77 budget.
Mr. Smith Said the County's resolution seems to have stemmed from the feeling that the
Library Board each yearaadds Federal F.unds into the base budget for the local jurisdictions
in requesting appropriations for the next fiscal year. An examination of the Library's
books indicates that this is not true. Federal regulations state that these funds must
be spent over and above any local appropriation.
Mr. Agnor said there is a difference in interpretation Of the Federal regulations. He
interpreted the regulations to say that these grants cannot be used to reduce local
appropriations below the appropriations from the previous fiscal year. Federal funds
are to be used as a supplament to local funds. Mr. Agnor said the Library's budget request
did not indicate any Federal funds would be received during FY 76-77 and he felt that if
Federal funds are received, the Library's budget should then be amended to allow for
expenditure of those funds.
Mr. Fisher said before discussing this matter further, he would like to have an opinion,
in writing, from the State L~brary Board, as to interpretation of the Federal regulations
governing receipt and expenditure of these grants.
Agenda Item No. ll. Request for Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance in reference to central well procedures.
Mr. Tucker said this resolution follows action recently taken by the Board
of new testing regulations to be used when approving central wells. This amendment will
take the issuance of well permits out of the Zoning Ordinance and place these directly
before the Board.
Mr. St. John said State law requires that the Board review any well system which will
service three or more connections. This review, in the past, has been carried out through
the special use permit precedure outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. This has been based
partly on definitions in the Zoning Ordinance describing these wells as public water supplies
This is contrary to definitions in the State Code and is confusing. This procedure will now
be placed in the County Code as Article 3, Chapter l0 and will be called central sewage and
w~ter supply systems. An application will no longer have to go before the Planni~g~C~mmissio
for a public hearing, but will make application directly to the Board.
Mr. Roudabush said he did not like the language contained in a recommended s~endment
to the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-20.1, entitled "Cost of Construction of
Certain Facilities" and asked that this one amendment be deferred until December 8, 1976.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on December 15,
1976, an amendment to Article III, of the Albemarle County Code on ~entral sewerage and water
supply systems and to further adopt the following ~e~Olm~ion:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of SuperviSors of Albemarle ~
County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the addition of the following
sections:
Section 16-18.01
Section 16-18.02
Section 16-69
Se~n~_16-70
Section 16-70.1
Central Sewerage System
Central Water Supply
Public Water Supply
~Pu~[ic Utility
AND, FURTHER, intend to amend the Albemarle County Subdivision ~ .....
Ordinance by the addition of Section 18-2, Definitions and to refer
the above items to the Planning Commission for their recommendations.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley,.Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mrs. David.
Agenda Item No. 12.
Certain Precinct Lines.
Request for Resolution of Intent to Consider Changes of
Mr. Robert Tucker said several months ago he informed the Board of the request
from the Division of Legislative Services to realign precinct and election district
lines that followed some arbitrary or physical boundary line. At this time, he presented
to the Board a topographical map showing existing precinct lines. The purpose of the
realignment of precinct lines is to help allocate population during the 1980 census. One
line in question is the separation of the Free Union and Crozet precincts. He recommended
a line which follows a state route. Another line in question is between the Covesville
456
November 10, 1976
Garden and the Nelson-Albemarle County line. This womld result in people voting in the
Scottsville precinct instead of the Covesville precinct. The other line in questionis betwe
the Porters and Scottsville precincts. He has recommended~a line following a state
route down to the James River.
Mr. Roudabush asked if the Electoral Board should make recommendations. Mr. St.
John said that can be included in the resolution of intent. Mr. Roudabush then offered
motion to advertise for public hearing on December 15 an ordinance to amend certain
lines in the Scottsville, Monticello, Porter's, Covesville, Earlysville and Free Union
precincts as permitted under Virginia Code Section 24.1-37 and requested concurrence by
the Albemarle County Electoral Board. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried
by_the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier., Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Set Public Hearing Date: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 12 of
the Albemarle County Code by adding a section relating to parking motor vehicles in
certain spaces on private property.
Mr. Agnor said an organization known as Mobility on Wheels requested this ordinance.
The City has also received the request. The ordinance relates to a motor vehicle
parked in a parking space at privately Owned shopping centers or business offices which is
reserved for handicapped persons. Under these provisi~ons, unless the operator ?or~
passenger in the vehicle is handicapped, the operator may be issued a summons without
the necessity of a warrant being obtained by the owner of the establishment.
Mrs. David then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on December 8,
1976, an ordinance to amend Chapter 12 of the Albemarle County Code by adding a section
relating to parking motor vehicles in certain spaces on private property. Dr. Iachetta
seconded the motion.
Mr. Ozzie Osborne, with Mobility on Wheels, was present and expressed his concern that
this ordinance~be adopted. He stated the ordinance is a repetition~of the State Code.
Roll was then called, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
.Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said three members of the Board and himself attended the
VACO meeting in Roanoke where State-mandated programs and their effect on local budgets
were discussed. He understands that unless the Legislature adopts a new tax proposal to
either increase the state incom,e~a~ or state sales tax, the Governor will be forced to
cut back available funds to local governments for education and other services. If funds
are reduced, the County will be forCed to decide whether the difference will be made up
by increasing property taxes or reducing services. He urged concerned citizens to discuss
this matter with their representatives to the legislature.
At 12:35 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch1. The Board reconvened at 1:35 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Solid Waste Collection System.
This item was continued from the public hearing held on November 3, 1976, in
order to further discuss the matter. Mr. Fisher read the following letter into the
record:
"November 9, 1976
Mr. Gerald Fisher,
Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
RE: Proposed County Wide Waste Disposal Pilot Program
Dear Mr. Fisher:
In follow-up to the public hearing held on the above matter last week,
I would like to take this opportunity to once again express our opposition
to the Pilot Program as proposed.
Albemarle County is unique in that there are many private haulers servicing
all areas of the County who provide effective and efficient service at
extremely competitive prices. In addition to all those points~that were
raised in opposition to the Program at the public hearing, we question
whether there is a need for a public system. Private enterprise is doing
its job and it would be difficult for the County to provide as'efficient
service.
klthoughi~t~¢ouldn't find all the pictures that I had taken last su~er, I
didffind, one~a~d I~am~e~¢~sing it showing a typical scene I witnessed on
my trip through Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. I
think you will agree that it is not very pretty.
If the Board determines that there is enough interest in the program to
continue considering its merits, I wo~ld suggest that a~committee be appointed
November t0, 1976
457
haulers as well as citizens living in areas where this service may be
introduced. This committee, together with help from the Planning Staff]
could then consider the many other alternatives that are available.
Once again, we would like to urge the Board to recognize that adequate service
is now being provided in the County and to vote against implementation of
the Pilot Program as proposed.
If we can be of any further help to you in your deliberations, please do
not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Charles M. Rotgin, Jr."
Mr. Roudabush then read the following letter from residents in the Rivanna District:
"November 5, 1976
TO: The Board of Supervisors, Albemarle Co.,
SUB: Garbage Disposal.
We, the residents of Rivanna District, and of Airport Acres, whose
signatures appear below, feel that the present system of garbage
disposal constitutes an undue hardship in this area due to the
remoteness of the Ivy Landfill. Also, the expense of hauling
in private cars amounts to approximately $2.00 per trip at present
gasoline prices, furthermore the cheapest estimate available for
commercial hauling is $96.00 per year.
We therefore request that either a pick-up station be established in
the Rivanna District, or that a system of Dumpsters be located in
strategic locations.
Respectfully submitted,
(Signed by 29 residents)"
Mr. Roudabush said a lot of residents are in favor of the program. The citizens
feel the County has a large investment in the Ivy Landfill and access and use of the
landfill should be broadened. They also feel the pilot program would help to provide better
access to the people throughout the County.
Dr. Iachetta felt the pilot program proposed is too expensive for the type of service
to be offered. He did not feel dumpsters should be limited to one section of the
County. He suggested instead transfer stations or a packer trailer where more~mate~ial
could be handled than a road unit. These could be serviced on a regular basis with the
trailer transporting the waste to the landfill. The size'of the trailer should be sufficient
to handle a large amount of waste. A~rait~r costs about $30,000; thUs, the initial cost is
more, blUr the operating cost thereafter is less. Dr. Iachetta then suggested that this idea
be included in the study instead of the individual boxes. Mr. Roudabush agreed With
the suggestion and felt private haulers would benefit from this service. Mr. Fisher
felt it better than having so many scattered sites beside roadways. These could be better
controlled and better screened. He was not ready to support the pilot program~as proposed.
Mr. Henley was opposed to the program because he could not see spending thousands of
dollars when the county is serviced by private haulers now. Mrs. David was concerned
about citizens in sparsely populated areas where it is not possible to obtain the
service of private collectors. She favored further research on the matter, but would not
support the current proposal. Mr. Dorrier said citizens in the Scottsville District are
concerned about the cost and do not feel the sites will be kept clean. He agreed with
Dr. Iachetta and felt it should be county-wide instead of scattered. He felt with the
current economy status, this was not the time to introduce new services.
Mr. Robert Forman, of the Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control, was present. He
said there are currently 55 counties in Virginia who are using the green box system. The
County has some remote areas which need help. If the environment is going to be kept
clean, the litter problem must be faced since it is a "people" problem. With this system,
the problem would at least be centrally located. The law states that a county or city
shal~ provide an opportunity for its citizens to.~ha~e access to a place to dispose of
their waste. He felt Dr. Iachetta's suggestion was good, but does create problems with
~he weight limit.
Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to abandon the concept of a pilot program for disposal
of solid waste as proposed, and to study ways the County can provide refuse receiving
areas in remote areas county-wide. Mr. Henley did not feel the study should be continued
unless something will'be done. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Mrs. David suggested
consideration be given to appointing a committee as recommended in ~he letter from Mr. Rotgin
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs.''David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.-
Mr. Fisher said 'the committee would be appointed next week and would consist of
board members from rural and suburban areas, private haulers, some volunteers and a
member from the Engineering Department or some other staff member.
Agenda Item No. 15. Russ Linden: Director of Association for Retarded Citizens.
Mr. John Pezzoli, Director of Mental Retardation Services for the Region X Community
Mental Health Retardation Services Board, was present. He said November is National
Retarded Citizens month. During this month, public education and awareness about the
needs and interest of the mentally retarded are oresented to the oublic. He then
November 10, 1976
improved with the assistance of the Association and he requested the Board to declare ·
November as Mentally Retarded Citizens Month for the County. Mr. Fisher requested authorizat
to sign such a proclamation. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded
by Mr. Dorrier, and carriedby the followinE recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report from County Executive. Re: Convention Bureau Contract.
Mr. Agnor said a decision was made last year not to use public funds.for functions of
this nature. Thus,'the requested appropriation by the Chamber of Commerce for continuation
of the Bureau was deleted in the FY-77 budget. An opportunity was afforded ~to the Chamber
for reconsideration of the appropriation request at renewal time of the contract. Due to a
change in the office of County Executive, the contract was not executed until October 30, 197
One provision of the contract was that on or before August 30, 1976, the Chamber was to
present a status report and an audit report with detailed expenditures. Mr. Agnor had sugges
the Bureau submit a financial report along with the revised contract indicating the results
of the FY-76 appropriation and the activities. This was compiled by Mr. Michael ~
Gleason, liasion officer~and Slh~w~d detailed expenditures through June 30, 1976 along
with encumbrances before and after that date and a summary of the activities. Mr.
Agnor then offered the following three recommendations: 1) Extension of the present~
contract to December 31, 1976, without additional funding. He felt, even though, the
encumbrances are questionable, the Chamber is committed to the terms of the contract.
2) Consideration of a six month cQntract for January-June 1977, in order to retain a
fiscal year cycle of contracts and appropriations. He felt a separate bookkeeping
system would allow an audit each year in July without problems with the Chamber's
calendar year audit of other operations. 3) Request the Chamber to provide a narrative
report within sixty days after December 31, 1976. This report to include purposes for..
expenditures of funds, results obtained and a justification for continuance of the
contract.
Mr. John B. Hinch, President of the Chamber of Commerce, was present and supported
the recommendations of the County Executive.
Mr. Fisher said he has not seen audits for 1974-75 ori~r!9~5-76. The policy of the County
is that any unexpended funds from an appropriation are to be returned intact~at the end of
the fiscal year; thereafter, another appropriation will be considered.
Mr. Michael Gleason said an audit was prepared in 1974-75~and the monies were spent
as appropriated; any funds over the appropriation were encumbered. Mr. Fredl~rguson
said an audit was presented to the Board for 74-75 and the only question raised was how
many conventions coUld be held in a one year period of time.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to accept the three recommendations of the
County Executive. Mrs. David seconded the motion.
Mr. St. John said the only requirement of a contracting agency receiving an appropriatio~
is that the money be spent in accordance with the contract. If the monies are spent
otherwise, this is a breach of contract, Mr. Ray Jones said the annual appropriation
ordinance s~ts out the coUnty's policy for return of unexpended funds, but the contracb
dOes not contain that language. Mr. Henley felt the i~i~al appropriation bf the County was
to assist in starting the Convention Bureau and he did not anticipate any participation
thereafter. Mrs. David did not feel the County Executive's recommendations would
create any problem. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Land Use Assessment Values.
In October, Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, attended a public hearing of the
new State Land Evaluation Advisory Committee in Richmond with some staff members from
the Real Estate Office. Recommended values ~er~1977 were received at that meeting. The
recommended Forestry values create a problem. The current (1976) values per acre are:
Excellent $160; Good $125 and Fair $90. The recommended values for 1977 are: Excellsntl
$265; Good $190 and Fair $125. This represents a substantial increase in per acre
values. In prior years, action was taken by the Board on per acre values. From a legal
standpoint, there is some question as to whether values on land use can be changed in
any year without changing market values. He felt action on land use changes should be
taken now; otherwise, it will have to wait until the 1979 reassessment. In checking
with the State D~partment of Taxation, the County will have to send out a notice oFf. change
in values to property owners. If these values are applied, there will be a 45% increase
in the net taxable value. Initially, forestry values did not include the value of the
finished products of standing timber which is measured over the life of the tree.
Roughly, 40 years are used for oak, 30 years for pine, and 20 years for pulpwood.
Albemarle County is included in the area east of the Blue Ridge Mountains which puts the
C~m~Y into a better forestry area than the timber i~ actually contains.. ~¥~ ~ ~.
Discussion followed on Albemarle County being compared to a region with a much
better forestry area. Mr. Henley asked if any ~ction had to be taken on the matter
today. Mr. Jones felt the Division of Forestry and the State Department of Taxation
should be consulted on this matter. Mr. Henley expressed his interest in talking to
the Division of Forestry. Thus, a committee composed of Mr. Henley was appointed to
discuss this matter with the Division of Forestry, with this to be heard again on November 17
Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Participation by County in HoUsing Rental
ion
November 10 1976
459
Mr. Agnor said the Housing Rental Assistance Program is the only major program of its
kind presently in operation in the State. The program is essentially a rent assistance
p~0gram for low income families within the jurisdiction~in which the program is offered.
Originally~ it was planned that $2,149,000 would be utilized for 1350 families and the
funding would provide rent assistance for five years. The funds are calculated to serve
721 housing units for five years in the localities chosen. Albemarle County was chosen to
be a recipient~of these funds along with thirteen other localities. The fourteen which was
chosen constitute a contiguous area and have some of the greatest relative needs for this
type of program. Data was collected in the 1970 census of families living in overcrowdedq
conditions and paying more than 25% of their income in rent. Albemarle County has been
allocated 135 units. The letter from the Virginia Housing Development Authority asks for
two things: l) Immediately respond, within a week, informally, as to whether there is any
interest in the program. Since the correspondence was received in between Board meetings
and notification was needed immediately, Mr. Agnor responded favorably. 2) Then the
governing body must respond formally as to its willingness to participate under one of three
~alternatives given. These three alternatives are: I) The State to allocate the program
and to be administered jointly by the County and the Virginia Housing Authority. II) The
program to be administered on a regional basis utilizing ~i organizations such as Planning
District Commissions. Mr. Agnor did not feel present legislation allows this to be done.
III) The program to be administered solely and directly by the Virginia Housing Development
Authority. Mr. Agnor felt the program should be administered by the County through a Housing
Coordinator and recommended Alternative I. Mr. Agnor said M~Karen Morris, Director of
Albemarle County Social Services, concur~ with his recommendation.
Mr:~Agnor felt the program has some unique features which are: 1) It relies on
existing housing units in contrast to the traditional new construction programs. ~2) It
does not require lower income families to live in a given neighborhoo~ in housing constructed
with government funds, but allows them to stay where they are, or move into better housing
which they select. 3) It operates through the private housing marke~ and assumes the
feat~Ures of "free enterprise" conditions. 4) It'offers owners the o~portunity to rent one
or more units to families participating in the program, but does not ~equire~ all of the
owners' units to be involved in the program. 5) The owner's commitm~nt to the program is
for the term of the lease, which is generally o
property to a lengthy governmental program, in
HoU~"ing Improvement Program (AHIP) offers assis
exisbing structures. This new program offers a
aligned to existing structures. County citizen
relief from rising rents or utility expenses wi
relocated. Families in crowded conditions can
quarters which they otherwise could not afford.
agreeing to this program an opportunity to make
for it or retain the tenants with an increase,i
possible. Mr. Agnor then recommended that the
Authority of an interest in the program. He sa
fourteen jurisdictions, would take those and re
of housing units it will serve. If there are n
program, they may have to do something within t
ne year, and does not ~ommit his or her
closing, Mr. Agnor sa~.d the Albemarle
tance to owner-occupie(, housing and serves
ssistance to rental ho~.sing and is likewise
s on fixed incomes can be provided some
thout the necessity of moving and being
~ossibly afford to move into more adequate
Very remotely, it ofgers a property owner
certain improvements ~n order to be eligible
rent that would not
Board advise the Virgi
id the Authority,~.~ft~
allocate the program
ot enough jurisdiction~
he area they have plam
,therwise be economicall
~ia Housing Development
hearing from the
terms of the number
interested in the
~ed to serve.
Mr. Fisher felt the program was needed and recommended that the Board indicate their
interest in participation of the program under Alternative I as recommended by the County
Executive. Mr. Agnor said some of the money ca~ be used for the administration of the
program. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County
Executive. 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 Rcudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion: Authority to purchase two radio pagers for Director
and Coordinator of Emergency Services. (Discussed out of order.)
Mr. Agnor said the Emergency Services Coordinator has requested ~uthorization to purchas~
two radio pagers so the Director and Coordinator of Emergency Services can have immediate acc~
to communicat&ons. There is a paging device in the Sheriff's Office which would enable the
S~iff to be in constant contact with the two if an emergency should arise. The cost for
the pagers, including a charger, is $350.00 each. Hera.noted that funds for this purchase '
are available in the present budget. He had inquired about funding f~om the State for this
purchase but has not yet received a response.
Mrs. David then offered motion to approve the purchase of the two radio pagers. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and ROudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 19.
for deputies concerning Heart Hypertension Bill.
Sheriff George Bailey said the General Assembly in 1975 passed a
BilI. The bill requires that an officer have a physical examination
If the officer is free of any heart defects, upon examination, and th~
trouble,~he can retire on two-thirds of his salary. He suggested tha~
payment of the cost of the physical examination_ M~li:.Fisher asked th~
examinations. Sheriff Bailey did not know the ~xact amount. Mr. Fi~
S~er!ff's budget has enough money to cover this cost. Sheriff BaileY
just needed authorization of the Board to use the funds for this purp¢
Discussion: Request from Sheriff for requiring physical exams
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve the request of the Sh~
asked if deputies would have to have the exam i~ they did not want sa~
Heart Hypertension
fter July l, 1976.
n develops heart
the Board approve
cost of these
er asked if the
felt it did. He
se.
riff. Mr. Fisher
e. Sheriff Bailey
460
November 10, 1976
said they would not be covered by this Heart Hypertension Bill if they did not take the
exam. Mr. Fisher felt the motion should be to authorize the Sheriff to require the deputies
to take the physicals at the County's expense as he has requested. Mr. Dorrier amended his
motion to include such. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
(CLERK'S NOTE: The proper resolution required by Virginia Code Section 51,122~:~was never
returned for Board action.)
Sheriff Bailey said~since 1970 he has had twelve special deputies making up an auxiliary
force. Recently, the Attorney General ruled that the County could not have special dep~ties.
He met with the State Compensation Board on November 3, 1976, and was informed that if
requested by the Board of Supervisors, they would consider a request for twelve deputies-to
serve without compensation. He does require Darter!me, depUties carry their own liability
insurance and he requested approval of this request.
Mr. Henley offered motion to approve the request of the Sheriff for twelve part-time
deputies to serve Without compensation. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Request for Resolution of Board determining participants in Law
Enforcement Early Retirement Program.
Mr. Agnor said when the early retirement program was authorized for the Sheriff's
office, no interpretation was given for the phrase "who are employed in law enforcement
positions comparably hazardous to that of a State Police Officer." The Clerk corresponded
with the State Retirement System and asked if the benefit applied to all deputized personnel
in the Sheriff's Office. This includes deputies, court services, process servers, three
dispatchers and one secretary. Mr. John R. Street of the virginia Supplemental Retirement
System responded and said the determination of such must be by the locality until the
General Assembly further directs. Sheriff Bailey recommended that road deputies, courtroom
bailiffs and process servers be eligible for the program. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS,-the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
adopted a resolution on August 11, 1976, requesting that personnel in
the Sheriff's Department be included for special benefits for law
enforcement officers under the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System; and
WHEREAS, Section 51-111.37 of the Code of Virginia provides that
benefits are applicable to personnel "who are employed in law enforcement
positions comparably hazardous to that of a State police officer";
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to clarify which positions
should be included under this section, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby authorize the following positions, as listed
in Albemarle County's Pay/Classification Plan, be included: Sheriff, Deputy IV,
Deputy III, Deputy II, and Deputy I, (excluding Dispatchers).
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 23. Fire Protection Study Report. (Discussed out of order.)
Chief Julian Taliaferro was present and introduced the members of the Fire Station
Committee who were Joseph W. Bunts, Edgar Pugh, Warren jOnes, Calvin Moyer, Richard Roane, ant
Lloyd Wood. After the iniiial presentation by B.his committee several years ago, the
committee was requested to fnrther review their recommendations. The revised recommendations
are: l) One add~tiona! engine~company which would be housed within a City station. Basical]
this would require an additional e~even positions which would be funded by the COunty. It
would also require the purchase of one additional fire department pumper. 2) The urban
area surrounding the City would receive a two engine company response from the closest
available unit. 3) Service beyond the urban area would be provided by a single county
engine company on initial response. ~) Urban operation be under the administration of the
City of Charlottesville. 5) Proceed with plan to acquire a station site near the intersecti,
of Route 29 and Rio Road. 6) County companies would be available for service and use
throughou~ the county as needed.
Basically, the cost involved in this proposal would be $314,000. The benefits of this
would be a reduction of a~out 50% in response time for the northern corridor of the County.
Areas around the city to the west, south and east would receive a two company response.
The productivity of this group would increase considerably because they would be able to
make inspections at business and commercial properties. The other benefit would be two
pumpers responding together which greatly improves fire fighting capabilities. Also, the
City would be in position to furnish aerial ladder service in commercial and apartment
districts. The committee tried to address the need all around the city with a plan to
serve the total needs of the community in an economical way. Possibly the plan could be
put into effect in ninety days~ Mr~.~Fisher asked where a pumper could be purchased in 90
days. Mr. Taliaferro said the city equipment could be used until other arrangements are
n
November 10, 1976
Speaking next was Mr. Calvin Moyer. He felt the acquisition of land and equipment
should be put in a high priority for revenue sharing funding so as to get some protection
in the northern part of the county.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said the committee arrived at the agreement by a consensus. He agreed
with Mr. Moyer of the high priority consideration for revenue sharing funds. He felt the
citizens in the area were ready to assist with this agreement.
Mr. Fisher did not feel the Board was ready to act today and felt the Jefferson Country
Firemen's Association should be included in this discussion. Mr. Dottier asked if there has
been any response of the volunteer fire companies. Mr. Wood said the response has been
great and citizens are willing to organize and lend any efforts necessary. He felt many
volunteers will be available. Dr. Iachetta agreed with the need for a fire station in the
northern part of the County. The report was received and no action was t~ken at this time.
Agenda Item No. 22a. Appropriation: ESEA Title I.
Mr. Agnor said the ESEA Title I program is federally funded. The budget for FY 76-77
was approved for $302,655 and $314,300 has been received. Mr. McClure is requesting
authorization to spend the increase of $11,655. Mrs. David then offered motion ba~adopt
the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $11,645 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the School Operating Fund and coded to 1TN - ESEA Title I, Low Income.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 22b. Appropriation: Constitution Highway Association.
Mr. Agnor said the Association is located in Orange and was formed last year for the
purpose of securing a designation for Virginia State Route 20 as "The Constitution Route"
and promoting the use of ROute 20 by tourists traveling through this part of Virginia. The
Association is composed of members representing various governmental units and Chambers of
Commerce along Virginia State Route 20. There is no independent means of support for their
projects, but they are attempting to secure assistance from the Virginia Outdoor Recreation
Association and applicable federal agencies in order that State Route 20 will become a
major tourist route for those visiting Virginia~bebw~n~now an~ the 200th anniversary of
the United States Constitution in 1987. The Association plans to print ~20,000 brochures u~
costing approximately $2,000.00. They are requesting $300~00 ~from Albemarle County for
this printing. Mr. Fisher did not feel the citizens of Albemarle County would benefit
from this and could not recommend it to the Board. Mr. Dottier fel~t it would help to
attract some tourists to the County. Mrs. David felt it appropriate to ask the Chamber of
Commerce for some assistance, but not from the County.
Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve an amount of $200.00. With no second, the
motion died. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $100.00 be, and the same hereby is
appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18A.16 for
the Constitution Highway Association for printing of brochures.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion~and same ~arried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush.
Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta.
Agenda Item No. 22c. Appropriation: Resource Recovery Study Commission.
Mr. Agnor said the Resource Recovery Commission has received a grant of $50,000.00
which is to be matched by the City, County and University. The Chairman of the Commission
haS requested the County to remit their share, $16,666.67. Mr. Ray Jones has indicated
that this amount is not available in one lump amount, therefore, he suggests~remitting
funds as needed. Mr. Fisher noted that Board action was taken in previous years guaranteeing
~cai funding if federal money was received. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
~Virginia, that $16,666.67 be, and the same hereby is appropriated
from the General Fund and coded to 18A.13 for the Resource Recovery
Study Commission; same to be drawn against only as needed.
Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta nd Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22d.
Albemarle High School.
Appropriation:
Funding and Completion of Western
Mr. Ray Jones outlined a memo dated October 13, 1976, which is on permanent file in
the Clerk's office and contains tb~ follow~ qmfn~m~nm_ m~ e~m~mm ne *b~ ~*~
November 10, 1976
1972 bond issue had an allocation of $250,00Ofor the purchase of sites fo~ Walton BchOol
and Western Albemarle High School. The sites for these two schools cost $138,964.50 which
left an excess of $111,035.50 which was available for the Western Albemarle High School.
The original bid for construction of the building was $6,125,000 but was reduced to $5,656,'89
by change orders. The projected total cost is $6.95 million or $450,000 in excess of the
1975 Bond proceeds and Literary Loan proceeds. An appropriation of $290,992.79 is needed
to complete the project. The appropriation is to come from the School Construction Fund
with at least $161,830 being earned in interest on investments during the current fiscal
year, a grant of $32,657 from State Driver Training funds being approved and with the
balance coming from the excess of the 1972 bond issue. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to
adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $290,992.79 be, and the same hereby
is transferred from the School Construction Fund to the following
codes: 19.26-403, $100,000.00; 19.26-499, $190,992.79 for funding and
completion of Western Albemarle High School contingent upon the
following conditions: l) At least $161,830 be earned ih interest
during the current fiscal year from investments of the School Construction
Fund. 2) The g~ntr~on the driver training range be approved.
3) Distribution as to line items be made by the Director of Finance and
the School Superintendent.
Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22e. Appropriation~ Attorneys.
Mr. Agnor said as a result of the United Land Corporation vs. Hartwel! P. Clarke and
George St. John suit, bills have been received from the attorneys involved.~on~bill for
$1,465.80 from Mr. Francis Lawrence and one from Mr. Paul M. Peatross, Jr., for $553.00 have
been received. Motion was offered by Mrs. David to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2,018.80 be, and the same hereby is appropriated
from the General Fund to Code lA-103 for professional services.
Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 22f~ Appropriation: Auditors.
Mr. Agnor said there was an appropriation of $18,50'0.00 for the annual audit made in
the budget. When the bill for the~mudit~was received from Dulaney and Farmer, included
were the expenses incurred for the revenue sharing suit for a total of $21,500.00. Thus,
an additional $3,000.00 is needed for the payment. Dr. Iachetta offered motion 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 2r~m~i~a~
the General Fund to Code 1A-202 for payment of the County audit.
Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier,~ Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 24. Appointments. (Deferred until December 8, 1976.)
Mr. Fisher was in receipt of a letter from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Association~
for Retarded Citizens regarding appointments to the Region X Mental Health and Retardation
Services for January. The AsSociation suggested the names of Mr. Harman Williams and Mr~
Art Waddell for these appointments. He requested Mr. Dorrier to talk to Mr. Linden about
these appointments.
Mr. Agnor noted letter received from Mr. Harlan F. Manweiler regarding his resignation
from the Land Use Tax Advisory Board due to his moving out of state. Dr. Iachetta offered
motion to accept the resignation of Mr. Manweiler and the Chairman to send a letter expressi~
the Board's appreciation for services rendered. Mr~ Dorrier seconded the motion and same
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 25. Information: Report of the Department of Social Services for the
month of September, 1976, was received in accordance with Virginia State Code Section 63.1-52
Agenda Item No. 26.
received as information.
Report of the County Executive for the Month of October, 1976~was
.37
463
November 10, 1976
Agenda Item No. 27. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Sheriff's Department for the month of October, 1976, were presented. On motiSn
by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read. 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.
Agenda Item No. 28. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of
October, 1976, were presented. On motion by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, 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.
Agenda Item No. 29. R~gin~l Jail Report (State Department of Corrections) for the
month of October, 1976. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation
of the Regional Jail for the month of October, 1976, along with statements of prisoner
days, paramedic salaries, jail physician and salary of the classification officer were
received. On motion by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, 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.
Agenda Item No. 30. Lottery Permit Applications.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve a Lottery Permit for the Post Conviction
Assistance Program, in accordance with adopted rules of the Board for the issuance of such
permits. M~. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Charlot t eS~i. tl~Al~e~a~t~i~_~o~s~_~ ~, i~'Lmer ~
At the November33, 1976 meeting, Mr. Fisher questioned the issuance of the permitffor
in advance of the calendar year. The question ha~ihg been cla~iE~i.e~dby the County Attorney,
motion was offered by Mr~.'~David and seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve ~for the calendar
year 1977, a Lottery Permit for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Post 7~, American Legion in
accordance with the adopted rules of the Board for the issuance of such permits. The motion
ca~ried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 31. Claim Against the Dog Tax Fund. Claim was received from Mr. W.
F. Collier for one white face heifer killed by dogs on October 28, 1976. On motion by Mr.
Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, this claim was approved for the amount of $112.50. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 32. Other Matters, Not on the Agenda, from Board Members.
Mr. Dottier noted that Mayor Thacker of Scottsville is making an application for
federal money for the Town of Scottsville to replace the water and sewer lines. Approval
of the County is needed and Mayor Thacker would like to present this request to the Board
as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher said he understands Mayor Thacker has also applied for
federal funds for an ambulance for the Scottsville Rescue Squad. This matter was brought~-to
the Planning District Commission without the Board being advised f~st. The water and
sewer system will be discussed on November 17, 1976.
Dr. Iachetta felt the fire protection study presented earlier in the day should be
discussed further as soon as possible and the Board should consider assisting the committee
in order to get some results. Mr. Henley felt the catalyst would be providing a tract of
land.
Mr. Fisher noted an invitation from the Martha Jefferson Hospital for a luncheon and
tour of the Hospital on November 15..
At ~:38 P.M.,~he Chairman requested an executive session to discuss legal matters.
was offered by Mr. Roudabush to this effect, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at 5:55 P.M., and upon proper motion immediately adjourned the
meeting.