1975-03-203-18-75
3-19-75
3-20-75
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 18, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virg±~ia, ~said?_meeti~g being adjourned from March 13, 1975.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C._ Thacker, Jr. ~
and Gordon L. Wheeler.
Absent: Mr. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Officer present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr.
At this time, the Board conducted another~work session on the 1975-76 County budget.
discussed were as follows:
Items
1)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Economic Development Commission - Louis Scribner
Chamber of Commerce - Fred Ferguson
Thomas Jefferson Regional Health Department -Irv Allen
Region X Community Mental Health and Retardation Services Board - Jim Peterson
Dr. Aldrich, Mrs. Isabel Palmer and Mr. Bill Stevens
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library - Charles Youngman
Piedmont Community College- Bernard Haggerty and Dr. Harold McGehee
VPI & SU Extension Service - Jim Butler
Youth Employment Services - Robert Dwoskin
Offender Aid and Restoration - Richard Jones and James Stillwell
Madison House - Rick Noble (Note: Mr. Thacker abstaining during discussion
of this item)
At 9:53 P.M., the Board took a short recess. When they reconvened, Mr. Carwile offered
motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the revised VEPC0 contract under date of March 10, 1975.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
The Board continued the work session by discussing the following items:
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
i7)
18)
i9)
2O)
2i)
Street lighting
Road viewers
Surety bonds _~
Xeroxing ~l~f
Unidentified~calls
District Home
Lunacy Commission
Rescue Squad
Juvenile Detention Home
Regular debt service
Soil survey - Page Godsey
At 10:13 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr.~Fisher, to adjourn this
meeting until 7:30 P.M. on-March 19, 1975, in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley,
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Thacker and Whe§ler.
Chairman
3-19-75
The adjourned ~meeting of the Board of Supervisors which was to have been held at 7:30 P.M.
on March 19, 1975, for the Annual Highway Hearing, was cancelled by the Chairman early in the
morning because of flood conditions. Ail Board memebers and the news media was notified of'this
canceT~atid~-~
3-20-75
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
March 20, 1975, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler~
OFFICERS: T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; George St. John, County Attorney.
No. 1 and No. 2. Call to order and The Lord's Prayer.
No. 3. Approval of minutes. September 25, 1974, correction~on page 206-September 2~,
1974, no corrections; October 2, 1974, page 262 change differ to defer; October 3, 1974, page
270 change sight to site; October 9~ 1974 (Day.), page 271 change sight to site; October 23,
1974, no corrections; October 23, 1974 (Night), page 323 next to last sentence, delete the
double negative ~o~; November 13, 1974, page 343-flight elevations should be 500'.., page 351-
eliminate the word feels; November 19, 1974, page 361-change motion to appropriate funds not
adopt ordinance, pa-~ ~64-iease for antennae not house, page 368-change report to stated;
December 11, 1974 (Special), no corrections; December 11, 1974 (afternoon) no corrections;
December 11, 1974 (Night), no corrections; December 17, 1974, no corrections; December 19,
3-20-75 (Day)
1974, page 415-delete P~rase cut in and. Ail the aforementioned corrections were made by Mr.
Fisher and Mr. Thacker. Motion was then offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker to
approve the above noted minutes. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood
No. 4. Report Ivy Landfill. Mr. Bailey reported that things were running smoothly except
for weather conditions. He noted that the highway survey group was only able to work three
days during the last two weeks. Mr. Wheeler questioned Mr. Bailey about the sale of timber
from the landfill area. Mr. Bailey replied the timber was sold to allow for the expansion of
the landfill. Mr. Fisher asked what landfill equipment has not yet arrived. Mr. Bailey stated
that the scales have not yet arrived, and the City is in the process of receiving bids for the
drilling of a well. The City also has not yet asked for bids on a building to house the weigh
master and tool room. Mr. Bailey reported that the access roads are being policed as adopted
by Resolution by the Board of Supervisors on January 16, 1975.
Mr. Robert Warner, Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Highways, presented an agreement
_to the Board for their consideration, on the costs of improvements to Route 637 (access route
to the Ivy Landfill). Mr. Wheeler felt it should be seen by the County Attorney. Mr. St. John
requested copies be made for all Board members. While copies of the agreement were being made,
Mr. Warner reported on the condition of roads in the County following the previous days heavy
rains and floods, stating that a number of the roads (especially in the Scottsville area), were
under water or mud, but that the water was receding rapidly. He did not estimate a very high
rathe of damage and property loss.
Mr. Wheeler stated the Annual Highway Hearing had to be cancelled due to the poor weather,
and that a new date had to be set. Mr. Batchelor suggested Wednesday, April 9, 1975, at the
regular Board meeting. Motion to readvertise the Annual Highway Hearing for Wednesday, April
9, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 6e. Requests for additions and abandonments on Route 631 (Rio Road). Mr. Warner
presented the request for Board approval. Mr. Thacker questioned if the abandonments needed to
be advertised for a public hearing. Mr. Batchelor stated this must only be done when the
abandoned property reverts to the previous property owner, and you landlock one property owner
from the edge of the road. Mr. Warner reported that right-of-way had been purchased to create
a four-lane facility. Mr. Frederick Payne suggested the use of the word discontinuance instead
of the word abandonment to clearly show the County retains fee in the right-of-way. Motion to
adopt the following resolution was made by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, and carried by
the following recorded vote: (CLERKS NOTE: Matter of using the word discontinuance or abandon-
ment was Checked by the County Attorney, and it was agreed to use the word abandonment.)
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary System
due to relocation and construction of Route 631; and
WHEREAS, it was ascertained that no public hearing was required;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Super-
visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following sections,
as indicated on sketch presented to this meeting and made a part of
the Board's permanent file, be abandoned pursuant to Section 33.1-148
of the Code of Virginia:
Section 1 - length 0.26 Miles
Section 2 - length 0.05 Miles
Section 3 - length 0.03 Miles
Section 4 - length 0.25 Miles
Section 5 - length 0.11 Miles
Section 6 - length 0.07 Miles
BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that it is the intent of the Board
not to divest the interest of the County in the land so abandoned:
FURTHER, that the following sections be added to the
Secondary System:
Section 7 - length 0.16 Miles
Section 8 - length 0.10 Miles
Section 9 - length 0.02 Miles
Section 10 - length 0.02 Miles
Section 11 - length 0.02 Miles
Section 12 - length 0.27 Miles
Section 13 - length 0.11 Miles
Section 14 - length 0.01 Miles
Section 15 - length 0.05 Miles
Section 16 - length 0.01 Miles
The following communication was received from the Virginia Department of Highways & Trans-
portation;
3-20-75 (Day)
"March 13, 1975 Secondary System
Addition
Albemarle'County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on February 20, 1975, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is
hereby approved, effective March 13, 1975.
ADDITION
From Route 767 to 0.19 Mi. S.E. of Rte. 767
LENGTH
0'.19 Mi.
Sincerely,
(signed) J.E. Harwood,
DePuty Commissioner and
Chief Engineer"
The Board next discussed the use of a site on the portion of Milton Road which is to be abandoned
for use as a boat launch. Mr. Wheeler abstained from discussion, the Chair was given to Mr.~Thacker.
Mr. Robert Sampson, Parks Director stated he had been in touch with Mr. Shutts of the University of
Virginia concerning the possibility of negotiating a contract for use of Milton airport property for
use as a boat launch site. Mr. Sampson read portions of a letter received from Mr. Shutts stating
that the University was hesitant to enter a 15 year contract allowing the County to use this pro-
perty. Mr. Sampson said the Parks Committee had not had an opportunity to meet since receipt of
this letter. Mr. Fisher recommended this item be deferred until the Parks Committee has a chance to
reconsider the situation. After some further discussion as to site advantages of Milton Road over
Milton airport property, Board members unanimously agreed that they would like to view the Milton
site before making a final decision.
Mr. Garrett Kirksey, owner of property adjacent to the Milton Road site, was present and asked
who would be responsible for keeping the area clean. Mr. Kirksey also requested the Board to
abandon the section of land not involved in the boat launch discussions. He pointed Section 4 out
on the map. Mr. Robert Warner stated there would be no problems caused by abandoning this section
of road. Mr. St. John stated this section of property could be abandoned at this meeting. Mr.
Carwile offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Second was made by Mr. Fisher and motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Thacker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Wheeler.
WHEREAS, certain changes have resulted in the Secondary
System due ~o relocation and construction of Route 729; and
WHEREAS, it having been ascertained that no public hearing
was necessary on this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following
section as indicated on sketch presented to this meeting and
made a part of the Board's permanent file, be abandoned
pursuant to Section. 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia:
Section 4 - length 0.13 miles
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following section be
added to the Secondary System:
Section 6 - 0.13 miles
No. 6a. Mr. Batchelor quoted information from Minute Book #6 and #7 regarding bOnds required
by the developer to support the Hessian Hills Subdivision development of roads. Mr. Batchelor
reported that the only bond presently being held was in the amount of $1,000.
Mr. Daley Craig stated the State Highway Department road requirements changed during the con-
struction of this road system, and although they originally would have met State requirements, they
no longer did after the changes. He further stated he hoped to complete the Hessian Hills roads by
some time in July.
Mr. Wheeler asked if anyone from the public wished to speak about the Hessian Hills roads. Ms.
Mary Seeler said that the State wished to take an additional 10 feet of their property to build a
permanent cul-de-sac. She noted that if this was done they would have a very difficult time building
on the lot as it would be too small, and that they have already applied for a variance which is due
to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Craig if any temporary measures could be taken to repair the roads. Mr.
Craig stated that some temporary repairs were done a month ago, but due to the weather they have
been unable to do any further repairs.
Mrs. McNitt of Old Forge Road asked if-something permanent could be done to repair the roads,
as it was not only inconvenient but dangerous to have such large potholes in the road. She then
asked who was responsible for putting up street signs. Mr. Batchelor answered that the property
owners buy the signs, then the Board passes a resolution requesting the state to erect and maintain
the signs.
3-20-75 (Day)
Mr. St. John requested the Board to order Mr. Craig to give the Board a letter setting a date
by which the roads in Hessian Hills are to be taken into the State System. He stated that it should
be similar to the letter drafted by the County Attorney's office relative to the Four Seasons roads.
If the work is not completed by the date stated in the letter, then the contractor will be in de-
fault, and his road bond will be called for payment.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Craig if he as the contractor still owned some undeveloped l~ot~'s in_the
Hessian Hills development. Mr. Craig answered yes. Mr. Wheeler then stated that the Board place a
moratorium on those lots still owned by Mr. Craig until such time as the roads are taken into the
State Highway System. Mr. Carwile concurred and then made motion to place a building permit mora-
torium on all contractor owned undeveloped lots in Hessian Hills Subdivision until the roads are
brought into the State Highway System. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Thacker.
Mr. Craig requested the record to show that he strongly protested this action by the Board.
Mr. Fisher said this matter is continuously being brought to the Board's attention, not only
.for Hessian Hills Roads, but for Georgetown Green and Four Seasons; and that he would fully support
the motion. At this point, role was called and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Batchelor noted with reference to Georgetown Green Subdivision, ~ road bond was presently
being held. Mr. Wheeler then asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the subject of the
Georgetown Green roads.
Mr. Tom Wilson, member of the Board of Directors of the Georgetown Green Home Owners Associa-
tion. He first complimented Mr. Bob Warner on his cooperation with the Home Owners Association in
helping them resolve their problems getting the roads into the ~State system. He stated the Home
Owners Association (on their own) requested bids to complete the roads to where they would be
acceptable to the State. The Home Owners Association is paying for these repairs themselves, and
will enter into civil action against the developer to regain their investment. The total amount of
bids received came to $30,000 of which they have already paid $8,000 to repair a ditch. He further
stated he was looking for guidance from the Board and a moratorium at Georgetown Green would not
work because there are no undeveloped lots in the Subdivision.
Mr. St. John quoted section 11-2 of the County Subdivision Ordinance which stated situations
where the Board of Supervisors may take action against violators of that Ordinance. He added that
he felt this seemed to be the proper place for the Board to intervene.
Mr. Craig stated when Georgetown Green (and Hessian Hills) were being planned, the Virginia
Department of Highways had no criteria under which they could take townhouse roads into the system.
He felt he did as much as he could by having the roads indicated on the plats, but that it was
beyond this now and not his problem any more.
Mr. Warner stated that it had been the policy of the State Highway Department not to accept
townhouse roads into the system, but this policy has since changed. He felt the roads should have
been constructed to meet State standards at that time.
Mr. Carwile stated he wanted to see the matter referred to the County Attorney's office for a
recommendation as to how to assist the home owners at Georgetown Green and Hessian Hills. Mr.
Wheeler added that he would like copies of the minutes from 1967 Board meetings brought to the
Boards meeting on April t7th at 9:30 P.M. at which time they will discuss both Hessian Hills and
Georgetown Green.
Mr. Wilson asked how to go about having a 15 mile per hour speed limit sign installed on the
interior roads of Georgetown Green. Mr. St. John stated a traffic study would be required.
Mr. Thacker requested Mr. John Humphrey's records as presented to the Board at this meeting be
made a permanent part of the record. Mr. Thacker then seconded Mr. Carwile's motion referring
Georgetown Green road matters to the County Attorney's office, with a recommendation to be brought
to the Board at their meeting on April 17, 1975. Role was called and motion was carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
Motion was then made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile to make Mr. Humphrey's file on
Georgetown Green and Hessian Hills made a permanent part of the record. Role was called, and motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 6b. Auburn Hills Roads. Mr. John Humphrey reported bonds were presently being held on
Sections 1 and 2 of Auburn Hills, and that these roads were still in need of curbing, gutters etc.
Mr. Thacker asked who developed the community, and Mr. Humphrey stated Messrs. Kirtley and Gillium.
Mr. Wheeler recommended this road bond matter be turned over to the County Attorney for recom-
mendations. He felt a moratorium should be imposed on this development until the required improve-
ments are completed, and suggested it be placed on the agenda for April 17 at 9'30 a.m. for further
discussion.
Mr. Thacker made motion to place a building permit moratorium on the Auburn Hills Subdivision,
on all lots not fronting on a State road and still owned by the developer. Motion was seconded by
Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
3-20-75 (Day)
following resolution requesting Whitewood Road to be brought into the State Highway System.
was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYEs: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Role
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department
of Highways 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 section of road:
Whitewood ROad:
Approximately 2,3.80.64 feet in length
running from State Route 743, near
Albemarle High School, in an easterly
direction and ending at the north end
of Greenbrier Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department
of Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unob-
structed right-of-way and drainage easements along this
requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in
Deed Books 487 page 614, and Book 548, pages 606-608.
No. 6g. Queen Charlotte Subdivision. Mr. Carwile abstained from discussions in this matter.
Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolution. Role was
callad and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of
Highways 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 section of roads in Queen Charlotte Subdivision,
Albemarle County:
Middlesex Drive:
length approximately 500 feet, leading
off of Ricky Drive.
King George Circle' length approximately 225 feet, leading
off of Middlesex Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested
addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of ~Albemarle County in Deed Book 395, page
6 and Deed Book 438, page 91.
No. 6h. Oakhill Subdivision. Mr. Carwile abstained from discussions in this matter. Motion
was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution. Role Was called
and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Carwile.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of
Highways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secon-
dary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and
approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following
section of roads in Oakhill Subdivision, Albemarle County[
Oakhill Drive:
Southwood Court:
length approximately 1,800 feet, leading
off Virginia State Route 631.
length approximately 900 feet, leading
off of Oakhill Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested
addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 362,
page 22, and Book 468, page 85.
No. 6i. Mountainwood Road. Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt
the following resolution. Role was called and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
3-20-75 (Day)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of
Highways 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 section of road in Sherwood Manor, Albemarle
County:
Mountainwood Road; 1,330 feet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easements along this requested
addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 543, page
285.
No. 6J. Richard Gregory - Bike Paths. Mr. Gregory presented a plan to the Board proposing the
construction of bicycle paths along U.S. 29 North from the bypass to Rio Road, along the Meadow
Creek loop and spur from Barracks Road to McIntire Road, and along U.S. 250 West from Ivy Road to
Route 677. Mr. Fisher pointed out that the Planning Commission had recommended placing bicycle
paths along a creek in the Branchlands property development. Mr. Humphrey stated a report from the
Planning Department will be forthcoming showing what is required to develop bicycle trails in con-
nection with the highway department.
Mr. Batchelor said consideration is being given to using the path of the interceptor line from
U.S. 29 North down to the Rivanna River and Moores Creek as a bicycle path.
A citizen spoke in favor of placing bicycle paths throughout the City and the County she is
concerned about the safety of all bicycle riders who presently have to share the roads with cars,
trucks, and buses.
Mr. Wheeler requested Mr. Humphrey to carry this information to the Planning Commission for
their consideration.
No. 6K. Mr. John Humphrey presented a memorandum to the Board as follows:
"March 13, 1975
TO: Mr. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive
FROM: John L. Humphrey, Director of Planning
SUBJ: Studies REquested by Albemarle County Planning Commission
The Albemarle County Planning Commission has become increasingly
aware and concerned with the safety hazards that exist on Rt. 29
North in the v~cinity of Charlottesville Shopper's World and the
Berkeley Subdivision entrances.
They have individually observed potential vehicular movement in
and out of this area which could have resulted in lose of life
in addition to property damage. The Commission in considering
Charlottesvilles Shopper's World site plan originally, and most
recently, on March 10, 1975~were concerned with the speed at which
vehicles now approach this area in the South bound lane, since
site distance at the entrance looking left from the entrance to
the Shopping World and from the South bound lane toward the entrance
of Charlottesville~ Shopper's World, is poor and the speed limit
high.
The Commission at the most recent meeting mentioned above had the
occasion to discuss this matter at great length. At'the conclusion
of the discussion there were two motions made, which were approved
unanimously. Those motions were: (1) the Albemarle County Planning
Commission recommends that the Albemarle CoUnty Board of Supervisors
request the Virginia Department of Highways to study the feasibility
of reducing the speed limit in the immediate area of the Charlottes-
villes Shopper's World and the Berkeley Subdivision entrance. (The
staff would suggest an area between Rio Road and Greenbrier Drive)
(2) To recommend to the Board of Supervisors that a study be
accomplished to determine the feasibility of establishing a traffic
light at the Charlottesville Shopper's World entrance and/or the
entrance to Berkeley subdivision.
The Commission submits the two recommendations to the Board in the
spirit of great concern regarding the possibility of lose of life in
this immediate area and would appreciate the Board of Supervisors
earliest action with reference to their recommendation."
~ Mr. Thacker made motion to refer this request to ~ne~way Safety Commission for further study.
M~on was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
No. 6L.
Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr. presented the following, letter:
"March 5, 1975 Secondary System
Additions
Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
3-20-75 (Day)
System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
March 1, 1975.
ADDITION LENGTH
WESTOVER HILLS SUBDIVISION
Westover Drive: From Route 675 to cul-de-sac
Westover Circle: From the intersection of
Westover Drive to the cul-de-sac.
0.41
0.10 Mi.
Sincerely,
(signed) J.E. Harwood,
Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer"
Mr. Henley requested Mr. Warner to look into placing reduced speed limit signs in~0rchard
Acres, and to check the road leading to M~mans' Bridge for water build-up. Mr. Warner stated he
would look into these matters.
Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Warner to look into placing gravel on the shoulders of the road'on
Route 250 at the entrance to Flordan Subdivision. Mr. Warner stated it should have already been
done, but that he would check it.
Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Warner if any repair work had yet been done on Route 718 in Covesville.
Mr. Warner stated something had been done, but he would make sure it had been completed.
No. 7. Public Hearing to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Albemarle County Code Article
7 Sections 9.22 and 9.25 entitled "Real Estate Tax Exemption for Elderly,/~nance''. Notice of this
public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 & 12, 1975. Mr. Ray Jones, Assistant
Director of Finance reported that the present Ordinance provided relief for people over 65 years of
age with a gross income for the household of $7500 or less and a net worth of $20,000 excluding the
house and one acre. The amendment would increase the net worth to $35,000 and exclude the first
$2500 of income for each relative residing in the house. No one from the public spoke for or against
this ordinance. Mr, Fisher asked where the Finance Department arrived at the $2500 figure. Mr. St.
John stated the limits to the Ordinance are set out in State Code Section 58-760.1(a)(1).
Mr. Thacker said he felt the County was heading in the right direction by increasing the net
worth from $20,000 to $35,000. He added that something should be done in the near future to help
citizens under the age of 65 who are disabled and unable to pay taxes.
Mr. Fisher asked how many County citizens participated in this tax relief program last year and
how many are expected to apply under the amended ordinance. Mr. Jones replied there were 300
applicants last year and that the actual tax relief was just under $15,000. He estimated this year
the tax relief would be approximately $24,000 with about 500 applicants. Mr. Henley made motion to
adopt the ordinance amendments as set out below. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood°
An Ordinance Amending and Re-enacting Article VII, Real Estate
Tax Exemption for Elderly Persons, Albemarle County Code.
ARTICLE VII
REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY PERSONS
Section 9-22. Definitions.
Total Combined Income. Gross income from all sources of the
owners of the dwelling residing therein and of the owners' relatives
living in the dwelling, except that the first two thousand five
hundred dollars of income from each relative residing in the
dwelling is excluded from the calculation of gross income.
Section 9-25. Same - Eligibility; restrictions.
(d) The net combined financial worth shall not exceed
thirty-five thousand dollars as of December 31 of the calendar
year immediately preceding the taxable year.
No. 8. Public Hearing to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Albemarle County Code Chapter
2 Article 10 Sectibn 2-53 entitled "Equalization of Pay of Certain Boards and Commissions . Notice
of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on March 5 & 12, 1975.
The proposed amendment would delete from Section 2-53 the Joint Airport Commission members.
Mr. Batchelor stated that it had recently come to the attention of the staff, that when the Board
adopted the Equalization of Pay Ordinance, the Joint Airport Commission was included as one of those
Boards and Commissions which receive a monthly compensation for services rendered. However, the
3-20-75 (Day)
There is a similar ordinance being adopted by City Council. City Council does not now pay their
representatives on the Joint Airport Commission. Therefore, since the Ordinances are in conflict,
it was recommended that the Joint Airport Commission be deleted from the Equalization of Pay Ord-
inance.
No one from the public spoke for or against the proposed amendment. Mr. Fisher then offered motion
to amend and reenact Section 2-53 Chapter 2, Article 10 of the Albemarle County Code by deleting the
words "Joint Airport Commission" in that section. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
No. 9. Public Hearing to amend and reenact Albemarle County Code Chapter 6, Section 8 entitled
"Fire Prevention Code" Mr. Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal was present to request the Board to
adopt the 1975 edition of the B.O.C.A. (Building Officials & Code Administrators International,
Inc.) Fire Prevention Code, which follows in concert with the State Building Code. Mr. Reynolds
recommended adoption of this new printing of the B.O.C.A. code, along with Code Sections 6-9 through
6-11 to be added to the back of the B.O.C.A. book. Mr. Reynolds stated that Mr. James Samse!l,
President of the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association also endorses this edition of the B.O.C.A.
Code.
Mr. Spottswood Connelly, stated he was in favor of the code. He noted that he is in the busine
of selling and servicing fire extinguishing equipment and agrees that people in this business should
be registered and know what they are doing.
A representative of the Safety Equipment and Security Company of Charlottesville stated he
feels.~this code will allow the Fire Marshal to do a more thorough job.
No one else from the public spoke either for or against the ordinance, and Mr. Wheeler declared
the public hearing closed. Mr. Thacker asked how this new ordinance would effect existing parking
lots (relative to fire lanes). Mr. Reynolds stated it would cover all parking lots, but that no
existing lo~s will be in violation.
Mr. FiSher asked if the two amendments suggested by Mr. Reynolds were covered in the County's
advertisement for this public hearing. Mr. Reynolds stated it did, as the two amendments he has
proposed are attached to the book, and will be considered a permanent part of the B.O.C.A. book.
Mr. Thacker wondered if there was a conflict between the Fire Code and the Zoning Codes. Mr.
Reynolds thought there were no conflicts. Mr. Fisher felt the proper process would be for~ the Fire
Marshall to work with the Planning Department on site plans that come up for approval.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the Board was required by State law to adopt this code. Mr. Reynolds
stated they are required to adopt some fire prevention code, and that they chose the B.O.C.A. code
as it has no conflicts with the state code.
Mr. Henley asked about the handling of violations and violators. He cited an example of com-
bustible materials and chemicals. Mr. Reynolds stated that it would be at the discretion of the
Fire Marshal to determine if the storage of such chemicals was a violation since the Code does not
actually spell everything out.
Mr. Carwile made motion to amend and reenact Section 6-8 of the Albemarle County Code said
section known as the (Fire Prevention Code) by adopting the B.O.C.A. 1975 edition, along with the
amendments submitted by the County Fire Marshal and as set out in its entirety below. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE
A CERTAIN FIRE PREVENTION CODE
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has heretofore
adopted by a reference the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA)
Basic Fire Prevention Code (1970); and
WHEREAS, there is now in existence a comprehensive amendment to the
said Code promulgated in 1975;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, pursuant to Section 27-5.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, as follows:
SECTION 6-8:
That the Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA)
Basic Fire Prevention Code, as amended to 1975, be, and the
same hereby is, adopted by reference.
SECTION 6-9:
Copies of the Code adopted hereby may be obtained during
regular office hours in the Office of the Fire Marshal of
Albemarle County.
SECTION 6-10: Fire Lanes.
a)
b)
The fire official may require both public and private fire lanes, as
deemed necessary for the efficiency and use of fire apparatus.
Designated fire lanes shall be free of obstructions, vehicles and
marked in a manner prescribed by the fire official.
3-20-75 (Day)
SECTION 6-11: Fire Protection Systems.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Any person or persons engaged in selling, servicing, testing, leasing,
installing, inspecting, altering, modifying, repairing or removing
any portable or fixed fire protection, suppression or detection
equipment and systems in the County, of Albemarle, shall be registered
with and operated from a permit issued by the fire official.
Each registrant will provide the fire official with proof of adequate
general liability insurance, including product and/or completed oper-
ations liability insurance, which will protect the public (both from
property damage and personal injury) from negligence of their personnel
performing the aforementioned activities, considering the nature and
extent of the registrant's proposed activities.
Any person or persons engaged in the aforementioned activities shall
demonstrate proof of qualification, in a manner prescribed by the fire
official.
Ail servicing, inspection, testing, installing, altering, modifying,'~
repairing, or removing of said equipment and systems, shall do so in
accordance with the practices, standards, codes and requirements of
the National Fire Protection Association, the Fire Prevention Code
and Basic Building Code of ~lbemarle County and the orders of the
fire official.
Failure to comply with this Section shall be cause for revocation of
the permit and will be a violation of this code.
No. 10. 10:45 a.m. Public Hearing to amend and reenact Section 2-4 of the Albemarle County
C~e~entit!ed "Composition of Members of Planning Commission". Notic~ of this public hearing was
advertised on March 5 & 12, 1975 in the Daily Progress. Mr. Batchelor stated this amendment would
remove the County Executive as an Ex-Officio member of this Commission. Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy
County Attorney stated it would also clarify establishment of a quorum. No one from the public
spoke either for or against the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Carwile made motion to adopt the
amendment as presented, motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker.
Mr. Fisher suggested an amendment to the motion so it would include the elimination of com- -~
pensation for the Board of Supervisors member on the Planning Commission. Mr. Carwile accepted the
amendment. Mr. Wheeler suggested that since Mr. Wood (the Board member serving on the Planning
Commission) was not present, that the matter be deferred. Mr. Fisher offered a substitute motion to
defer action on this public hearing until April 17, 1975, and have the proposed amendment to Section
2-4'include the elimination of pay for the Board of Supervisor member. Substitute motion was
seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
No. 11. Scottsville Flood Management and Economic Revitalization Program. (deferred from
January 16, 1975) Mayor Raymon Thacker and Mr. Thomas Bruce of Scottsville presented a proposed
flood control program which would be submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development. If the preapplication is accepted by H.U.D., they would totally finance this flood
control program. Mr. Bruce stated it was absolutely essential to relieve this flood problem or the
town would die. He noted the preapplication has been filed with H.U.D., and that the program is
based mainly on the Balzer and Associates report. He acknowledged Mr. Batchelor's memorandum dated
March 18, 1975, which pointed out many unanswered questions about the program, and stated these
questions would be answered as the program progressed. He then requested the Boa~d%to~ad~Pt ~a
resolution stating their approval of the program.
Mr. Batchelor read the memorandum referred to by Mr. Bruce, to the Board.
Planning and Engineering Staff questions follows:
A summary of County
i)
Data submitted are insufficient to make an accurate estimation of the total cost
of the project.
a)
b)
c)
Acquisition costs
Road costs
Concourse area
The proposal does not appear to include funds for relocating and
improving utilities.
3)
The preapplicationappears to be in error in answering "No" to
questions 1, 2, and 4 of Part II and "Yes" to question 5 of
Part II.
It is felt that the proposed plan will affect the force of the
River flow so that the flooding damage will be increased in
areas near the C&O Railroad, Uniroyal, etc.
Mr. Bruce stated he could not answer any of the questions posed by the County staff, and that
Mr. Ba!zer could not be present to comment on the memorandum. Mr. William Thacker commented that
h~-~r~lt it was best to defer any action on this until the Board had the opportunity to talk with Mr.
Balzer. He also noted he wanted to do everything possible to implement a program that would help
prevent future floods in Scottsville.
Mr. Wheeler placed this matter on the agenda for Thursday, March 27th at 7:30 P.M., and re-
quested Mr. Balzer present additional information to the Board. Mr. Fisher pointed out that Scotts-
ville also requested E.D.A. funding to do the technical planning. Mr. Batchelor stated the County
staff would be available to meet with Mr. Balzer any time prior to the 27th.
3-20-75 (Day)
Mr. Wheeler commented that May 7, 1975, would be Albemarle County Youth in Government Day, and
added he felt the Board would be willing to participate again this year.
Mr. Wheeler noted a request from the Clerk asking the Board to delay the start of their meeting
on April 23, 1975, to 8:00 P.M. instead of 7:30 P.M., due to the Board's participation in the Dog-
wood Festival Parade. Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Henley to begin the April
23rd meeting at 8:00 P.M. in the County Courthouse. Role was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
A~SENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wheeler referred to the contract signed between the County and Virginia Electric and Power
Company. He asked if a bill had been received for arrears dating back to July 1974. Mr. Batchelor
stated the bill had been received. Mr. Wheeler pointed out that this bill can be paid over the next
twelve months and is not due immediately.
No. 12. Waiver Minimum Lot Requirements for Brookwood Subdivision. Action on thin, matter was
deferred from March 5, 1975. Mr. Homer Cheavacci of the Regional Health Department jHe said that
when a subdivision is approved each lot must pass Health Department tests on its own merit. If City
sewer systems are in the area, there is no problem with lot sizes. He further stated that no Health
Department permit is issued until he has seen proof that the area is properly zoned.
Mr. Carwile asked Mr. Cheava¢ci if he recommended going along with Mr. Morris' request.
Cheavacci said no, but felt a system could be devised that would last about 18 years.
Mr.
Mr. Herbert Pickford, was present to represent Mr. Ronald Morris, developer of the subdivision.
He said about 40 lots have already been approved. He said that by oversight Mr. Morris did not go
back to the Planning Commission for extension of the approval of the preliminary plat, therefore it
is being considered under the present subdivision ordinance. He also stated that there is a con-
flict in the present subdivision ordinance; The Subdivision Ordinance reads in Section 3.9 "lots
shall be of the size as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance"; the Zoning Ordinance reads in Section
4-2-2 "if served by two utilit~ou can have 12,500 sq. ft .... lots served by only one utility shall
be 40,000 sq. ft." He felt the least restrictive should be applicable with regard to Brookwood
Subdivision, as it was originally set up and begun under the "old" rules.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Cheavacci if he would work with the developer if a waiver were granted.
Mr. Chevacci stated things could be worked out if enough vacant area were left as drainfield.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Frederick Payne if there actually is a conflict between the Subdivision
Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance as suggested by Mr. Pickford. Mr. Payne stated in his opinion
there was no conflict. He felt the provision being spoken to was 3-9 and 3-11-2, and added no
changes in these ordinances should be made.
Mr. Fisher asked if a waiver is approved, but does not receive Health Department approval, what
will happen. Mr. Cheavacci stated a building permit will not be issued, and a revised subdivision
plat will have to be submitted. Mr. Fisher felt this would set a precedent that would create a
considerable amount of work. Mr. Humphrey felt this would not set a precedent, as there was only
one other instance of a plat being allowed to lapse; that was Marshall Manor.
Mr. Thacker summarized by saying it would be acceptable because: 1) there is public water; 2)
the preliminary plat was approved some years ago and allowed to lapse through an oversight; and 3)
the developer is willing~ to cooperate with the Health Department.
Mr. Carwile said this will not guarantee final approval of the plat, and then made motion to
waive the minimum lot requirements. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher stated he was
hesitant to approve such a waiver, as preliminary approval usually leads to final approval and ~e
would therefore vote against the motion. Role was called and the motion was adopted by the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES-
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwi!e, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Wood.
No. 6L. Agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Virginia Department of Highway and
Transportation to make improvements to Route 637 from 1-64 to the Ivy Landfill. Motion to authoriz
the Chairman to sign the agreement as set out below, was made by Mr. Fisher and seconded by Mr.
Thacker. Mr. Wheeler requested a copy of the agreement be sent to City Council for their verbal
approval, and that the signed copy not be mailed to the Highway Department until this verbal approva
is received. Role was called and motion was approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 20th day of March, 1975, among and between
the COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE~COUNTY, VIRGINIA, hereinafter
known as the County, and the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter known as~ the Department:
WHEREAS, the County and the City have entered into an agreement to
operate jointly a landfill off State Secondary Route 637 in Albemarle
County, Virginia, known as the Ivy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, that portion of State Secondary Route 637 which extends
between Interstate Route 64, Ivy Interchange, and the entrance road to
the Ivy Landfill, some three miles in length, is inadequate to accommo-
date the traffic to the landfill; and
WHEREAS, the County, the City, and the Department recognize that
3-20-75 (Day)
WHEREAS, this section of Secondary Route 637 does not enjoy a
sufficiently high priority within the improvement program of the
Secondary System of Albemarle County to be funded from regular
Secondary road funds within the foreseeable future; and
WHEREAS, there is nothing that can be done from the standpoint
of maintenance to overcome the potential hazards to traffic inherent
in the existing road; and
WHEREAS, the County and the City are willing to bear the cost of
improving Secondary Route 637, identified as Project 0637-002-169, M501,
to provide a facility adequate to handle this special use traffic; and
WHEREAS, the Department is the agency with the capacity and
jurisdiction to make the necessary surveys, prepare plans, acquire
rights of way, and execute the work; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of Project 0637-002-169, MS01 is
anticipated to be $505,000.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the
premises and mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the
County and the Department agree as follows:
The County will
(1) Repay the Department 100% of all actual costs incurred by
it in making the surveys, preparation of the plans,
acquisition of rights of way, and the execution of the
work under Project 0637-002-169, M501. Payments to be
made within 10 days of receipt of monthly bills.
(2)
Upon presentation of the plans, review and approve as
expeditiously as possible.
The Department will
(1) Make the necessary surveys, prepare plans, acquire the necessary
rights of way, and cause the execution of the work under Project
0637-002-169, M501 either by contract or its own forces, which-
ever is deemed most expedient by it. If the work is performed
by contract, the Department, in the event the contractor files
a claim, shall have the sole responsibility under applicable laws
and specifications to determine whether the claim is valid or
not. Any additional costs shall be added to the total cost to
be billed the County.
(2)
Assess the County for the cost in accordance with A above
which is estimated to be $505,000.00.
(3)
Before beginning right of way acquisition, present plans to
the County for review and approval.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
Lettie E. Neher
Clerk, Board af Supervisors
By Gordon L. Wheeler
Chairman
ATTEST:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION
By
At 12:30 P.M., Mr. Wheeler adjourned the meeting for a one hour lunch break. He
told the Board members he would be late returning from break, and would be back about 2:30 P.M.
instructed Mr. Thacker to chair the meeting until his return.
Meeting reconvened at 1:30 P.M.
He
No. 14. Jail Board: Term of Office. Communication was received from Mrs. Marian Rabinowitz,
Chairperson, Jail Board, stating that when members were originally appointed to this Board, no
term~ ~ set. This Board will have been in existence for one year in May, 1975. She included a
copy of an ordinance proposed for adoption by City Council setting out the membership and terms of
the members on this Joint Jail Board.
Mr. Fisher offered motion to set a public hearing for 10:30 a.m. on April 17, 1975, ~to estab-
lish the term of office for the Jail Board, paralleling proposal by the City with the amendment that
the City Council and Board of Supervisor member terms should not extend beyond these members term of
office. Second to the motion was made by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 15. Licensing and Registration of Magazine Salesmen (Discussion of this requested ordin-
ance revision was deferred from February 20, 1975) Sheriff George Bailey stated that the Common-
wealth's Attorney was ill and could not be~present as requested at the previous meeting. Mr. St.
John said a copy of the proposed ordinance was sent to Mr. Haugh. The ordinance will now require
fingerprinting and photographing of magazine salesmen. It is a registration only; not a license.
Mr. Thacker said his concern was whether the Commonwealth's Attorney could prosecute under this
proposed ordinance. Mr. Fisher requested the opinion of the Commonwealth's Attorney, for if he
3-20-75 (Day)
declared the matter deferred until April 17th.
No. 16. .Land Use Tax, Miss Page Godsey was present to make several requests of the Board
concerning the Land Use Taxation Program. First was the need to hire two additional field examiners
on a temporary basis beginning April 1. She stated there were only two examiners presently on the
job. In order to allow time to mail out land use assessments, hear any appeals on classification
and complete all information in time for entering it on the land book computer tape, the field work
must be completed by June 30. Miss Godsey estimated the total cost at $6,500 for salaries and
travel costs. She said there are enough funds in the budget and that no special appropriation is
needed.
Mr. Henley made motion to hire two temporary employees as field examiners in the land use
department. Motion was Seconded by Mr. Fisher, and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, and Thacker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
Miss Godsey's second item regarded the readoption of the Land.Use Ordinance. Mr. St. John
stated he has just received a letter from the State Attorney General ruling readoption is not
necessary; that the ordinance would stand until amended or repealed. After some discussion, Mr.
Thacker recommended that Mr. St. John send copies of the Attorney General's letter to the Board and
carry the matter over to the April 17th meeting.
Miss Godsey's third item referred to Revalidating of application for 1976. She said State law
provided that the Board may require land use applicants to revalidate their applications annually or
only to resubmit an application if the use of the land changes. The staff recommends that the land
owners be required to sign a statement swearing that the land has not changed. They do this for the
following reason. It directs the land owner's attention to the State and County requirements that
any change in use must be reported and that failure to do so subjects the landowner to penalties as
well as any roll-back taxes and interest which is due. Administration is also improved. Mr. Fisher
asked if this was for each applicant or each parcel. Miss Godsey stated each applicant.
Mr. Thacker asked if the Board went with readoption of the Land Use Ordinance on a yearly
basis, if this would require the applicants to reapply. Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney,
stated reapplication and annual adoption of the ordinance are totally at the option of the Board.
Mr. Thacker suggested that this also be carried over to the April 17th meeting for further discussio
No. 17. Check Cancellation. Mr. Batchelor stated check #I009551 dated February 19, 1975, in
the amount of $80.00 and made payable toD.?.W. Clerical Conference be cancelled. The check was
wr~tehLfor ~Bgishration fee for a Department of Social Services Conference and the registration fee
was reduced. The check was never mailed out. Motion to cancel the check as requested was made by
Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 18. Report of the County Executive for January, 1975, was presented as information.
No. 19. Statement of expenses of the Director of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the Office
of the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of February, 1975, were presented. On motion by Mr.
Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 20. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of February, 1975 was present
Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile, this statement was approved as presented. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 21. Joint Security Complex Report. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and
operation of the Joint Security Complex for the month~February, 1975, was presented. Also presented
was statement of the Jail Physician and statement of nurses' salaries. On motion by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. Carwil'e, all statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 22. Report of the Department of Social Services, for the month of January, 1975, was
received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
No. 23. Letter: Auditor of Public Accounts. Mr. Batchelor said the Auditor of Public Accounts
has reviewed the accounts of the County of Albemarle, and Thomas M. Batchelor, Jr., Director of
Finance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1974. The audit was prepared in accordance with the
specifications furnished by the Auditor of Public Accounts, and
has been accepted by his office.
No. 24. Zoning Violations Report.
Mr. Batchelor stated the Zoning Administrator was sick and
3-20-75 (Day)
No. 25. Personal Property Tax Refunds.
Henley to adopt the following resolution:
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr.
WHEREAS, the Assistant Director of Finance of Albemarle County,
Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that erroneous
assessments were made on 1974 personal property taxes, and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has 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 following refunds. Mr.
Gerald Kane $38.48, Mr. Lawrence Thomas $39.22, Mr. Edward Mayo, Jr.
$55.50.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to be
filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
The foregoing motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and_Wood.
No. 26. Real Estate Tax Refund.
adopt the following resolution:
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher~.to
WHEREAS, the Assistant Director of Finance of Albemarle County,
Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that an
erroneous assessment was made on 1973 real estate owned by Richard W, III
and Erma P Profit; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence
and consents that such assessment was 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 a refund of $200.60 be issued
to Mr. & Mrs. Profit.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying this request are to be
filed in the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.
The foregoing motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
No. 27. Charlottesville-Area Transportation Restudy - Request to sign Agreement. Mr. Batchelor
stated the Board passed a resolution some months ago requesting to be part of the Charlottesville-
Area Comprehensive Transportation Planning Restudy. The agreement requested to be signed asks for
in-kind services and entitles the Board to representation. There are no funds requested.
Mr. Carwile made motion authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Supervisors to eXecute
the agreement for the Charlottesville-Area Comprehensive Transportation Planning Study. Second was
made by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
(The complete text of the agreement is set out below)
AGREEMENT FOR THE
CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA COMPREHENSIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RESTUDY
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of in the year nineteen
hundred and seventy-five by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Department of Highways and Transportation, 1221 East Broad Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219, hereinafter called the DEPARTMENT, the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia, hereinafter called the CITY, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
hereinafter called the COUNTY.
WITNESSETH, THAT THE DEPARTMENT, the CITY and the COUNTY shall jointly
undertake the research and studies of traffic patterns and volumes, trans-
portation network planning, population, socioeconomic and land use charac-
teristics, mass transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, major streets
and other related elements which will form the basis for a continuing
transportation planning process to:
Guide the DEPARTMENT, the Federal Highway Administration and the
CITY and COUNTY within the CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA in the development
of a transportation network in conformance with the requirements
of Chapter 1 of Title 23, Section 134 of the United States Code.
Assure a proper coordination of the various phases of the joint
undertaking.
Provide for the segregation of costs between the DEPARTMENT, the
CITY and the COUNTY for all phases of the work jointly undertaken.
3-20-75 (Day)
ARTICLE I - LOCATION OF STUDY
The study shall embrace all of the area contained in the City of
Charlottesville, and certain portions of Albemarle County in the Common-
wealth of Virginia as illustrated on the attached map** and shall here-
inafter be called the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA.
ARTICLE II - DIVISION OF WORK
The work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall be divided
into two categories to be known as (a) Transportation Planning Studies and
(b) General Planning Studies.
The Transportation Planning Studies shall include all work outlined in
a document entitled "Charlottesville Area Transportation Study Design",
which is hereby made a part of this Agreement (Appendix A**).
The General Planning Studies shall include all work outlined in a
document entitled "Scope of Study for the Analysis of the Socioeconomic and
Land Use Phases of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study" which is
hereby made a part of this Agreement (Appendix B**).
ARTICLE III - CONDUCT OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES
The DEPARTMENT agrees to perform all phases of the Transportation
Planning Studies described in the "Charlottesville Area Transportation
Study Design". The Transportation Planning Studies shall consist of the
collection, analyses, and compilation in report form of origin-destination
travel data essential to the selection, evaluation, and development of the
Transportation Plan for all feasible modes of transportation in the CHAR-
LOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA. These studies shall be performed in close liaison
with representatives of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Restudy
Policy and Technical Committees, the Federal Highway Administration, the
CITY and the COUNTY.
ARTICLE IV - CONDUCT OF THE GENERAL PLANNING STUDIES
The DEPARTMENT agrees to perform all phases of the General Planning
Studies described in "Scope of study~ for the Analysis of the Socioeconomic
and Land Use Phases of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study" for
the COUNTY portions of the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA. The CITY agrees to
perform all phases of the General Planning Studies for all areas within the
Corporate Limits of Charlottesville. The General Planning Studies will
consist of the collection, analyses, and forecasts in report form of Socio-
economic, Population, and Land Use data essential to provide a sound basis
for projecting travel for residential, commercial, industrial, educa-
t~onal, open space, and other facilities to the year 2000 by traffic zone.
ARTICLE V - DATA PROVIDED BY THE CITY
The CITY agrees to collect and compile the following 1974 socioeconomic
and land use data for each traffic zone within the City of Charlottesville:
7.
8.
9.
10.
!1.
Population (Total)
Group Quarters Population
Single Family Housing Units (Including duplexes & trailers)
a. Occupied
b. Total
Multi-Family Housing Units
a. Occupied
b. Total
Total Occupied Housing Units
Total Housing Units
Number of Cars Owned
Total Employment (by zone of employmen~t)
Retail Employment (by zone of employment)
Student Enrollment (by zone of attendance)
a. K-12
b. Colleges and Professional Schools
Land Use (Acres)
a. Residential - Single Family (including duplexes & trailers)
b. Residential - Multi-Family
c. Residential - Group Quarters
d. Commercial - Office, Services, and Retail
e. Industrial - light industry, heavy industry, truck terminals,
contracting, wholesale
f. Public and Semi-Public buildings, Institutions, Parks and
Playgrounds.
g. Miscellaneous - utilities, communications, transportation
terminals, transportation rights-of-way,
parking lots and garages
h. Water A~eas
i. Vacant
To accomplish the travel simulation technique of the Charlottesville
Area Transportation Restudy, additional data may be required at a later
date. Such data would be requested of the CITY at the discretion of the
Policy Committee.
The CITY agrees to develop an existing 1974 Land Use Map for the CITY
** = Clerk'~ note, **item on permanent file in office of Clerk to the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors.
3-20-75 (Day)
portion of the Study Area based on the land use categories listed in item
11 of the 1974 data to be provided.
Further, the CITY, with the cooperation of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, agrees to provide projections to the year 2000
for each traffic zone in the City of Charlottesville based on 1974 socio-
economic data as follows:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Population (Total)
Group Quarters Population
Single Family Housing Units (including duplexes & trailers)
a. Occupied
b. Total
Multi-Family Housing Units
a. Occupied
b. Total
Total Occupied Housing Units
Total Housing Units
Number of Cars Owned
Total Employment (by zone of employment)
Retail Employment (by zone of employment)
School Enrollment (by zone of attendance)
a. K-12
b. Colleges and Professional Schools
ARTICLE VI - DATA FURNISHED BY THE COUNTY
The County agrees to make available to the DEPARTMENT any existing
plans, maps, charts, or reports concerning or related to general county
planning and highway and street development as may be available.
ARTICLE VII - DATA FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT
The DEPARTMENT agrees to collect and compile the same 1974 socio-
economic and land use data items as outlined in ARTICLE V for each traffic
zone in the COUNTY portion of the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA. The DEPART-
MENT further agrees to provide projections of each of the socioeconomic
data items to the year 2000 for each traffic zone in the COUNTY. Land Use
Data will not be projected.
The DEPARTMENT agrees to prepare a composit existing Land Use Map for
the entire CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA by land use categories as previously
described. The DEPARTMENT will be responsible for gathering all base year
tand use data for the COUNTY portion of the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA.
ARTICLE VIII - FINANCING THE STUDIES
The services performed by the DEPARTMENT for the Transportation
Planning Studies and the General Planning Studies referred to in ARTICLES
III - VII and documents referred to therein will be financed with funds
available to the DEPARTMENT for this purpose and CITY funds.
The CITY agrees to pay to the DEPARTMENT as its pro-rata share of
developing the Transportation Planning Studies, as outlined in ARTICLE III,
fifteen (15) percent of the actual cost to the DEPARTMENT based upon the
ratio that the 1974 population of the CITY bears to the 1974 population of
the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY AREA.
Further, the CITY also agrees to pay the total cost of developing the
General Planning Studies for the CITY portion as outlined in ARTICLES IV
and V.
ARTICLE IX - SUPERVISION
It is agreed that the supervision of the technical phases of the
Transportation Planning Studies, the General Planning Studies, and the
development of the Transportation Plan will be under the DEPARTMENT but
performed in close liaison with the Charlottesville Area Transportation
Restudy Policy Committee and the Federal Highway Administration.
The DEPARTMENT will be responsible for reviewing the General Planning
Studies data submitted by the CITY in regard to completeness and compat-
ibility. Any differences will be mutually resolved by the DEPARTMENT and
the CITY with the assistance of the Policy Committee, if necessary.
ARTICLE X - SCHEDULE
The schedule of completion of the various phases of the Transportation
Planning Studies and the General Planning Studies will be coordinated to
avoid any undue delay in the completion of the Transportation Plan.
ARTICLE XI - CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY COMMITTEES
The Charlottesville Area Transportation Restudy Policy Committee,
hereinafter called the POLICY COMMITTEE, shall be established during the
initial .phase of the RESTUDY. The POLICY COMMITTEE shall establish policy
for the execution of this agreement and in reviews and approval of work
developed and presented by the DEPARTMENT, and in the final acceptance of
such work. The POLICY COMMITTEE shall establish policy for citizen parti-
cipation in the execution in this agreement. The POLICY COMMITTEE shall
establish policy for the continuance of the Transportation Planning Pro-
cess. The POLICY COMMITTEE shall elect a Chairman and establish rules of
procedure.
3-20-75 (Day)
The POLICY COMMITTEE will be composed of voting members designated by
and representing each local government within the CHARLOTTESVILLE STUDY
AREA who will be vested with the authority to speak for and act in behalf
of the appointing local government. The CITY will have three (3) voting
members and the COUNTY will have two (2) voting members. The POLICY COM-
MITTEE will also include one (1) voting member designated by and repre-
senting the DEPARTMENT, one (1) voting member designated by and represen-
ting the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, and one (1) non-
voting member designated by and representing the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration.
The Charlottesville Area Transportation Restudy Technical Committee,
hereinafter called the TECHNICAL COMMITTEE, shall be established during the
initial phase of the restudy. The TECHNICAL COMMITTEE shall serve in an
advisory capacity to the POLICY COMMITTEE to review, comment, recommend,
and assist the DEPARTMENT, the CITY and the COUNTY in the execution of this
agreement. The TECHNICAL COMMITTEE shall advise in the procedures to be
used in collecting land use, socioeconomic, and travel data. Also, the
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE shall suggest to the POLICY COMMITTEE alternative
transportation systems to be tested and strategies for citizen partici-
pation.
The TECHNICAL COMMITTEE shall consist of persons trained and knowl-
edgeable in transportation planning or who, by their position, have an
interest and responsibility in the local transportation planning process.
The TECHNICAL COMMITTEE will be comprised of three (3) voting members from
the CITY, two (2) voting members from the COUNTY of Albemarle, one (1)
voting member from the DEPARTMENT and one (1) voting member from the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission. One (1) non-voting member may
represent each of the following groups:
3.
4.
5.
6.
University of Virginia
Federal Highway Administration
Charlottesville's Transportation Task Force
Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
Virginia Highway Research Council
Special interest groups (cyclists, transit company, etc.)
The POLICY COMMITTEE shall establish additional membership to the
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE that is deemed necessary to carry out the duties of the
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the DEPARTMENT, the CITY, and the COUNTY have
executed this agreement on the day and year first written above.
WITNESS:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
By:
wITNESS:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
By: Gordon L. Wheeler
(signed March 20, 1975)
WITNESS:
BY:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION
Deputy Commissioner
No. 28. Parks Committee: Request for Resolution. Mr. Batchelor stated the Parks Committee
requests passage of a resolution under State Code Section 2.1-63.4:2(a) to conduct a study of
recreational and parks needs in Albemarle County, and develop a comprehensive plan for the imple-
mentation of such plan. He further stated the Board of Supervisors appointed the Parks Committee to
develop a plan for future parks. The Committee found help is available through the State Department
of Planning and Community Affairs.
Mr. Fisher noted the State has been studying the County's airport needs for a long time and
their results are totally different from those of a County study. He felt if the State does a
similar study on parks and recreation, it may encourage them to give financial support, but may
result in the County being pressured into accepting a plan they do not totally support.
Mr. Batchelor replied that he did not feel this would happen. The County did not request to
have the Airport study done. It was done by law under the State Corporation Commission. The parks
study would be done at the County's request under the guidance of the Parks Committee.
Mr. Carwile stated he shared Mr. Fisher's feelings about being pressured by the State. He
added that before anything could be studied regarding parks and recreation, the Board would have to
give tentative consideration as to the amount of funding they would be willing to support in future
years.
Mr. Henley stated that expenses of the County Parks are more than he is now willing to support.
He said the Parks Committee is doing a good job but that the present parks are all the County can
afford to undertake.
Mr. Fisher asked how the State's study would be conducted. Mr. Robert Sampson, Parks Director,
stated an employee of the State Bureau of Outdoor Recreation would do the survey. Mr. Henley added
he did not feel the County will have the funds to implement suggestions from a State study. Mr.
Sampson stated neither the Parks Committee nor himself can conduct such a successful study and that
3-20-75 (Day)
Mr. Fisher asked how distant in the future this Parks and Recreation plan would be projected.
Mr. Sampson replied about five years, then added the resuIts of a State study would probably point
out County Parks deficiencies, not make recommendations as to locations and facilities required.
Mr. Carwile said the State has probably made similar studies in other localities and suggested
Mr. Sampson bring to the Board a copy of such a study for their review. Mr. Thacker agreed with Mr.
Carwile, and added he felt the Board was not ready to commit funding for new Parks programs. After
some further discussion, Mr. Thacker suggested that the Board defer actio.n on this request until
such time as Mr. Sampson can obtain a copy of a State conducted study. There was no objection from
other Board members.
Mr. Carwile made motion authorizing the Chairman to execute the following easement to the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority upon receiving the approval of the County Attorney. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Thacker.
None.
Messrs. Wheeler and Wood.
THIS DEED made this 21st day of March, 1975, by and between Albemarle
County, hereinafter called the Landowner, party of the first part, and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, hereinafter called Authority, party of the
second part,
WI TNES SETH :
That for and in consideration of $100.00 in cash paid and other valuable
considerations, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Landnwner hereby
acknowledged, the Landowner hereby GRANTS and CONVEYS with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF
TITLE unto the Authority the perpetual right of way and easement to construct,
install and maintain a sewer line consisting of pipes and appurtenances for the
transmission of waste water in and upon the Landowner's lands lying in Albemarle
County, which lands are shown on Sheet 8, of Project 2188, prepared by John
McNair & Associates, showing a portion of the property of the Landowner, which
sheet is attached to and is a part of this deed. The easement hereby conveyed
is 30 feet in width extending 15 feet on either side of the center line thereof
and the location of the center line is shown by a line outlined in RED on
the said sheet hereto attached. As a part of the said easement, the Authority
shall also have the right to enter upon the Landowner's lands for the purpose
of installing, constructing and maintaining said waste water line and for
making connections thereto. Whenever it is necessary to excavate earth within
said easement, the Authority hereby agrees to backfill such excavation in a
proper and workmanlike manner so as to restore the surface condition as nearly
as practicable to the same condition existing prior to such excavation.
There is also granted an additional temporary easement of 15 feet on
either side of the permanent easement hereinbefore granted for the use of the
contractor during the installation of said waste water line. This easement
will terminate upon completion of installation thereof.
WITNESS the following signature and seal:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ATTEST:
By: William C. Thacker, Jr.
Lettie E. Neher
Not Docketed. Mr. St. John mentioned that the Parking Ordinance at ~iedmont Community
College is not working. He noted that Judge Pickford and the Clerk to his Court are not willing
to be a collection ag.ency for violation fees. There are three alternatives, 1) Change the
College Parking Ordinance to correct this situation, so a person is fined or issued a warrant.
2) Have the County Finance Office employ someone to collect the fines. For fines not paid this
person would trace the license plate number through the Division of Motor Vehicles and issue a
warrant. Then, the officer who issued the summons would be notified to have the issue placed on
the docket of the General District Court; or 3) Tell Piedmont College they will have to do the
administrative work described in #1 and #2. Mr. St. John said the College may not agree with
this procedure since they have no police force.
Mr. Thacker asked the nature of the parking problem. Mr. St. John said it is not caused by
students, but by visitors attending meetings at the college. He added that the ordinance cannot
be abolished, due to fire lanes etc. Mr. Carwile suggested the use of a tow-away zone. Mr. St.
John said this may be the only workable solution and that he would consult with Piedmont College
on this possibility. Mr. Thacker suggested placing this item back on the agenda for April 17,
1975.
Mr. Wheeler returned to the meeting at 2:45 p.m., and once again took over the Chair.
No. 13. Appointments. No Board members had names to suggest for appointment to the
Ecomonic Development Commission.
No Board members had names to suggest for appointment to the Airport Commission.
Mr. Thacker nominated Mr. George Omohundro of Scottsville, Virginia to serve~another term
on the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors. This term to expire on April 16,
1979. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
MesSrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
3-20-75 (Day)
Mr. Fisher made motion to appoint Mr. Edgar Paige, Jr. for a two year term, and Mr. John O.
Higginson to a one year term on the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was seconded by Mr.
Thacke~, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
Motion was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thacker, to reappoint Mr. George R. St.
John as County Attorney for the County of Albemarle, Virginia, for a term of one year. Role was
called, and motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
No. 29. Real Estate Reassessment. Mr. Bill Bradshaw, Acting Director of Real Estate
Assessments recommended a two year cycle for reassessment. Miss Godsey presented some background
material for the Board's information. The following duties must be performed by the Real Estate
Department in addition to the assessment program.
1)
2)
3)
5)
7)
8)
Changes in assessments due to new construction, parcel division, rezonings, to revise
the land book each year, etc.
Revise tax maps to reflect property division changes ~-_~
~ '
Supplements and exonerations.
Assist Board of Equalization.
Answer Citizen requests.
Fair market information for Land Use.
Sales-assessment ratio analysis.
Administration.
Miss Godsey next presented five items which would create an additional workload and added
expense on the Real Estate Department resulting from new State Law requirements.
1)
Appraise all tax exempt property. This job will require approximately one man
year of appraiser time. A cost of $t7,600 includes one man year for appraiser
salary, clerical time for recording, and travel costs.Appraisal information is
recorded in the County Land Book.
2)
Classify all parcels as to use. This work is done at the same time as the
assessment. Cost for this project is $300, and can be done at the same time
as the appraisal of property.
3)
Open all appraiser card information to everyone. This card will be made
available to the general public (exclusive of income information). The cost
is due to removing income information from the present card design, and also
to have a duplicate card file for safety in case of loses or damage to one
set. The cost is approximately $2,000.
4)' Adjust assessment to 100%. There will be a $3,500 cost only if a separate
mailing is required to notify the public of the new assessment program.
5)
Assess mobile homes on square footage method. $10,500. Mobile homes are still
to be classed as personal property, but assessed at the same rate as real
p~operty. It was noted that there was no effective date on this portion of
the bill.
With regard to #5, Mr. Carwile asked if the assessment was based on where the mobile homes wer~
sold, or where they are located. Miss Godsey stated it would be assessed on where they are located.
Mr. Fisher asked if the sizes of mobile homes was recorded at the time of sale. Mr. Bradshaw said
they are not, and would therefore require measurement by the assessor. Miss Godsey added that the
furniture sold with the mobile home is not included in the assessment figure. Miss Godsey said the
State Law requires a general reassessment at least once every six (6) years, and added the values
need not be changed every year as long as the same base figures are used.
Miss Godsey then presented five possible options for the annual assessment program.
five options, she presented three in detail for the Board members to choose from.
Of the
1)
Two-year cycle, field review each even-numbered year, change values on Book
each odd-numbered year; phased implementation of computer-assisted system
over period 1975-1980.
2) Two year cycle like Option (1) except completely manual system.
3) Field review every year, adjust values every year; completely manual system.
4) Annual field review by "Hot Spotting" method.
5)
Annual field review, adjust values every year; immediately begin intro-
duction of computer-assisted system to be completed in 1976.
Miss Godsey explained the two-year cycle was preferred by the staff because property values increas~
an average of 10% each year. If assessments are done on a bi-yearly basis, good equity should be
maintained. Another reason the staff recommends approval of the two-year cycle is because of com-
puter assistance over a six year period. The computer cuts down on the clerical workload (mathmat-
ical computations, appraiser card information, and duplication of appraiser card information for
public use) and allows appraisers to review more parcels per year.
Costs for each option per year, averaged over the next six years were: option #1, approximatel]
$123,000; option #3 approximately $102,000; option #4 $80,000 if done on a three year cycle with
continuous increases each year after. Miss Godsey pointed out that option #3 will not require the
hiring of any additional staff on a permanent basis, but it would require hiring~on a contractual
basis, appraisers every two years to aid in the field work.
3-20-75
3-26-75
years, and that option #3 (computer assist) would probably be the best method in the years to come.
Mr. Thacker agreed that the two-year cycle is the best option because of more efficient usage of
staff personnel. Mr. Fisher stated the assessment which was just completed after an eight year
lapse was a shock to many people and added that it should be conducted much more frequently. He
then stated option #4 would be adequate at this time, as it seemed to be the least expensive to
maintain. Mr. Carwile said he would support either Option #1 or #3, but could not support going
back to a general reassessment. Mr. Thacker felt the implementation of computer assistance would be
very beneficial to the assessment process. Mr. Fisher requested the exact dollar figures for each
option plan for the next fiscal year. Miss Godsey stated Option #1 totaled $200,000, Option #3
totaled $188,000; Option #4 totaled $120,000. Mr. Carwile noted the "cheapest" is not always the
best or fairest method to taxpayers in the County. He added he was not ready to decide to go-to
computer assistance, but he was ready to decide whether or not to go to general assessments or a
two-year program. Mr. Carwile offered motion that the Board adopt a policy of a two-year assessment
program. Mr. Thacker seconded Mr. Carwile's motion. Mr. Henley stated he felt property values.will
not change significantly in a two-year period of time, and felt it was too early to decide on such a
matter. Mr. Fisher said he also could not support the motion.
With motion duly made and seconded, role was called, and motion to go with Option #2, "Two-Year
cycle, field review each even-number year, change values on Book each odd-number year, with com-
pletely manual system" was adopted with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Thacker, and Wheeler.
Messrs. Fisher and Henley.
Mr. Wood.
The meeting continued with work-session discussions on Assessment of Real Property and Social
Services Department for the 1975-76 Fiscal Year Budget.
Mr. Wheeler requested adjournment into executive session to discuss personnel matters.
was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
Motion
Executive Session ended at 4:35 P.M., and motion was made by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley
to adjourn to March 26, 1975 at 4'00 P.M~ Role was called, and motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
None.
Mr. Wood.
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, scheduled for
March 26, 1975, at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building was cancelled by the
Chairman early on the morning of this date with the news media being so notified. This meeting was
adjourned from March 20, 1975.
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March
26, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker,
Jr., and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: Mr. Gordon Lo Wheeler.
Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John,
and Deputy County Attorneys, Frederick Payne and James Bowling. Also present, Assistant County
Planner, Robert Tucker.
The meeting began at 7:39 P.M. with Mr. William Thacker, Vice-Chairman, presiding.
The first item before the Board was discussion of a bond on Four Seasons roads. This matter
was deferred from March 12, 1975. Mr. St. John said a letter has been received from Woodlake
Corporation giving December 31, 1975, as the completion date for the roads. This ~ is unconditional.
If the roads are not finished by that time, the bond will be forfeited. This information will be
sent to the surety, Travelers Insurance Company, to be sure this date is put on the pre-existing
bond.
Mr. Carwile asked if the County has any assurance from the Highway Department that this amount
is sufficient to bring the roads into the system. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant State Highway Engineer,
was present. He said in trying to get an estimate of the costs to bring these roads up to State
standards, it seems the best estimate would come from the man who is proposing to do the work.
Mr. Wood asked what action the Board should now take on this matter. Mr. St. John requested it
be shown :in~:the minutes of the Board that the Board is aware of the present status of the roads and
road bond issue in Four Seasons.