1975-12-18 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 18
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 and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; Deputy County Attorney, James Bowling
and Deputy County Attorney, Frederick Payne.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman and began with The Lord's Prayer.
No. 3. On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Thacker, the minutes of August 20, September 4
and September 10, 1975, were approved with the following corrections: August 20, Page 239, 13th
line, change from "that they had a conflict of interest" to "that the Commonwealth Attorney's Office
had a conflict of interest"; and September 4, Page 291, 13th paragraph, change word "graft" to
"graph". The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: Non~.
ABSENt: Mr. Carwile.
No. 4c. Earlysville Heights Roads. Mr. Charles Perry, Assistant Highway Engineer, said he
had checked the roads in Sections Two and Three of Earlysville Heights Subdivision and found that
the roads do meet State Standards. However, Mr. Dan Barney, an adjoining property owner is concerned
about a cul-de-sac onRidgemont Road not being centered within the easement. This causes no problem
for the Highway .Department, if it causes no problem for the County. Mr. Morris Foster, the engineer,
has said the road is constructed within the easement, but is not centered. Mr. Thacker said he
felt the easament is for the p~rpose of construction and if the road is constructed within the
easement, he can see no problem. Mr. Fisher asked if and when this cul-de-sac is abandoned, if the
road will still be within the easement. Mr. Perry said yes. Mr. Thacker then offered motion to
adopt the following resolution:
~-~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of 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 Engineer, the following
roads in SectionscTwo and Thres~Earlysville Heights Subdivision:
Ridgemont Road - from its intersection with Viewmont to the cul-de-sac
~ppm~im~ely 906,74 feet
Stonefield Circle-from its intersection with Viewmont Road to the
cul-de-sac - approximately 859.74 feet
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 this requested addition as recorded by plats in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 509, page 109; Deed Book 532, page 479.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 4d. Road - Corville Farm. Mr. Perry said he had written to Mr. H. H. Tiffany on October 23,
1975, telling him to request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution to have'this road
taken into the Secondary System. He also brought to Mr. Tif any's attention that he needs to
obtain utility permits for certain utilities which are located within the right-of-way of the road.
He has not received a reply to that letter.
Mr. Humphrey reminded the Board that several months ago they had authorized the County. Attorney
to call the bond placed on these roads, but no action had been taken because Mr. Tiffany had proceeded
to bring the road up to State Standards. Mr. Payne said a suit was filed on the bond, he then was
informed that work was being done and he non-suited action against Mr. Tiffany without prejudice,
however the suit can be brought again if necessary. Mr. Perry suggested that the Board adopt a
resolution accepting the roads into the State system conditioned on the roads being brought up to
standards. Mr. Payne said a resolution might muddy the waters on the bond. It would not keep the
County from collecting the bond, but when the County is in a strong position, this would not help.
Mr. Humphrey said it has been a policy of the Board to have a letter from the developer requesting
that the roads be taken into the system and same has not been received.
Mr. Fisher offered motion that the County Attorney notify Mr. Tiffany that if the road is not
completed and ready for acceptance into the State Secondary System by February 19, 1976, that further
action will be taken to call the bond. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the
following recorded vote: ~
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
4e. Route 637. Mr. Perry said he and Mr. Fisher had met with three people who live on Route
637, Messrs. Hogue, Gallihugh and Rea, concerning rights-of-way and the amount of landbeing taken
from their side of the road. They all feel the right-of-way should be taken 50-50 from both sides of
the road. Mr. Fisher said the Highway Department has been concerned about becoming involved in a
drainage situation. On one side of the road there are big trees and on the other side there are no
houses within 200 yards of the road. The Highway Department is working with the property owners
and Mr. Fisher on this matter and the problem should be r.esolved within two months. Mr. Fisher said
the City Engineer was invited to join in these discussions, but said h~ would leave this matter to
the Count~'~s discretion.
12-18-75
No. 4f. Request to have roads in Hollymead taken into the State System. (Mr. Carwile abstaining
during the following discussion.) Mr. Perry said he had reviewed the roads and found.them to be
built in accordance with State Standards and had so stated in a letter dated October 17, 1975.
Mr. Bailey said sewer lines are now being installed in the .streets at Hollymead and asked ~if
the Highway Department~has received easements for this installation. Mr. Perry said he understands
the developers of Hollymead want to have the roads taken into the system now and then obtain permits
for installation of sewer lines from the Highway Department. Mr. Perry said he has looked at the
overall, plan.. Quite a number of lines are shown either in t.he pavement or parallel to the pavement
but through more study, the layout could be improved to keep. these cuts to a minimum. Mr. Bailey
said he understands that contracts for construction have already been let. Mr. Henley said he under-
stands that the Ii. ne will be run down the road and for every house that wants to hook on, the pavement
will have to be cut. He did not think this is a good idea. Mr. Perry said he has made this statement
to the developer, but the Highway Department has no control until the roads are taken in. Then.the
Highway Department must approve the location of the line as long as it is within the 60 foot right of
way. Mr. Thacker asked the date the Highway Department will accept the roads. Mr. Perry said it
would be approximately one month before a route number is officially assigned. At that time, a
permit could be issued.
Mr. Bailey asked what would prevent the contractor from locating the lines during that time.
Mr. Humphrey said approval of the lines is subject to review by the County Engineer's Office. Mr.
Bailey said these plans we're reviewed several months ago. Mr. Wheeler said the developer should
have been notified at that ti~e that the lines were not correct. Mr. Henley said he understands the
problem can be taken care of by stubbing off of the line. Mr. Wheeler asked that the County Engineer
be called to the meeting. He said it is not fair to approve the. developer's plans and then ~at a
later date object. '~Mr. Carwile returned to the meeting at this time.)
No. 4a. Request to have Woodbrook Roads - Section 9 - taken into the State System.
Mr. Perry said the roads are ready to be taken into the system. Mr. Wood offered motion
reaffirming action taken by the Board on November 20, 1975, with the stipulation that the previous
motion on the bond remain in effect until the sewer problem in Section 9 is corrected and the roads
in Section 10 are taken into the system. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 4b. Request to have roads in Hessian Hills and Four Seasons taken into the Secondary System.
(Letter requesting these additions was received from the developer, Mr. Daley Craig.)
Mr. Perry said he had reviewed these roads and there are still minor items to be corrected. Mr.
Carwile asked if the Board should adopt a resolution conditioned upon final approval being given by
the Resident Highway Engineer. Mr. Payne sai~ this is the same situation as that previously discussed
on Corville Farm. The matter was ordered carried over.
No. 4g. Restricted Roads policy. Mr~ Carwile said the committee formed to study this matter
hadtalked with representatives of' the Highway Department in Culpeper and the Highway Department has
tentatively agreed to standards as set out in the July t7, 1975, minutes of the Board and adopted by
the Board on August 15, 1975. The only changes made in that version were refinement of items in
Appendix E referring to base and pavement design criteria. These standards will eliminate the use of
restzictedroads as the County has known them except in limited situations where it would not be
practical, to.build roads to ~state standards. This would' also permit restricted roads in commerciaI
situations where there is a cul-de-sac or loop street and where roads do not tie into a sta~e road.
Mr.. Carwile_then offered motion to adopt the following standards for roads, same to be made a part of
the.Albemarle County Land Subdivsiion and Development. Ordinance:
APPENDIX A
POLICY AND DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION ~STREETS TO ~UALIFY FOR ADDITION TO STATE SEDONDARY ROAD SYSTEM.
Purpose:
In order to provide a program of continuing maintenance for subdivision streets created
~under the Subdivision regulations of Albemarle County and assure uniform standards of~
design and construction as a guide for the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission,
Developers and Engineers, the following policy and design standards are adopted for
subdivision streets to qualify for addition to the State Secondary Road System:
Section 1:
1-1
1-3
Section 2:
2-1
GENERAL POLICY: The general policy of the Board of Supervisors ahall be:
Ail streets which are required to be approved under the subdivision regulations shall be
designed and constructed pursuant to standards which would make them eligible for addition
to the State Secondary System for maintenance.
That the design standards he-flexible enough to encourage meandering of residential streets
with curves and grades to fit the terrain and with as little emphasis on grade and aliginnent
requirements as necessary, so as to reduce residential develoPment costs, preserve natural
vegetation and discourage high traffic speeds.
That the safety aspects of the design and construction of the facility is not reduced.
SPECIFIC POLICY. The following design standards, both as to geometrics and base and
pavement design and other.requirements are established as minimums for subdivision streets:
Current highway department policy does not provide for acceptance of streets in commercial
subdivision developments in cases of dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets which do~ not
interconnect with other state maintained roads or provide a genuine public ~ervice. In
approving commercial subdivis~os of this nature, lhe boa=d may make special exceptions to
allow such subdivisions to be approved with "owners maintenance agreements" to provide for
road maintenance, however, all design and construction standards specified herein shall be
adhered to in all cases. Such streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance~
with 2-2 and 2-3 following. See Section 3-1 for standard form of owners agreement~'o
12-18-75
2-2
2-3
· 1~- 18r~75
. 4Z3
For subdivision streets with dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop streets having a known and fixed
vehicular demand not exceeding 250 vehicles per day and when there is absolutely no possibility
of the streets being extended the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design specifiec
in Section 3-2 shall apply.
For all other subdivision streets, the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design
specified Section 3-3 shall apply.
2-4
2~5
2-6
2-7
2-8
Section 3:
3-1
3-1-1
3-2-1
3-2-2
3-2-3
3-2-4
3-2-5
3-2-6
3-2-7
3-2-8
3-2-9
· 3-3-1
3-3-2
For "Townhouse" streets the minimum standards for pavements and geometric design specified
in Section 3-4 shall apply.
Subdivision streets which do not connect directly to present state maintained roads will only
be approved with "owners maintenance agreements" requirements specified in 2-1 above to provide
for private maintenance of all streets within the subdivision. Such streets shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with 2-3 or 2-4 above.
Private "Access easements" may be approved only in such instances when other access to subdivid~
lots or tracts is impractical or impossible. The number of lots, tracts or parcels served by
a single "private access easement" shall be limited to no more than two, providing a minimum
width of no less than 20 feet for each parcel served.
Bonds required for all roads approved 2-2 and 2-3 above shall be furnished in accordance with
current policy of the Board of Supervisors.
Streets~ constructed under this policy will be recommended for acceptance in the secondary syste~
by adoption of a suitable resolution at such time as they are brought to proper standards and
found that they are open to the general use of the public and provide a genuine public service.
STANDARDS OF DESIGN. There are many variations of design which may be used to fit local
conditions. Ail reasonable requests for variations will~e'~referred to the Virginia Department
of Highways for consideration.
The following constitute minimum standards for design of subdivision streets in Albemarle Count]
(For the purposes of determining the traffic usage (VPD) on subdivision streets each family
unit should be multiplied by seven):
Standard form for "owner's maintenance agreement" for streets not eligible for secondary road
maintenance.
The roadway shown on the attached plat is a restricted road, the maintenance of which shall not
be the responsibility of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Albemarle, or any other
public body. Maintenance of the said roadway shall be the responsibility of the owners of lots
abutting thereon, each.of whom shall be responsible for his pro rata share of such maintenance.
Assessments for such maintenance shall be made whenever a majority of the owners of lots abuttir
on the said roadway deem necessary, and such assessments shall constitute a lien on all lots
from the time of such assessments until paid.
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS, DEAD-ENDS, CUL-DE-SAC OR LOOP STREETS WITH
FIXED VEHICULAR DEMAND NOT EXCEEDING 250 VPD (CLASS A)
Pavement width and right-of-way shall be:
(a)
Without curb and gutter - 20 ft. minimum with 4 ft. shoulder in cut, 5 ft. shoulder in
fill and 40 ft. minimum right-of-way (See Section 3-6)
(b)
With curb .and gutter - 24 ft. minimum curb to curb with 40 ft. minimum right-of-way and
parking prohibited (See Section 3-6)
Base and pavement design shall conform to Section 3-5.
Maximum degree of curvature shall be 37 degrees or a minimum center line radius of 155 ft.
(See Section 3-6)
Maximum percent of street grade shall be 15% (See Section 3-6)
Minimum stopping sight distance shall be 200 ft. (Except at street intersections, 400 ft.
sight distance must be maintained) (See Section 3-6)
Off street parking required for 2 vehicles per residence, with or without curb and gutter.
The use of right angle intersections with minimum 50 ft. radius on pavement returns required.
Where curb and gutter is used a 35 ft. radius will be required on curb returns, measured to
face of curb.
An 80 ft. pavement diameter shall be provided at the termini of dead-end or cul-de-sac streets.
Where curb and gutter is used an 80 ft. diameter shall be maintained between face of curbs.
Drainage facilities, structures, conduits, etc., including drainage easements are to be designed
in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by the Virginia
Department of Highways. Pave ditches will not be required where ditch line velocity does not
exceed 3.5 FPS.. Where ditch line velocities are between 3.5 FPS and 5.0 FPS jute matting or
other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where ditch line velocities exceed
5.0 FPS paved ditches will be required. Additional paved ditches may be required upon final
inspection where w~rranted due to soil conditions.
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION STREETS OTHER THAN DEAD-END, CUL-DE-SAC.OR LOOP STREETS
AND THOSE WITH VEHICULAR DEMAND EXCEEDING 250 VPD~
Pavement width and right-of-way shall conform to Section 3-6.
Base and pavemenn design shall conform to Section 3-5.
3-3-3 Degree of curvature, percent grade and stopping sight distance shall conform to Section 3-6.
12-18-75
3-3-4
3-4
3-4-1
3-4-2
3-4-3
3-4-4
3-4-5
3-4-6
3-4-7
3-4-8
3-4-9
3-4-10
3-5
3-5-1
3-5-2
3-5-3
3-5-3(a)
Drainage facilities, structures, conduits, etc., including drainage easements are to be
designed in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by
the Virginia Department of Highways. Paved ditches will not be required where ditch
line velocity does not exceed 3.5 FPS. Where ditch line velocities are between 3.5 FPS and
5.0 FPS jute matting or other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where
ditch line velocities exceed 5.0 FPS paved ditches will be required. Additional paved ditches
may be required upon final inspection where warranted due to soil conditions.
MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR TOWNHOUSE STREETS.
Townhouse streets must be a dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop road within a townhouse complex.
The maximum vehicular demand shall not exceed 3,000 VPD.
Pavement width and right-of-way shall conform to Section 3~6.
Base pavement design shall conform to Section 3-5.
Degree of curvature, percent grade and stopping distance shall conform to Section 3-6.
Parking bays are permitted along such streets, arranged in such manner that vehicles may not
back into public thoroughfare. Off-street parking shall provide not less than 2 spaces per
unit when combined with on-street spaces.
The use of right angle intersections with minimum 35 ft. radius curb returns is encouraged.
An 80 ft. pavement diameter shall be provided at the termini of dead-end or cul-de-sac streets.
Private entrances shall be space at least 50 ft. apart.
Drainage facilities, structures, conduits, etc., including drainage easements are to be designed
in accordance with criteria contained in the "Drainage Manual" adopted by the Virginia
Department of Highways. Paved ditnhes will not be required where ditch line velocity does not
exceed 3.5 FPS. Where ditch line velocities are between 3.5 FPS and 5.0 FPS jute matting
or other approved methods may be used to stabilize ditches. Where ditch line velocities exceed
5.0 FPS paved'~ditches will be required. Additional paved ditches may be required upon final
inspection where warranted due to soil conditions.
BASE AND 'PAVEMENT DESIGN CRITERIA
Gmneral: For design purposes, subdivision and townhouse streets have been divided into five
traffic volume categories as follows:
Category I Up to 250 vehicles per day
Category II - 251 to 400 vehicles per day
Category III - 401 to 750 vehicles per day
Category IV - 751 to 3,000 vehicles per day
Category V ~ 3,001 or more vehicles per day
Typical pavement designs for each traffic volume category are included. These are to be used
as a guide. Combinations other than those given may be used. Pavement designs should fit
local conditions.
In cases where the traffic volume is near the upper limit for any traffic category, consideratio~
should be given to using the design of the next higher category.
Local materials that normally would be considered unsatisfactory for use in construction may
be acceptable when stabilized with a stabilizing agent such as cement or lime.
Specifications for all materials can be found in the current Virginia Department of Highways'
Road and Bridge Specifications, or appropriate supplemental specifications.
"The Virginia Method of Determining CBR Values" is to be used to determine the bearing value of
the soils. Details as to this method may be obtained from any Virginia Department of Highways'
District Office or the Central Office in Richmond.
Surface Courses: Prime and double seal surface treatment and bituminous concrete plant-mixed
surfaces should be in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways~ Specifications~and
Standards. Equivalent thickness of bituminous concrete in lieu of prime and double seal would
be prime with cover material and 100 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S~5.
BASE COURSES
Aggregate base course materials should comply with the Virginia Department of Highways' current
Road and Bridge Specificiations.
These are of two types and various sizes as shown below:
Type I - Aggregate base material (crushed material o~.,ly). Aggregate Size Nos. 21, 21-A, or 22.
Type II - Aggregate base material (crushed or uncrushed material).
Nos. 21, 21-A, or 22.
Aggregate Size
When aggregate base material, Type I, is specified, the comrser grading aggregate Nos. 20,
21, or 21-A are preferable.
When aggregate base material, Type II, is;~specified, aggregate size Nos. 21 or 21-A should
be selected when a commercial material is provided.
When it is intended to stabilize a local material with cement, approximately 8% by volume
should be used. When lime is the stabilizing agent, approximately 4% by weight should be usedL
In all cases, however, representative samples of the material should be submitted for test
~n H~rm~ rhp nnrr~nt n~rnmntm~ of stabilizin~ ament.
12-18-75
3-5-4
3,5-5
3-5-6
3-5-6(a)
3-5-6(c)
Cement or Lime Stabilized Subgrade: Several of the designs show lime or cement stabilized
subgrade. This is highly desirable when feasible. When not feasible, and equal or greater
depth of base material should be provided.
When cement stabilized subgrade is recommended, approximately 10% by volume should be used.
When lime is the stabilizing agent, approximately 5% by weight should be used. In all cases,
however, representative samples of the soil should be submitted for test.
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement: Where it is anticipated that the traffic will include a
high percentage of heavy axle load vehicles, a six-inch depth of subbase material stabilized
with approximately 4% cement by weight will be required.
Where the subgrade support soil has a CBR value of less than 10, a four-inch depth of subbase
manerial will be required. As an alternate, the top six inches of subgrade shall be stabilized
with cement or lime. Approximate percentages are shown under 3-5-4.
The concrete shall be Class A-3 paving concrete according to the current Virginia Department
of Highways' Road and Bridge Specifications or appropriate supplemental specifications. The
concrete pavement shall be plain portland cement concrete with maximum transverse joint spacing~
of 20 feet.
Designs
Category I:
Up to 250 vehicles per day
CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater
(1)
Base - 6 inches aggregate base material 21 or 21-A.
Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous
concrete.
(2)
Base - 6 inches soil cement stabilized (natural soil or borrow).
Surface - Curing agent and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous
concrete.
(3)
4 inches cement or lime stabilized subgrade.
Base - 3 inches aggregate base material.
SUrface Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete
(4) 5 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase.
(5)
Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 1 inch,- bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
Category II:
251 to 400 vehicles per day.
BR value of subgrade 10 or greater
(1)
Base - 8 inches aggregate base material 21 or 21-A.
Surface Prime.-and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete
(2)
6 inches cement stabilized subgrade.
Base - 3 inches aggregate base material.
Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete
(3)
6 inches local base material stabilized with cement.
Surface - Curing agent and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous
concrete.
(4) 5 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase.
(5)
Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 1 inch~bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
~ategory III:
401 to 750 vehicles per day
CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater
(1)
6 inches cement stabilized subgrade.
Base - 3 inches aggregate base material.
Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete
(2)
6 inches lime stabilized subgrade.
Base - 4 inches aggregate base material.
Surface - Prime and double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete
(3)
Base - 10 inches local aggregate base.
Top 6 inches stabilized_with cement.
Surface - Curing agent a~d_double seal or equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous
connrete.
(4)
4 inches local aggregate base.
Base - 4 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 1 inch bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
('5)
Base - 10 inches aggregate base material.
Surface - Prime and double seal or-equivalent thickness of plant-mixed bituminous concrete.
(6) 6 inches plain portland cement concrete. No subbase.
3-5-6(d) Category IV:
751 to 3,000 vehicles per day
CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater
(1)
6 inches cement stabilized subgrade.
Base - 4 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Surface'- 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
(2)
(3)
6 inches lime stabilized subgrade.
Base - 5 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
10 inches local material.
Top 6 inches stabilized with cement.
Surface - 220 po~nds~:bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
(4)
6 inches .local material.
Base - 5 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
(5)
Subbase 8 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Base - 275 pounds bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
(6)
7 inches plain portland cement concrete.
3 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
3-5-6(e) Category V:
3,001 or more Vehicles per day.
CBR value of subgrade 10 or greater.
(1)
6 inches cemenn stabilized subgrade.
Subbase - 5 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 165 poundS:hitu~inousccancrete, iType~?S~.4>or~:S~5.
(2)
6 inches lime stabilized subgrade.
Subbase - 6 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
(3)
Subbase - 12 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
Base - 350 pounds (3 inches) bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 165 pounds bituminous concrete, TypesetS-4 or S-5.
(4)
(5)
7 inches plain portland cement concrete.
4 inches aggregate subbase or base material.
6 inches local material.
Base - 6 inches bituminous concrete, Type B-1 or B-3.
Surface - 220 pounds bituminous concrete, Type S-4 or S-5.
3-5-7
When the anticipated vehicles per day exceed 5,500, a four-lane facility is normally required.
Therefore, the total traffic volume would be 80% in each direction. This figure would then
be used for the traffic category design.
3-5-8
Subgrade support soils, immediately under the pavement structure, with CBR values less than 10,
will require an additional 6 inches of subbase, base or select material. In lieu of this,
the CBR value of the subgrade soil may be improved to a minimum~value of 10, by other methods.
3-5-9
the subgrade.
SECTION 3-6: ~ GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS ~
CLASS A - Subdivision s~eets Wi~k Dead-end, cul-de-sac or loop: street with fixed vehiculia~ demand not exceeding 250
CLAs~ B - Subdi~ision s~reets oChe~ ~han dead-end, =ul~dekSaC' or loop s~teet and with vehicular demand exceedin§ 2~0 VPD
CLASS C - Townhouse stree~; ~i~h 'dead-end, cul-de-sao or Zoop st;ee~ ~i~h iixed, v~hicula; demand hOC exceedtn§ 3°000 VPD
Sufficient CBR tests should be run to determine the true support value of the various soils in
~PD . PAVEMENT .. MINIMUM BASE AND ' DESIGN" MAXIMUM MAXIMUM MINIMUM WIDTH
WIDTH ' ' WIDTH. PAVEMENT SPEED DEGREE PERCENT STOPPING
· R/W · DESIGN (MPH) OF OF SIGHT · SHOULDER
· (Appendix-D") . . CURVATURE GRADE DISTANCE . .
~W/O . " W/O . ' MAX SIN ' ' "] FILL CUT
0-250 20' 24'(4) 40' 40' Cat. I 35 ZS. 15§'R ' 15%, 200' 5'
0-250. 20' 30' (2) 40' 40' at... 5'
251-400 36' (2) 50' 40' Cat. II . ' · 35 i 25 26' .30' 12l ' 200'
401-750 36' (2) 60' 50 : Cat. III .' 40 30 I4" 200'
751-3000 i~ 44~(3) i 60' 50' cat. IV ,5 ' 8~ ' 8% 275" 8' 6'
· , 76' (3) 80' .-. ,
0-250 30' (2) 40" . Ca~. '~ ~ ' 25' 37° 12%' 200.
4Z? .....
(1) Parking on one side only
(2) Parking on one side only and off-street parking required
(3) No parking restMictions
(4) No parking permitted
(5) At street intersections - 400 feet stopping distance
(6) Required horizontal sight distance
Mr. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, said two sets of these standards have been submitted
to the Culpeper Highway Office, but no official word has been~received as of this datelas tQ wh~ther
these standards have been accepted. Mr. Carwile noted that with the adoption of these standards,
these roads will now becomepart of the State Highway System and eliminate restricted roads except
in cases where because of topography and economics it would not be feasible to have same.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried.by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None..
No. 4f. Hollymead Roads. (Mr. Carwile abstaining). Mr. Wheeler ~aid that during discussion
of this matter earlier, a question had arisen concerning placement of sewer lines. He asked if
the~e.plans were approved by the County Engineer. Mr. Ashley Williams said the construction plans,
as presented to him, have bee~"approved. Actual construction has not beg~n.~ If the roads are
taken into the system, the developer wi%l have to obtain permits from the Highway Department to dig
up the road to install these lines. Mr. Henley asked if the location of the lines follows the
natural drainage. Mr. Williams said yes. Mr. Thacker/with recommendations of the Highway Department.
asked if approval was in accordance
Mr. Williams said he was not conferring with the Highway department at that time. Mr. Thicker said
he thought the Highway Department had made comments on the design.
Mr. Wheeler said complaints should hav~ been registered at the .time these planswere approved.
Mr. Henley said there is no problem in installing' the lines if .the developer will agree to stub out
the .connections to the line.
~R~ry said he has talked with Mr. James Hill about these, plans' and understands ~h~'t Mr..
Hill wants the roads taken into the system. If this is done, ~the Highway Department may be able to
correct plans on the part not already constructed.
Mr. Wheeler suggested that this matter be deferred until after lunch, at which time ~.~ Hurt
will be present.
Not Docketed: Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, was present and read the following letter
concerning Route 684 (Mint Springs Ro~d) into the record:
"December 16, 1975
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Attention: Mr. John L. Humphrey
Route 684
Project: 0684-002-159,C501
Albemarle County
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
We are-in the process ~f finalizing the plans for right of way on the above project.
Inreviewing the files, I cannot find any positive commitment from the County .with
regard to acquiring the right of way necessary and for the adjustment of utilities.
When the project was initially conceived, it was my understanding tha~ the. County
would bear the cost of right of way and utilities. It is necessary that I obtain a
statement to this effect before we can proceed as planned. If it is not the intent
of the County to participate to this extent we will have to determine cost respon-
sibility and get additional information in order that a determination can be made
with regard to Federal participation.
Please advise me as soon as possible if it is still the intent of the County to
acquire the right of way and pay for the utility adjustments on this project.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
R. G.. Warner
Resident Engineer"
~r. Humphrey said it has always been anticipated that the County would become involved in.obtain-
ing rights-of-way, because the Highway Department~ had stated that ther~ would be no money available
fog.~this. However, this letter now implies that funds may be available. Mr. Henley asked if the
~Albemarle County Serv%ce Authority has given any estimate for relocating their utilities. Mr.
Humphrey said the Planning Department has been w~iting for ~inal plans on the project before trying
to arrive at any estimate for cost of the work required. Mr. Ray Jones said water lines going into
the old filter plant'must be relocated. Mr. Henley asked if there are any Federal funds available
for a project of this type. Mr. Perry said he and Mr. Fisher had' met with the staff of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission in reference to bicycle trails in the park an~ one of the
concerns~expressed was that there not be any delay of this ~project. If the Highway Department goes
back for Federal funds, there is no way to tell how far back this would set the project.
Mr. Fisher said he thought when Mint Springs Park was developed, there had been an expression
on the part of Board members that this road would be widened. The only question at this time is how
this will be accomplished~ He asked if the Highway Department was requesting a guarantee~fromthe
CounDy, that fundswill be made-available for acquisition of rights of way or a statement that the
County will go through the procedure to obtain these rights of ~ayj Mr. Perry said they need some
12-18-75
pay for this project. He asked that the Board adopt a resolution requesting the staff to arrive at
an estimate of the project and to bring that report to the Board in January. Mr. Henley offered
motion to this effect.. The~motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile ~and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 4i. Mr. Thacker thanked the Highway Department for erecting signs at the intersection of
Routes 627 and 727.
Mr. Henley asked that a sign be erected on 1/2 mile Branch Road from Greenwood to Yancey's
Mill. He said this is a dangerous intersection.
No. 7. Public Hearing to amend and re-enact the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 2, Article 10,
Section 2-53 entitled "EqualiZation of_Pay of Certain Boards and Commissions" to include the Soil
Erosion Advisory Board. Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on
December 3 and December 9, 1975.
~No one from the public spoke for or against adoption of this ordinance. Motion was then offered
by Mr. Thacker seconded by Mr. Wood, amending and re-enacting Section 2-53 of the Albemarle COunty
Code to include:theSoil Erosion Advisory Board in this section. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
.N~B~MOcketed. On motion by Mr.. Henley, seconded by Mr.. Fisher, the Clerk was ordered to advertise
for a public hearing on January 15, 1976, the following items.
10:00 A.M. - An ordinance amending and reenacting Section 2-4 of the Albemarle~County Code
known as tbe Planning Commission Ordinance so as to delete compensation for theBoard of Supervisors
member serving on the Planning Commission.
10:15 A.M. - An ordinance to eliminate compensation for the Board of Supervisors member who
serves on the Albemarle County Welfare Board to be known as Section'2-59 of the Albemarle County
Code.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 5. Other 'matters, not onthe agenda, from the publi'c.~ Mr. Joe Birckhead, Electrical Contractor
said he was present t~ present the following petition. "This is to certify, that we, the under-
signed electrical contractors doing business within the County of Albemarle, do hereby petition the
Board of Supervisors relative to the two following points which will, among other points of concern,
reduce the costs for electrical work to the good citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) Reduce presently exorbitant electrical permit~ fees and bring them more into line with those
of other governmental bodies across the Commonwealthof Virginia.
2) Allow electrical contractors to order their permits by telephone and to pay for them by the
tenth of the following month, thus saving much "human energy" as well as a fast 'declining natural
resource -- oil." (signed by 18 electrical contractors in Albemarle County.)
Mr. Birckhead ~a~d the Board would recognize from the signatures on the petition that a good
majority of the electrical contractors in the County are represented. He said there was important
point he wanted to emphasize. Not a person contacted during the limited period inwhich the petition
was signed objected to signing. In fact, most wanted to add numerous complaints against the electrical
inspections department and he listed those complaints:
1) A general disenchantment with National Electrical Code interpretation methods of administering
inspection services and an overall lack of consideration and application of good old horse sense by
the electrical inspectors, particularly Melvin R. Bishop.
2) Resentment~ toward the reinspection charges of $10.00 each and the inspectors methods of
applying this.
3) A true inconsistency in, applying the rules and administering the inspections department.
4) The high-handed and Napolean like a~ti~ude of the electrical inspectors.
5) Too~much time spent with do-it-your-selfers resulting in bona fide contractors suffering.
6) Comparison of permit fees~. As an example, $15.00 worth of electrical work in the City of
Charlottesville or in Roanoke would cost the contractor $1.00. In Albemarle it costs $10.00, mlmost
as much as~ the work. In Abingdon or Staunton, up to $50.00 in work, costs nothing. $300-$400 of
work in Charlottesville or Roanoke costs $15.00 and $14.00 respectively. In Augusta County up to
$500.00 for $7.50, yet in Albemarle the permit fee is $36.00, almost five times as much as Augusta
County and three times that of Roanoke. Moving up the scale, to large electrical jobs, the comparison
is more ridiculous.
Mr. Wheeler said some of these remarks havealready~been brought to his attention.~ Early in
1976 the incoming Board will have to take a serious look at the inspections department and at these
fees, and hopefully, the contractors will be given a chance at some type of public hearing to voice
their comments.
Mr. Thacker said when the County.adopted the Statewide'Uniform Building Code, under mandate.
from~the State, it was felt, and it is still his feeling, that the fees from these inspections should
offset the costs of the department. He said the fees were set on an arbitrary basis and were to be
~County,~-notonly with the electrical contractors, the general contractors, and the other subs that
are involved with inspections but also with the citizena, of the County.
Mr. Fisher maid he has heamd considerable dissatisfaction with the way the electrical inspections
program has been handled and he. thinks it needs to be reviewed. He did not think this .could be done
betweennow~and the first of the year. Mr. Henley aaid he has already expressed a desire to review
the operations of this department.
Mr.~. Wheeler said he would happy to support a resolution requesting the new Board to put th~s on
the docket and enter into discussions onthis at the earliest moment.
Mr. Thacker offered motion that the Board of Supervisors, as soon after the first of the year
as possible, hold a public hearing to discuss the entire ir~spections procedure. Mr, Carwile offered
second and said it would be advisable for the County Executive to confer with Mr. Clarke with respect
to some of the things mentioned this morning. Some of theme items may be corrected administratively.
At this time, role was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES: Messrs. Ca~wile,~ Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wheeler.
NAYS: .None.
ABSENT:,~ Mr. Wood.
No. ~11. James R. W~yte, Deer Run Road Bond. Mr. Humphrey said the County is presently holding
a band in the amount of $950.00, in the form of a certified check dated July 15, 1969.. This road
was built prior to the subdivision plat being submitted. An estimate was wade of how much it would
cost to bring the road into the State system and $950 was the estimate.~ The road did not qualify
for acceptance until the last two years. There are now five houses in the subdivision.
Mr. Perry said he has made an inspection of t~e road since the November meeting. ~Ther~ is
quite a bit of pavement repair and other corrections to be made before the road will qualify to ~be
taken into the State system.
Mr. Whyte was present. He asked if it is necessary thai the road be taken into the State system
at this time.. Mr. Wheeler said the road will have to t~aken in at some time. Mr~ Whyte said he
thought the bond would cover the cost of this work. Mr. Humphrey said it ~ould have covered th~ cost
at the time the bond was posted, but Mr. Perry has said it will not cover the ~ost of repairs at
thfs time. Mr. Wheeler said the bond does not relieve the developer of his responsibility for having
the road taken into the system. Mr~ Whyte asked what specificiations he is to use for this ~oad.
Mr. Perry said he would give this advise.
Mr. Thacker asked how many houses have been constructed. Mr. Whyte said five. Mr.. Thacker
asked how~many lots are contained in the subdivision~ Mr. Whyte said his mother owns six more lots.
Mr. Thacker said the Board, in the past, has had a policy that in similar situations a building
permit moratoriumbe imposed until such time as the .road is ready to take into the system. Mr.
Wheeler suggested that this matter be-carried over to January for a up-dated report.
M~. Whyte said he.has talked with the property owners and they do not want the road taken into
the State system feeling this will raise their taxes.. However, he said if this is necessary, now
seems the time to proceed~ Mr. Wheeler ~ol~Mr. Whyte he cannot build o~n' the vacant lots unless the
road is taken into the system. County ordinances require that this be a state-maintained road. The
discussion ended at-this point and the Clerk was ordered to place this matter on the agenda for
Jan~mry 15, 1976.
No. 12, John Moore, Site Plan, Pine Haven. Mr. Wheeler said this matter was brought to th~
Board by a letter from Mr. Moore asking for relief of one comdition~placed on this site plan by.the
Planning Commission on May 5, 1975. That condition reads: "(4) Drainage problems to be worked out
between the City of Charlottesville and the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Plarmimg Staff.
If it is not resolved, the plan must be brought back to the Planning Commission."
Mr. Humphrey said the condition was placed because of drainage leaving the area of this site
plan and traversing an area which is in the City. The pipe under the present road in Nomini Hills,
which should take care of potential runoff from this si~te and that of Fountain Court Apartments is
too small. Mr. Humphrey said his office has a booklet of information on the drainage problem which
goes back through rezoning procedures and app~roval of the F~ountain Court site.
Mr. Moore was present. He has t~lkedwith the CityEngineer. The City will not contribute
anything toward alleviating the problem andneither will the State High~ay Department. Mr. Moore
said he does not feel he should pay the total cost ~of correcting the drainage problem, but is willing
to pay his sharer
Also present was Mr. Bill Ely, City Engineer_. He .said .the Cityiis interested in the flooding
which ~ccurs in.this area.~ The pipe size was designed for Nomini Hills ~when ~the area was all
single-family '~residential. In 1969, when Fountain Court Apartments were designed, the Cit.y objected,
saying the pipe-was n~t adequate, There is ap~proximately 334 feet of pipe which needs to be
replaced, and the City does not want the problem compounded further.
Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Moore the aer~ag~om~_i~.~ite plan and his plans for same. M~. ~Moor~
said it is about 2.2 acres and he plans to build seven duplexes (14 dwellings units). Mr. Wheeler
asked how many units there are in Fountain Court. Mr. Humphrey said there are over 100. Mr. Wheeler
said ~e ~blem should have been corrected when Fountaim Court was approved and did notfeel Mr.
Moore should'be expected to correct the total problem, Mr. Mumphrey said efforts were made to get
cooperation from the City at the timeFountain Court w~s approved. At that time, the County did not
have the legal authority to requir~ off-~site drainage improvements. Now, the site plan ordinance
says that consideration shall be given to off-site drainage.
Mr.. Bailey said~the problem is~ not ~ust at the first culver~t on Denise L~ne but ext~ends through
the next odeveiopment,~Greenbrier. Mr. Wheeler said this problem ~ill ~ot be resolved b~ denying Mr.
Moore the use of his lando~ Mr. Bailey said it is not customary to design beyond the ten year atorm
period for highway work. The rains the last few years have bee~ extraordinarily heavy. Mr. Thacker
said the site plan shows a ~paved gutter from the site which feeds ~nto an existing drainage ditch
and then tieing into a 24" pipe and then all of that tieing into an existing-24" pipe in Greenbrier.
He asked if the Planning Commission intendedthat Mr. Moore increase the pipe size above his property
12-18- 75
Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, said the Planning Commission's condition is enforceable.
There is now a statute which allows each developer to payhis pro-rata share of drainage problems
after a drainage plan is made.by the locality. Mr. Henley asked if this could be retroactive.. Mr.
Bowling said no, it has to be. doneas each plan comes for approval. Mr. Wood said part of this~
problem was created when Greenbrier Subdivision was built.~many years ago. He did not think the
Board can now require Mr. Moore, who owns 2+ acres to go in and carrect all of the problems. Mr.
Bowling said it may not be fair, but the Board can require this as a condition of approval.
Mr. Thacker asked if the staff had any ~oblems with the drainage indicated on the site plan-for
Pine Haven~ Mr, Humphrey said it has been reviewed by the County Engineering Department and he
thought the drainage from Fountain Court was taken into consideration. Mr.~ Henley asked if there was
anyway to m~a~e each adjacent owner participate in correction of the .drainage problem.. Mr. Humphrey
said he did not feel the°Board could go back. ·
Mr.. Fisher said he realizes the dilmmna. But, because no ground work was done on Fountain Court,
is it reasonable to say there is no responsibility to the adjacent property owners for additional
work that is done? Someone will have to make.improvements or property owners downstream in the
war rshed will suffer property damage. He asked how the Board could set up a bond provision now for
correction of this problem or any future.development that occurs from this point.. Mr.. Humphrey said
a watershed analysis must be made for runoff from potential developments. From that apro-~ata ~
share for an escrow fund can be determined so each developer will know his share of the cost. Mr.
Fisher said he wonders how the Board can decide what Mr. Moore's.pro-rata share should be, how it
will be administered and how ultimately it will be used to correct the problem. Mr. Humphrey said
it should be based on a total valuation of the cost of ~the drainage system on a per acre basis.~o Mr.
Fisher said the part that has already been developed and for which there is no bond will eventually
become public responsibility. If development im allowed to continue without bonding, it will all
become public responsiblity. Mr.: Humphrey said there was flooding even before Fountain_Court was
developed and the problem is being compounded.~ Mr. Carwile asked how much of the watershed is
undeveloped. Mr. Humphrey said it is a small amount.
Mr. Bailey noted that in this year's county budget, the County Engineer had requested personnel
to examine and compute the matters which are under discussion. That request was denied, but possibly
this should be included in the next budget.
Mr. Thacker said this drainage area starts in Wakefield, goes through Fountain Court, ~thro~gh
this subdivision (Pine Haven), through Nomini Hills, into Greenbrier and on further. He asked where
the responsibility stops. He said it seems to be reasonable to zequire-this developer to provide
adequate drainage for any water flowing through his property, but he does not feel the Board should
require Mr. Moore to go off-site to correct a problem which was created a number of years ago° Mr.
Fisher said this Board has worked out an off-site drainage problem on a shopping center which is now~
under construction. If the Board does not begin at some point, then the total cost of correcting
the drainage will fall to the public and h~ said that seems to be the only alternative; whether ~this
should be a pro-rata share as the property is ~deveLoped or whether this will be borne by the public
at large.
Mr. Wheeler su§gested that the staff work out a pro-rata share, notify Mr. Moore of his share
and if it is agreeable, bond, and let him proceed. Mr. Thacker said the Board should establish
parameters. This drainage continues .all the way downstream to Meadow Creek. Mr.,. Henley said Mr.
Moore should be concerned with everything that is above his property, or the amount of water that
will come off his property. Mr. Wood said the Board should state this now so ~Mr. Moore can proceed.
He has b6en trying to work this out since early summer and has stated at every Planning Commission
meeting that he will pay his pro-rata share. Mr. Humphrey said since the runoff from this property
effects properties in the City, maybe the City Public Works Department should hold the.bond until
such time as the total system is revamped. Mr. Carwile asked when the City envisions doing this
work. Mr, Ely said the City is presently making a drainage survey of the entire City. This should
be completed'by February. Although', it is not presently funded, it may be funded in the next year's
budget.
Mr. Wood then offered motion that the..Board-of Supervisors~approve the site plan for Pine
Haven. Duplexes as approved bythe Plann.Cng Commission but with the elimination of condition
4 as imposed by the Planning Commission, the following condition to be substituted therefore:
(4) Applicant to post bond satisfactory to the Director of Planning in an amount adequate
to provide for drainage of surface water from the subject property, such bond to be calculated
on the basis of the proportionate share of the subjec~t property in contributing to the total
surface water runoff of the subject propert~y and all undeveloped land upstream in the watershed.
The foregoing motion ~was seconded by Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker asked if the Board intended this
bond covering costs of improving the problem to Meadow Creek? Mr. Carwile said no. Mr. Thacker
said he agreed but felt the Board should establish that limit at this time. Mr. Wood asked Mr. ~
Ely how long ~it will take the City to complete the study.and do the work. ~Mr. Ely said he did not
know-.~ Ail of the problems in the City will be rated. These repairs will probably cost two million
dollars and he did not think that much money will be appropriated anytime soon, Mr. Humphrey said
Mr. Moore's contribution should be for the water as it enters his property and as it leaves the
property; what it takes to carry the water. Mr. Moome asked if he will be charged with all the
drainage that is above him. Mr. Thacker said it is his understanding that Mr.~ Moore will pay for
water picked up at his property line and carried through the other property line. Mr.. Henley said
the total problem should be figured and then determine Mr. Moore's pro-rata share. If there are 25
acres in the watershed that contribute to the problem, he should pay a pro-rata share based on,his
acreage. Mr.. Wheeler suggested that the staff arrive at a figure and include this item on the
January agenda.
Mr. Bmill, ~an adjacent property owner, said a neigohborhood group pointed out this problem many
years ago and members of the preceding Board visited the site. It is not a new problem and came up in
connection'with approval of Fountain Court. ~he drainage problem was thoroughly discussed and the
Board was made fully aware of the problem, however, gave approval for the building of.Fountain Court
which has 100 units and put the problem further into the future. Mr. Brill said he was notified of
this meeting only on December 11 and has not had a chance to discuss this with people who live on
the City side of the line. Although Mr. Moore has said he is willing to pay his share to correct
the problem, what guarantee is there that this will ever happen. Mr. Henley said the Board would
like to hear Mr.. Brill's solution. Mr. Brill said the solution was proposed several years ago. Ail
of the people in the neighborhood were against the building of the first ounit.~ There was a petition
circulated and signed by 300-400 people~ At that time, the area was completely zesidential and had
only a few people living in the area. Now there are duplex apartments there.
12-18-75 ..... '
Mr..~.Harry Martin, Jr., a resident..of'Nomi~i~Hi, lls', said they have .experi~ncedprobtems with
excess noise at nights and dogs.._ He said, the.problems go back to years ago and bad planning. There
are apartments between Nomini~Hills, Wakefield, etc. He understands Mr. Moore's problem but feels
the land was incorrectly zoned in the beginning. He did not think the problems with Fountain Court
can be corrected now, but.said the problems should .be studied before allowing anymore _apartments to
be built in the area.
Mro~ Harry Pond,. an adjacent.owner, said he has been before the Board many times fighting this
problem, The Board made the problemand should admit to the problem insteadof adding further to
the Problem,. He said if the City and County have money tospend on storm drains, themoney would be
better spent onthe upgrading of Rio.Road. Mrs. Pond said the storm.,draSnage was installed by Grover
Forloines who tried~to purchase the~Arbogastproperty. Mr. Arbogast did not want to sell and apparently
the City and County~approved the-size of the drain installed at that time. After Mr. Arbogast's
death, the land was purchased and Fountain Court was built. That was a mistake. One piece of land
was zoned R-3 and .the citizens tried to have that zoning changed, but could not. He said. the'Qounty
and City should work_together-to, correct this situation~
Mr. Fisher said he feels that the motion on the floorwill help to correct theproblem. It is
a beginning of realization of responsibility. It is the first time there has been State enabling
legislation.,whichwill allow.the Board to address the problem. He said there is no way the County
can go' backinto thepast to: correct-the problem. That is not realistic. This is a step in th~
right direction and the. first time that the County has been able to take such a step..
Mr.~ Pondsaid when the property owners appeared before the Board there was an agreement that
the apartments would do something about'the water problem but nothing has been done.. Mr, Fisher
suggested that the staff check to see if there is any agreement on file as to any responsibility~
'Fountain Court might have. Mr.. Pond said the residents also have many. problems with excess noise.
Mr. Wh~ee'ler suggested that there are legal remedies for that problem through the courts. Mr. Ppnd
said these problems would not have been in emistence if the~Board hadnot approved Fountain Court.
At ~this time, role-was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: _Me.ssrs~. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Whe~ier ~nd Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 13. Ronald Morris, Brookwood SubdiviSion. Mr. Herbert Pickford was present to represent
the applicant. Motion was:~offeredby Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley, giving final approval to
the plat for Section 3of Brookwood Subdivision. The motion carried by the following recorded yore:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher., Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 14. Mary White Estate. Request for restricted road. (Deferred from September 24, 1975.)
Mr~i Humphrey said this subdivision plat, with restricted road, was deferred by the Board on
August 13, 1975, in order for the County Engineer to investigate Broomley Road for safety and
to determine'what improvements might.be ma-de within .the existing 30-foot right of way. This matter
was brought up again on September 24 and the applicant was not present at that time. During the
interimthe-Engineering Office submitted a memo: "In reviewing the access road, Broomley Road.,
through~Flor, don up to the referenced subdivision, it was found that there was an existing 50-foot
right of.way from Broomley Road from its intersection from Flordon Drive up to the end of~Lot_18A,
Block C, of Flordon. Actual field measurements of Broomley Road show. it v~ries in width, from 11
feet to 15 feet maximum. There is very little, if any, shoulder on this road to accommodate any
additional pavement width without clearing and excavating. Additional surveying and design would
have.to be made to determine i~ the widening of the road can b~ done within the 50-foot right of
way.
Mr, James'Murray, Jr.. was present on behalf of the petitioner. He saidthis is the third %ime
that he has appeared before the Board on this matter.. He said the Board asked for .a report of what
wouldbe involved to bring Broomley Road up to State standards. He. said the existing road, the one
referred to in the Engineer's report, at some places does not sit on top of th~ 50-foot=ight of way
at all. Mr. Wheeler asked.where he contemplated having the restricted road, Mr.~ Murray said the
problem_is that although.Broomley Road was put to record prior to enactment of the zoning .ordinDnce,
the r~oad is 'in effect a restricted or private road.
, Mr. Aubrey Huffman, Engineer, said his study is broken down into three categories. First, for
a minimum.of 250 vehicles per day it would cost $25,000 to improve Broomley from State Route 677 to
the property line. Second, for Category 2 of the Highway Department's standards it would cost
$19',00:~. 'The~ basic difference is pavement depth, Category 3 for a vehicle count of 750 per day,
with a. wider p~wement and wider right of way increases~this cost to $37,600. Category 4 which would
carry ~3,000~vehicles per day increases the cost to $44~800. Ail of these figures cover stone base,
surface~.treatement and/orblack top. To each category the cost of clearing, grading and other
contingencies must'be added. Using Category.3 as the~standard, the cost is estimated at $72,000+.
This would, serve 401~750 vehicles per day .and~allow seven,trips per day for up to 100 units. This
figure does not include any work on site. On-site it would cost between $50,000 and $75,000 to
build roads to state standards.
Mr.~Wheeler asked how many units will be constructed in this subdivision. Mr. HumphrDy s~id
theycontemplate building 13 units. Mr. Wheeler asked if the applicant is ready to take care of
this cost.,_ Mr, Murray said no. With this amount of money spent on road construction, t~elots
would .cost about$17,000 each and wouldmake deyelopment of this 1and economically impossible.. Mr.
Wheeler asked Mr. MUrray'~s solution to this~ problem.
Mr. Murray said he is not sure there is a ready solution. He agrees that this subdivision
woul~ incr~e~ase the burden where there is~ already a serious problem~ He asked who the County will
make bear~ the cost of this problem. He said to an estate which has 13 lots to develop to have to
bear the burdenof solving a problem which was created by the County several years agois inequitable.
said when land is too expensive to develop, some other use should be found for the land..
Mr. Murray said.that maybe the only practical solution. He questions the legality of this. He
referred to Section 3-28.1 of the Subdivision-Ordinance which provides that there be approval o~
new private access easements.. He said the only new access easement being createdis for the i~ternal
streets..
12-18-75
Mr. Thacker asked Mr., Humphrey the status of the application, whether..it~is.~for, a restricted
road under.the previous ordinance.. Mr. Humphrey said yes. .Mr'. Thacker.said this requires that
a restricted road connect to a State road and this application-does,not meet that criteria. Mr.
Mutt.ay said the Subdivision Ordinance requires "that .the subdivision shall, be approved only if the
principal means of access conforms to the.standards of Albemarle County." Mr. Murray said Albemarle
County approved Broomley Road as conforming to its standards. The Planning Commission voted on the
Flordon Subdivision including Br.oomley Road as it _existed at that time. The .Board is now saying
that the. applicant must improve thatroad to bring it to more. modern standards when. this-is not. the
applicant's property, The County approved this knowing that there was a right of waydating back to
1895 serving the Mary l¢nite Estate and several other properties and all of those properties, have
right of way over Broomley Road.. Mr. Fisher said they still,have that right if they do not intend
to subdivide the land under~ the County's Subdivision~rdinance. Mr. Murray said you could go one
step further and say this property could'be divided into six five-acre lots with 200 feet of road
frontage each and no approval would.be necessary-from this Board. He did not.think that is good
planning. Mr. Murray said if the. Board could propose a solution whereby the burden of improving
Broomley Road could be borne equally by all residents, the applicant is willing to pay a pro-rata
share. Mr. tCneeler asked how the residents of Flordon feel about improving the road. Mr. Murray
said they cannot be organized to do anything about the problem. Not only did the Board 'approve.
Flordon with sub-standard streets but also approved the subdivision without a homeowners, association.
Mr.. Fisher said he feels the County's ordinances~ speak to what the County feels is the proper
solution. The ordinance under which this request came to the Board requires that any restricted
road be tied to a state-maintained road. That has not.been satisfied by any proposal.made. The
applicant now asks that this requirement be~i~ed~.and has not proposed any mechanism whereby the
Board has any assurance that this will be equitable. Mr. Fisher said he is not sure this can be
waived.
Mr. Murray. said he questions whether or not the Board is being asked to waive anything since
the Subdivision Ordinance provides that the subdivision shall be approved only if the principal
means of access conforms to the standards of Albemarle County.. He said that is Section 4-3. The
legal_question is whether this principal meansof access conforms to. the.standards of Albemarle
County. The County once approvedthis access. Mr. Thacker said the County's standards do change
from time to time and the Board is now dealing with the current ordinance which requires that the-
restricted road'S:connect-to a state-maintained road. Mr. Murray said that is a.good conclusion
if t e applicant had any control over Broomley Road.. Mr. Thacker said Mr. Murray has said that all
of the property owners should participate in the upkeep of the road and he feels it is the apPlicant's
responsibility to provide the Board with,~that agreement rather than the County's.responsibility. to
obtain same. Mr. Murray said it~is due to the County's action-that this is~now an' insurmountable
problem.
Mr. Carwile said the Board should hear from the County Attorney's Office'before 'proceeding with
the discussion.. Mr. Payne said this im a question of a waiver of subdivision regulations and the ~
Board does have the power to waive, this provision if it is found that a hardship exists. Even if
t e Board finds that a hardship does exist, if there are countervailing considerations of publ%c
interest, public safety and public welfare, then the waiver does not have to be granted. The Section that
Mr. Murray cited, 4-3, reads in its entirety: "no subdivision shall be approved unless the principal
means of access thereto shall conform to the standards of the..Virginia Department of Highways,or in
the case o.f a restricted street, with standards of Albemarle County throughout_ its lengthincluding
any distance'between the boundary of the proposed subdivision and an existingpublic road." Mr.
P~yne said'it, is, his o~inion that this does not refer to any old standards whatever they may have
been. The distance between the edge. of the property and the existing public road is either a restricted
street, a 'state road or a waiver of the subdivision ordinance.. The second question is if thelBoard
permits a-'~stricted street to ~connect into .a restricted street then that provision of the ordinance
would also have to be waived. Mr. Payne said he feels there do exist countervailing considerations
and. the Board can decidewhich consideration is more significant. Whether the burden on the public
health, safety' and welfare outweigh the hardship on the owner being able to develop this propertyin
some manners'other'-than what is proposed. Mr. Murray has said that if this proposal is denied, it
will not prevent his developing the property.
Mmi~Fisher said he could not sit here this morning andsuggest how this should be done, bu~ he
does not feel he can vote to waive the subdivision, ordinance and permit more restricted streetS to
be tied into this restricted street.. He. said he would be willing to hear what the applicant feels
is an,eqUitable solution.
Mr. Murray said he had two proposals to present.. The first would be to, on a judgment basi~,
improve Broomly Road in its worse sections. There are one or two bad curves, one or two trees which
narrow the street to a point where cars cannot pass. Mr. Huffman has estimated thatthis work may
be done for $5,000-$10,000 and would make the road safer. Although this is not, an ultimate solution,
it would, be a solution which prevents this subdivision from~putting an increased burden on Broomley
Road. The second solution would be one along the lines-proposed for the previous case, to put
money aside by.using the number of vehicles which would use that road if developed to those standards.
Mr. Carwile~,asked who owned, property to the west. Mr. Murray said it was owned by a Mr. Speiden,
who died earlier this week. Farmington also. owns property and has purchased a strip of' land 75~ feet
wide along the entire length.of Broomley. This indicates that they. have future use of their land
and would intend to use this road as an exit. Mr. Murray said if that land. is developed, they
would a~. some time need to use this road and at that time, the bond money put up as a pro-rata
share could be~ used to upgrade Broomley Road.
Mr. CarWile said given the factual circumstances presented to the Board one of the alternatives
given by Mr. Murray woul& seem to have merit and would be most equitable to all concerned. Mr..
Thacker.agreed. He said it is common sense that the property to the. north will .eventually be developed.
He felt it would set a dangerous precedent if the Board waived requirements of the subdiusio~ ordinance
and did not require any improvement along Broomley Road. Mr. Murray said this is the samerequirement
that was waived in the case of EdnamForest. Mr. Fisher said he objected to that action. Mr. Wheeler
said the Board was dealing with a homeowners association in that case, not dealing with two or three
different groups, and there was already a~preliminary subdivision plat approval given,. Mr.. Wkeeler
said the idea of setting aside money, seems to be the best idea. Mr. Carwile said he is inclined to
believe that the Board should take the money at this time and make some interim improvements to
5roomley Road rather than puttin~g the money aside in a fund and waiting for the.next property owner.
Mr.o Thacker said he concurred. There is no way to know when the next property owner may want to
develop.
Mr. Murray said that Mr. Huffman is willing to meet with the County Engineer, on the site., and then
to draw up a list of improvements that could be made, including the safety of the road, without~
bringing the road up to state standards.
12-18- 75
Mr. Carwile read the Planning Commission'm conditions £or.~ approval which.are set out in full in
the mimutes' of Marc'h-~5-~ ~t975, Minute Book 13, page 1'7. Mr. Murray said the applicant agrees to all
of the conditions except ~1. There. is already a document for a homeowners association to provide
for.mai~. -t~am~e of the internal streets~ Mr. Fisher asked about the-portion of Broomley Road adjacent
to the Mary White Property. Mrs. Murray said this will be maintained.
Mr. Henley said he did not think the Board should vote on this matter until they know more~
about whether or not the road can be upgraded by the applicant.~ Mr.. Murray said he will bring the
list of improvements back to theBoard. Mr. Fisher said he still is not sure cutting down a few
trees and widening a road from 11 .to .15 feet is adequate. He said it seems the only way the Board
can be sure that eventually this road will become a State:road is tomake this a portion of the
record that any subdivision, site plan, etc. approved along this road in the future will be required
to come up.with funds to bring this to a state standard. Mr. Carwile said the. Board can tell the
applicant at this time, that they will not approve suchan arrangement and the applicant has an
absolute rightat this. time to develop the.,land in five acre lots andvdo nothing. Mr. Fisher said
the other alternative is to establish a bond provision which all propertyowners, as the properties
begin to develop, would contribute to and in the~future that would.guarantee that this will become a
state road. ~.~enley said he can see more problems with this method than making him repair the
road now.
Mr. Bailey suggested that the Board adopt amotion instructing the staff to meet with Mr.
Huffman and to weighMr. Huffman's proposal in terms of dollars and cents and to bringthis report
back to the Board in January. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.-Henley, seconded by Mr.
Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:.
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler andWood.
NAYS: None.
~c~ No. 15. Request from the Library Board.. Present were Mrs. Katherine Hallock, Albemarle
County representative on the Library ~Board and Christopher DeVan, Director .of the Library., Mrs.
Hal. lock said in an effort to raise funds for.building a new main library building, (cost estimated
a~t$2,466,000) a Fund Raising Committee was organized for solitation of private funds and to approach
foundations~. They have also talked to the Thomas JeffersonPlanning District Commission about
obtaining Federal funds through F.H.A. The CommisSion expressed interest and~support for this appeal.
At this time, the Library Board needs to furnish the Commission with a letter of~intentfrom all
political s~bdivisions involved. The Board of Supervisors put their sealof approval on the building
project by participating in thecost of a site for the building. The Library Board is not requesting
any money at this time, but only a letter of intent supporting this effort and that the Board will
eventually he responsible for its share of the construction, costs. In this case, the County repays
F.H.A. with long-termgeneral obligation instruments at:a low interest rate (40 year bonds), Mrs.
Hallock said McIntire Library has become acutely overcrowded. More than 1000new volumes areadded
to the system each month and they have run .out of places~to put these books. Even if planning for
the building is begun in 1976, it will'~ be 1978 before the building is completed. ~The Library Board
has already, secured promises off. funds, or actual funds, in the amount of $560,-000, but in one case
there is a stipulation that thebuilding be started by 1978 and also a Perry Foundation grant of
$50,000 which~requires that the. Board collect $700,000 before receiving this grant.~ For these reasons
the Library Board asks that the Board sign a letter concurring in their efforts. Mrs. Hallock said
the City of-Charlottesville has seen,the, letter of intent and ismaking.~changes, which this Board
may also wish to do.
Mr. Wheeler asked what changes the City is making in the letter of intent. Mr. DeVan said the
City is concerned about an implication that they would ix~ediately~participate in-the cost of the
buildings. They cannot participate until they issue a new bond issue. The City does not borrowfrom
F.H,A.~ at all so the phrasing is being changed. Mrs.. Matl.~hk~:said she realizes that fuhds are tight
and there are always priorities, but the Library has been~at thebottom of~the list for many years..
The land has now been purchased for the building and stands vacant. Mr. Thacker said at the time
the Board agreed to purchase the site they stated that construction would have to be.a number of
years away. NOw the Library Board wants this funded in the next three years. Mrs. Hallock said no,
if F.H.A, funds are received, only a small portion.will be funded each year for a number of years..
The Library Board expects to raise, half of the money from private donations. This would lower the
County's share. Mr..Fisher asked if the Countyts share as based on circulation is 50%. Mr. DeVan
said it is a little more than 50%. He said the portions to be paid by the several jurisdictions~
still has to be determined.
Mr. Henley asked when City Council will act on this matter. Mr.. DeVan said the letter is now
with the City Attorney and will come back to Council after the first of January. Mr. Henley aSked
if there was any reason why this Board could not act after January 1. Mrs. Hallock said the Library
Board would like.to settle the question of ~F.H.A. funds as soon as possible. They will then be in a
position to employ an"architect~. Mr. Wheeler said the new Boar~ .will be called upon to raise these
funds during their term in office and he felt the matter should be carried over to January for
their approval. Mrs. Hallock said the Library Board would like to start raising funds after Christmas
and needs this .... approval first. Mr. Henley said the County~Attorney's office should speak on this
since the Board will probably have to borrow through a bond referendum.
Mr. Payne said that is probably true. If the Board makes this obligation and F..H.A,. issues the
money and the County contracts to repay same, the Board only has the option~of issuing long-term
general obligation bonds and that isa constitutional provision. If the board binds itself to do
this andthe referendum should be voted down, the Board may be bound to pay this outof general
funds and maybe within one year.., Mr. Bowling suggested that there are other methods of financing
this project and the Board may well lock itself into this one methad.
~me' De~am~'said the purpose of the letter of intent is to allow the Library Board to inquire of
F.H.A. as to whether they are willing to accept an application. This application will not be accepted
until there is a letter~ from the jurisdictions indicating public support. Mr. Fisher said~he could
support a letter of intent if the wording is carefully reviewed by the County Attorney to insure
that the County is not put in a bad legal position. Mr. Fisher said whether or not the Board passes
this letter of intent, the Library. Board must wage a campaign to see if there is public support for
a new library building.. Because.of the expenseof'the building, with~other items which are needed,
the Library Board must compete.for funds. Mrs. Hallock said the~..Library Board is pursuing this
support but has have been told that this is a public agency and that the governments should be
supporting same. Mr. Fisher said the County is supporting the Library by about $200 000 a year
for operations, '
Mr. Henley felt the matter should be returned to the Board at another meeting. He suggested
that the Library Board meet with the. CountyAttorney, tell him their plans and check the letter of
12-18-75-
No. 17. Sam Pruett. Regional Law Enforcement Assistance Plan. Mr. Pruett, Criminal
Justice Planner for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was present. He said
this plan is to formalize the procedures by which law enforcement agencies~within this planning district
will request mutual assistance and by which they will resBond ~o such requests. The Plan is to
establish some operational guidelines for localities within the planning district in the event that a
natural disaster or a civil disorder should require large scale mobilization of law enforcement
resources.
Chapter I of the Plan establishes ~he formal procedures for requesting assistance and for
responding to requests for assistance. Three.important points are covered on pages 2 and 3: (1)
Compensation for duty performed ... shall be rendered by the home jurisdiction of the responding
officers"; section 1.02(2).
(2) Responding officers and equipment "shall be under the c-ommand of the chief law enforcement
officer of the requesting jurisdiction .... "; Section 1..02(4).
(3) A Mutual Aid Emergency Force is established. This force consists of "that number of law
enforcement officers which can be committed to another jurisdiction for a period of up ~to two days
without creating a critical manpower shortage, all other things being equal"; Section 1.05.
Chapter 2 (pages 4 - 18) presents special considerations for natural disasters or civil d%sorders.
Several specific recommendations are made:
(Ii Formal establishment ~f a rumor control contingency function within local governments
(SectiQn 2.02-2, page 6);
(2) Implementation of an insta~hone communication system (Section 2.03-2, page 7);
(3)
District 10 (Section 2.04, pages 8-9); °
Formal indentification of an Emergency Operations Center for each locality in Planning
(4) Recommended crowd control principles (Section 2.08, pages 11-14);
(5)
Recommended arrest policies (Section 2.09, pages 14-17);
Procedures for requesting assistance from State Police and National Guard, along with
(6)
special policy considerations (Section 2.11, pages 17-18).
Mr. Pruett said this document is ~he culmination of a year long project for the Planning District
Commission and its. Criminal Justice Advisory Council. Serving on the committee which developed the
Plan.were law enforcement agency heads, citizen volunteers, representatives of the University ofo ~
Virginia, and two practicing attorneys. In its present form, the plan has been unanimously approvgd
by the Criminal Justice Advisory Council and unanimously endorsed by the Planning District Commission.
Mr. Pruett said t~is Plan has also been approved by the City of Charlottesville and Nelson
County. Mr.f~Ca~wile then offered motion to approve the Plan as submitted. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. CJrwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 6~ Chris~mas Holiday. Mr. Wheeler recommended that all County employees be given De~ember 24
and December 26 as paid Christmas~holidays for 1975. He said he feels that County employees have
worked hard and deserve this time off. Motion was,offe=ed by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to~
app=ove this recommendation. The motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Heniey, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 8~ Resolution on assessment of real property. Motion was offered by Mr. oCarwile, seconded
by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that,
pursuant~to Code of Virginia~Section 58-760, as amended, all property subject to local
taxation in the C~unty of Albemarle shall be assessed at 100% of fair market value,
beginning with the assessment to become effective January 1, 1977.
The foregoing motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 9. It~was noted for the record that the Auditor of ~Public Accounts had verified receipt
of the County of Albemarle and Thomas M. Batchelor, Jr., Director of Finance, audit for the fiscal
year ended~June 30, 1975. This report.has been accepted by this office.
No. 10~. Also received for the record was a copy of the District Home, Waynesboro, Virginia,
audit for the Calendar Years 1973 and 1974, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Accounts.
No. 16. Meadowcreek Wastewater Treatment ~Iant. Mr. Bailey noted that at 4:00 P.M. yeste~dJy
afternoon he had received a call. from Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
saying that h~ha~just,.~r~i~d~word by telephone from the State Water Control Board that the
Meadowcreek Plant has been recertified for an additional 500,000 gallons per day.capacity. A
confirmation letter will follow.
At 12:30 P.M. the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:40 P~M.
Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler noted frOm Mr. E. Wayne Compton, Extension ·
Agent, resigning this position as of February 1, 1976. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mr. Carwile accepting his resignation and ordering letter be sent from the Board expressing their
appreciation for his services to the County. The motion carried:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Board had been awarded a Certificate of Apprecation from
the Monticello Area Community Action Agency for its outstanding public service in support of the
Community Action Movement.
NOt Docketed.
as follows:
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had received a letter from Mr. M. Jack Rinehart
"December 2, 1975
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
202 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
2.2901
Attention: Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler, Chairman
Subject: Membership on the Albemarle County Planning Commission
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
Due to overcommitment on my part in many activities, a very heavy work load, and a
feeling that the commission may need new~ representation., I tender my resignation
effective January 15, 1976. In order not to "leave a ship in midstream" I would be willing
to stay on if the new Board takes positive steps prior to that date, towards adopting
the Proposed Zoning Ordinance. Even if they do not, I would be willing, after that
~date, to devote my time should this ordinance be cQnsidered.
Thank you for your support of my representation on this commission for the past
three and a quarter years.
Respectfdlty~submi~ted,
(Signed) M.- Jack Rinehart, Jr."
Mr. Wheeler recommended that the Board accept Mr. Rinehart's resignation and order a letter be
sent thanking him fo~ his services. Motion to this effect was offered byMr. Carwile, seconded by
Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS:~ None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Allan B. Kindrick, filed a~i~equired
by the Code of Virginia, Chapter 22, "Virginia Conflict of Interest Act", Section 2.1--349(a)(2k.
This letter dated November 24, 1975.
Not Docketed: Also received was copy of a letter from Mr. Fred S. L.andess3repr~se~ting Cushman
Realty and Building Corporation, objecting to action taken by the Board on November 12, 1975, in
regard to approval under S.P. 382 for a central well. He has recommended that instead of the Board's
policy of one gallon per minute per unit, the Board adopt a resolution allowing the State Health
Department to set c~iteria for central wells. Mr. Wheeler suggested that this letter be sent to the
new Board members.
NO. 20. Totier Creek Access Road Agreement. (Discussion of this matter was deferred from
November 20, 1975.) Mr. Paynenoted that the County Attorney's Office did not participate in negotiation
on this question.
Mr. Robert Sampson said the Board had asked him to negotiate certain points for protection of
the Totier Creek Access Road should development occur along this road. Mr. Baker and Mr. Leonard
have agreed to the fallowing stipulations which the staff would like to see entered as deed restrictions,
however, Mr. Leonard has reservatio, ns. about No. 2.:
1. There will be no direct access to the Totier Creek entrance road from lots that haue
frontage on cul-de-sac streets.
2. Ail lots fronting on the Totier Creek entrance road without cul-de-Sac frontage shall make
use of common entrances along common side lot lines.
3. The minimum setback for any lot with frontage on the Totier Creek entrance road will be 80
feet from the right of way line.
4. All utilities are to be placed underground.
5. No trees with a three-inch trunk diameter or greater shall be cut within 50 feet of the
right of way on any lot fronting on the Totier Creek access road. Three exceptions to this restriction
are allowed: 1)~ if the State Health Department shall deem. that~ the only adequate location ~for
a septic field is within the 50-foot restricted area, only those trees that must be removed for the
proper installation of the septic field shall be removed; 2) trees may be removed at intersections
for maintaining necessary visual site distances; and 3) trees may be r.emoved for driveway or utility
line access.
6. The total number of lots indicated on the subdivision plat prepared by Robert L. Lum, Land
Surveyor, dated February 25, 1974, and submitted for preliminary approval by the Caunty Planning
Commission shall not be exceeded regardless of any redra~ing of lot lines prior to final Planninz
12-18'75
Mr. Sampson said that the Board now has the following options available:
1) The County settle for $%2,500 and release the County from both requirements; fencing and
bringing the road into the State Secondary System.
2) For a Cash payment of $6,000,~ Mr. Leonard will release the County from any obligation to
install the fence and bring the road into the State Secondary System if he is given the right to put
the road into the State System at some future date.
3) If the County will bring the road up to State Standards and have it taken into the State
Secondary System, Mr. Leonard will release the County from the requirement to install and maintain
fencing.
Mr.~Sampson said he did not know is there is anyway the County can avoid building the fence.
This requirement is very specifically set out in the agreement. If the Board elects Option #2,
which he favors, there is $1,0~00-$1,500 of new work needed on the road before the park opens after
construction.
Mr..Bailey said the settlement could be calculated at what it would cost the County to continue
maintaining the road against building the road to a standard where it can be put into the state
system. Building the road will relieve the Board from fencing requirements. If the County builds
the road, they will be sure the $6,000 is used on the road an~ Mr. Leonard will release the County
from the fencing requirement and put these restrictions~on a future subdivision.
Mr. Sampson said if it is five years before Mr. Leonard builds the road, there~will be maintenance
expenses of between $500 and $1,000 per year to the County. Looking at the actual cost over a
ten-year period they are $6,000 minus the interest, lost, plus $1,000-$1,500 to repair the road at
this time, plus $500-$1,00.0 per year for maintenance for five years. It will cost approximately
$17,000 to bring the road into the system at this time. Mr. Sampson said he understands the Highway
Department will accept the road in the system because it is an access road to the Park.
Mr..Carwile said if the Highway Department will waive their residency requirements and accept
the road, he would suggest that the County take.this option.
Mr. Thacker said it would seem to make sense for the County to build the road, have it taken
into the State System, get an agreement from Mr. Leonard releasing the County from all requirements
in the agreement of exchange,-and have the six stipulations set out above placed on any future
subdivision. He offered motion to this effect. .The motion was seconded by Carwile and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker-, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 29. Statement of Expenses incurred by the Director of_Finance, the Commonwealth Attorney's
Office and the Sheriff's Department for the month of November, 1975, were presented. On motion by
Mr. Thacker, seconded by..Mr. Fisher, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by
the vote which follows:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
NQ. 30. Statement of expenses fo~ the Joint Security Complex for the month ~f No~ember, 1975,
was presented. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher, this statement was approved as
read. The motion passed by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 31. Report of the Joint Security Complex for~the month of November, ~-iMai~tenance Costs
incurred in the operation of the Joint~Security Complex for the month of November, 1975, along with
summary statement of prisoner days, statement of the Jail Physician, statement of paramedic salaries
and statement of salary for the classification officer were presented. (Two-thirds of these costs
are reimbursable from the State.) On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker, these statements
were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 28. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund. Ciaim wBs received from Mr. G. C. Gentry for one (1)
ewe killed by dogs on November 8, 1975. On. motion by Mr. Henley, Mr. Gentry was allowed $20.00 for
this claim. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and passed by the vote which follows:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, ~heeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 27. Report of the County Executive for the month of November, 1975, was received as information.
No. 26. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of October, 1975, was received
in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
No. 18a. Juvenile Court Facilities. Mr. Thomas Wyant, the architect, was present. He said
that on November 25, 1975, bids were opened for renovations to the Elks Club Building for use as a
Juvenile Court. The low bid was $93,992 as compared to the Space Committee's estimated cost of
$93,000 made on February 17, 1975. Last Monday night City Council passed a resolution accepting the
low bid from Gelletly Company for this work. ~f ~he Board adopts a resolution today, Mr. Wy~nt said
he will prepare documents for review by the legal staff. He noted that this bid did not include the
cost of benches in the courtroom, but that bid request will be sent out within the next 10 days.
The cost will still be within the $400,000 cost that the Board and City Council had originally a~reed
to for purchase and renovation of the building.
Mr. Bailey noted that a letter had been receiveR>from~Judge Zehler recommending that this bid
be accepted. Mr. Wood offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of.Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby accept the bid of Gelletly and Company in the amount of $93,992, for
renovations to the Elks Club Building.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the recorded vote which follows:
'AYES: ~Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
No. 18b. Report on Wilhoit Building. Mr. Wyatt said he had met with the owner and his contractors
the County's Purchasing Agent and the County's carpenter, this morning.. They have agreed that the
County will place materials in the.building tomorrow. ~On Monday the County will begin their part of the
renovations. The County will be able to move into the building 90 days after the lease was signed
(November 5, 1975), or no later than the middle of February. Mr. Fisher said he had thought January
1st was not a realistic date and this delay does not make him too unhappy.
No. 19.~' Dr. Charles Hurt. Request~concerning assessment of machinery. (Mr. Carwile abstaining
during the following discussion.) Action on this matter was deferred from October 16, 1975.
Dr. Hurt read the following letter, dated December 18, 1975, into the record:
' ' Gen t 1 emen:
I am before you today with respect_to my 1973 and 1974 personal property tax
returns. I have previously filed amended tax returns with Mr. Ray Jones. The~amended
returns differ from the original returns in that they reflect the depreciated value of
equipment based upon a shorter life span and an accelerated method of deprecation,
both of which are within the guidelines established by the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Jones, by letter dated October 6, 1975, advised me that a refund of taxes to me
based upon a change in the method of depreciation must be approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
The current method used by the Department of Finance.for assessing equipment
used in a trade or business is to require the taxpayer to attach to his personal
property tax return a copy of the depreciation schedule filed wtih his federal income
tax return. The equipment shown on the return is then assessed at 10% of its cost or
25% of its book value, whichever is greater. My understanding is that this method is
not based~upon statutory authority but rather merely as a convenience for the Department
of Finance.
My position is simply that the depreciation method I select for federal income
tax purposes should not preclude me from reporting the estimated value of my equipment
for personal property tax purposes utilizing another equally sound method of depreciation,
one that is specifically authorized by the Interal Revenue Service and available for
use by anyone in the heavy construction business.
Perhaps a brief example would help to illustrate my point. Assume that at the
beginning of 1972 I purchased a piece of equipment for $100.~00. As ~eported on my
1972 federal income tax return, that asset would most likely have been depreciated
over a seven year period using the straight line method of depreciation. Under existing
IRS procedures, I, or any other owner of a similar piece of equipment, could have
elected to depreciate the same asset over a four year period using the.double declining
balance method. The depreciation for 1972, the book value at the end of 1972, the
assessed value on Janury 1, 1973, and the personal property tax for 1973 for the two
taxpayers would be as follows:
Cost
1972 Depreciation
Book Value 1/1/73
Assessed Value 1/1/73
Tax at $5.90
Me Others
$ 100.00 $ 100.00
14.28 50.00
85.72 50.00
21.43 ~12.50
1.-26 .74
As indicated the result is that while I had to pay $1.26 in tax, the other owner.
of the same piece of equipment'would have had to pay only $0.74 in tax. My tax ~bill
was therefore 70~27% higher. I feel that this illustrates as clearly as possible my
earlier statements to Mr. Jones that..the current method of assessment of the personal
property tax is not uniform in its application. If the procedures were uniform,.my
tax bill would be no higher than someone elses in the same business for the 'same
piece of equipment.
I have been informed that the only action the Board can-take at this time is to
initiate the procedure for the adoption of an ordinance to correct the.assessment.
Since such an ordinance could not be adopted prior to January 1, 1976, I have ~een
advised that it will be necessary to institute legal proceedings in order to ,preserve
my right to contest this ma~ter in the courts should that need arise. I feel it only
fair that I inform you of~this impending action so that there will be no misUnderstanding
when the suit is filed. ~/~,
What I ask for today is not that I b~~e~d a~!!~%%~mYg~!!
in the County, but rather only that I be
same basis as all of the other taxpayers
situated taxpayers can pay less tax on the same pzece of equipment, it seems patently
unfair that I should be required to pay more when the means are at your disposal to
correct the disparity.
I would respectfully request that you set a public hearing for an ordinance
to correct the assessment for the years 1973 and 1974 in accordance with the amended
returns which I have previously filed."
12-18-76
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said when this manter was ~iscussed in October, the
Board has asked that a member of the County's auditing firm be present at a Board meeting to discuss
various methods of depreciation. Mr. JaCk Farmer from the firm of. Dulaney and Farmer explained
methods of depreciation and said that after checking with various localities throughout the State, he
has found that there is no uniformity of methods usedj~ ~
Mr. Wheeler said evidently Dr. Hurt had filed his deprgciation using one method, not realizing
this would cost him more, then found later that he had the right to.use a different method. Mr.
Farmer said that was correct, but depending on the method first used with IRS, the taxpayer may be
required to file a consent with IRS to change frOm one method of depreciation to another method.
A taxpayer can change from a double declining balance to a straight line method without IRS approval,
but to go the reverse the taxpayer must file for approval. -
Mr. Fisher asked if--..during discussions with other localities in the State, Mr. Farmer had
found that the taxpayer was allowed to use one form of depreciation for Federal income tax purposes
and another method of depreciation for personal property taxes. Mr. Farmer said that whatever has
been elected for Federal tax purposes, as originally filed, has been accepted at the loCal, level.
Mr. Thacker asked if the County's ordinances require that a copy of the depreciate schedule
filed with the taxpayer'.s Federal return also be filed with the locality. Mr. Jones said his depart-
ment is operating under the State Code and not under local ordinances. The State Code specifies
that the Director of~Finance shall determine the market value. During the years which hehas served
in the Finance Department, the County has required that a depreciation, schedule on business tools
be filed and it has been the basis for determining market value. Recently, Mr. Jones said, he has
requested the Board's endorsement for shifting to 25% of original cost the first year depreciating
10% over a 5-year period. The Finance Department recognizes that there have been many different
forms of depreciation used on returns. Many taxpayers use a mixture of depreciation methods. He
feels that the County should assess like businesses in a like manner. Mr. Thacker asked if this
were not a policy established by the Director of Finance rather than a law from the State Code.
Mr. Jones said yes..
Mr~ Bowling said although this is an administrative policy and does not have the weight of
law, it has almost the weight of law and before a Court of law it has much importance. In order to
have consistency in what--is done, once a policy is established, it should be followed until another
policy zs established.
Mr. Wheeler asked if Dr. Hurt would not have to pay the County if he had made an error in his
return and had not paid enough tax,. Mr. Jones said yes, but from the standpoint of the Finance
Department, no error has been made by the Finance Department in this matter. The assessment was °
made on the return as filed and the depreciation schedule as attached thereto. The Finance Depart-
ment did eliminate thoSe pieces of equipment found to be housed in another County. If. an error
was made, it was made by Dr. Hurt. Mr. Wheeler asked.if Dr. Hurt makes a change on his Federal
Income Return and brings, that change to the County, it the Director of Finance will then certify
that a refund should be made? Mr. Jones said yes, but he does not feel it would be fair to use one
system for one taxpayer and another system for another taxpayer. Dr. Hurt said he is not implying
there was an error made by Mr. Jones. He is only requesting cooperation because of the mistake
that he personally made.
Mr. Bowling said the Board can adopt an ordinance, but the Director of Finance~'would still have
to certify that an erroneous assessment had been.made. Mr. Henley asked if the Board concurred
with Dr. Hurt that this should be changed if this would_be against the Director of Financ. e. Mr.
Jones said no, but he feels, the Board would be subjecting other taxpayers to do the same,,thing
because Dr. Hurt's return included~both double declining balance depreciation and straight line
depreciation. The Director of Finance is charged with the responsibility of assessing at market
value and the fast write-off could exceed sale value~. ~
Mr. Wheeler asked Dr. Hurt how much money this change would save him in taxes. Dr, Hurt said
approximately $10,000. If he has to change his method of depreciation with the Internal Revenue
Service, it will cost him an additional $3,000 plus about six months of time. Mr. Thacker said Mr.
Jones has the responsibility to assess machinery at fair market value, but if the taxpaye~=-erroneously
furnished the wrong information, the taxpayer shOuld have some method of redress. Mr~ Fisher said
Dr. Hurt does~have redress and the Director of Finance can still retain consistency in assessing
property.
Mr, Wheeler said the Board does not seem to have any authority in this matter.
taken and the subject was dropped.
No-action was
~o. g~q,H'~llyme~diRoads. Mr. Wheeler asked that Dr. Hurt disucss this matter, deferred from
earlier in the day. Dr, Hurt said he was not.familiar with the subject, but said as far as he
knows the sewer line is being installed according to normal practices. He asked~that Mr. Jim Hill
be allowed to come and discuss the subject. Mr. Wheeler suggested that this discussion be deferred
unnil January 15.
No. 21.. Changes in Personnel Rules. Mr. Michael Carroll, Personnel Director, said in order
for the County to be in compliance with the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the following changes
need to be made-in the County's personel rules, as published in the Employees' Handbook:
(1)
All non-e×emp~.employees be eligible to be paid overtSme at the rate
of one and one-half times their normal rate of pay. Employees would have
the option of taking compensatory time (Comp time) at the rate of one and
one-half hours for each hour of overtime worked. The comp time would have
to be taken with the same pay period as it is earned. Because of the
two-week delay in the County's pay period, the following formula would be
followed.
For overtime worked from the 1st to the 15th of t~e month
-oven.time paid on ~he .las~.day of the month
-comp time taken before the last day of the month.
For overtime worked from the 16th to the 31st of the month
-over. time paid on the last day of the following month
-comp time taken before the last day of.the following month
The above regulations would apply to all nom-~exempt employees.
overtime must be paid unless the employee chooses comp time.
(2) Certain positions are conJidered exempt from these requirments:
Director of Finance
Accountant
Planning Director
Assistant Planning Director
Planner
Director of Real Estate
Director of Purchasing
Personnel Analyst
Housing Coordinator
By law,
Building and Zoning Official
County Engineer
Assistant County Engineer
Director of Social Services
Ail Social Workers (not trainees)
Eligibility Supervisor
Assistant County Executive
AdministrativeAssistant to County Executive
In exempting these employees from the requirements of the law, the Fair
Labor Standards Act allows the County to determine how work in excess of
40 hours in a week should be compensated. .Exempt employees are permitted.
comp time on anhour for hour basis, to be taken with the permission of
the department head or the County Executive. Exempt employees are not
entitled to payment for comp time at the time of their resignation.
child protective service workers serving on-call are entitled to Compensation
as approved by.the County Welfare Board.
(la) For~all regular on-call workers (those people covering weekdays
as well as weekends), one full day of compensatory time will be
given per month for all on-call duty.
(lb) For all weekend only workers (those people covering only weekends
and. not weekdays), one full day of compensatory time will be
given in the month which carries their week-day of on-call duty.
(2a) Hour. for hour pay in.the amount of $4.00 per hour will be given
for direct door-to-door service, when it is necessary after
hours, provided the case involved is a new one.
(2b) If a, worker must go out to provide ~irect service to a case
already open and known to him or her, compensatory time will be
allowed as usual.
(3)
(4)
Unless the number of hours involved in providing direct service
amounts to more than one-quarter of the total number of on-call
hours for the month, (one-quarter of a regular workers on-call
.time.would equal a maximum of 31 hours) payment for direct service
hours and stand-by duty (compensatory time) will both be allowed.
If direct service hours are more than one-quarter of the total
amount, then payment only will be made for these hours.
Those individuals who receive calls only in those instances
where the on-call worker is unavailable (back-up workers) are
not eligible to receive payment, however, when it is necessary
for the back-up worker to make an investigation in direct field-
work, payment will be granted for those hours in accordance with
the above rates for regular workers.
(3)
Public safety employees, including all deputized employees o~ the Sheriff's
Department and the Joint Security Complex and the County Fire Marshal
are covered under a separate section of the Fair Labor Standards Act currently
under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court and not now being enforced.
Mr. Carroll said while it is difficult to predict action the Supreme Court may ~age.~ the County
has every reason to believe that the law will be upheld and it is possible that retroactive payment
may be required. At this time, the suspended law calls for overtime to be paid for hours worked in
excess of 240 per 28 day period (60 per week). On January 1, 1976, that limit will drop to 232 hours
per 28 days (58 per week). Mr. Carroll said all service related time, including time.spend~in~court,
should be counted. High salaried employees with irregular work-weeks, such as the Fire Marshal, are
entitled to overtime pay at the rate of one-half time for each hour worked over the prescribed limit.
All other employees are due overtime at one and one-half times ~he! normal rate ·.
Mr. Fisher said the request to allow employees comp time at one and one-half hours does not
apply to any of the employeea?at/the~University m~Virginik~w~.s~are also under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. He did not understand why the County should go in a different direction in order to.be in
compliance. Mr. Carroll said his interpretation of the law was based on a letter received from the
United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. He was informed that comp time should be
taken at one and one-halZ..hours which would be the same as being.paid for one and one-half hours.
(Mr. Carwile returned to the meeting at 3:~12 P.M,) Mr. Wheeler asked if this had been~discussed with
the legal staff. Mr. Carroll said ~o. Mr. Fisher said he feels that comp time is a useful concept,
but he had never heard~that this should be compensated at one and one-half times. Mr. Carroll said
it can be used as thus: if an employee works 42 hours on~ week and the next week works only 37 hours,
it would be in effect the same as being paid 40 hours for each week and it does not cause any change
in recording keeping.~ M~ Henley asked that ~he matter be deferred until January and~tha~Mr. Carroll
· check with other localities to see what they are doing
No. 22. Refund: Personal Property Tax.
Fisher, to adopt the following resolution:
Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr.
WHEREAS, the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared
before this Board and certified that Dewey S. and Clara Kingrea are the owners
of a double wide mobile home and same was assessed for the year 1975 as both
personal property and real property and the correct assessment is for real
property; and
WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supportinj evidence and consents
that such assessment was erroneous;
12-18-75
AYES:
NAYS:
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 $211.50 be issued to Mr. & Mrs. Kingrea.
FURTHER, all supporting papers verifying-this request are to be filed
in the permanent records of the~_Board of Supervisors.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 23a. Special Appropriation: School Construction.
seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution:
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$490,481.54 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Construction
Capital Outlay Surplus and transferred to the following codes:
19.19 Albemarle High School Addition $ 3,448.30
19.25 Southside Middle School (Walton) 245,882.29
19.28 Greer Elementary School 185,710.67
19.22 Hollymead School 55,440.28
The fOregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 23b. Special Appropriation: School Electric. Mr. Jones said it appears that the cost of
electric current for the schools is going to be over-expended for the curren~t year. An adjustment
amounting to $50,019.04on prior years has just been received. Electric current was budgeted at
$270,000 in the current budget and this amount should cover consumption for the current fiscal
year, however, Mr. McClure does not.believe the prior year's adjustment can be absorbed. Motion
was then offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $50,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to'the School Operating Fund and coded
to 17fl-207, Electric Current.
The foregoing motion carried by the recorded vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 23c. Special Appropriation: Planning Department. Mr. JOnes said the Planning Department
notified all property owners twice, by first class mail, about the proposed Zoning Ordinance. This
has caused an over-run in their budgeted allocation for telephone, telegraph and postage. Motion
was offered by Mr.-Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,100.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and
coded to 10,E-218, telephone, telegraph and postage, Planning Department.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 23d. Special Appropriation: Health Department. Mr. Jones said that Dr. George Moore,
Director of the Health Department has requested money to replace some dental equipment. Last
month the State refunded $28,074.56 to the County on operation of the Health Department for the
fiscal year 1974-75. Since the dental program provides a significant amount of revenue, Dr.
Moore requests an appropriation of $2,090 to be used in modernizing some of the dental equipment
in the health center and dental trailer.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $2,090.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded
to 18B.1, said funds to be used by the Health Department in their dental
clinic~ payment of said funds conditioned on the City of Charlottesville
paying their share of this expense.
The motion carried by the vote which follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 23e. Special Appropriation: Federal School Programs.
three State and Federal programs approved for Albemarle County.
and are as follows:
Mr. Jones said there are currently
These programs.are reimbursable
Indochine Refugees $ 6,000.00
T-his progam is to provide special help to Vietnamese children enrolled in the
County SchOol System. The State pays $300 per child on this program.
0
ESEA TITLE I - Low Income ~ $ 53,700.00
The increase in this program is due to a chang~ in the funding formula of
Public Law 93-380 which provided an additional allocation to Albemarle County.
ESEA TITLE III - Innovative Programs $ 13,200.00
This is the third and final year for this program to be funded by a Federal Grant.
Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded
vote to adopt the resolution which follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $72,900.00 be, and th~ same hereby is, appropriated from the School
Operating Fund and transferred to the following codes:
AYES:
NAYS:
17N - $53,700.00; 17Q - $13,200.00; 17B2 - $6,000.00
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, ~hacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
23f. Special Appropriation: Joint Security Complex. Mr. Jones said that on October 24,
1975, Mr. Shank received~a grant for Adult Education in the amount of $5,738'.00. This money is to
be used for a teaching staff under contract to the Jail to provide teaching services to inmates.
No local funds are involved in this grant. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by-Mr..
Carwile, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $5,738.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Joint Security
Complex Fund and coded to 190-611 (Adult Education).
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Fisher.
No. 23g. Special. Appropriations: : Auditing and Consultant's Fees. Mr. Jones said the
County has received a final billing from the auditors on the turn-over and annual audit in .the
amount of $21,154.88. Billing on the revenue sharing audit will be forthcoming in the next
month and is estimated to cost $2,500. Included in the revenue sharing portion are costs attributed
to filing court action. There was one trip to Washington, D. C., by the audiDor~ and. Mr. Jones
said he has worked with them on five separate days. The amount needed to cover over-expenditures
in Code 1-A-202 is $,7654.88.
Mr. Jones said there have also been costs, incurred on two pending legal cases. Payments
have been made for aerial photographs on the Fleming case (Evergreen) in the amount of $318,~26.
Payments were also made to an attorney for problems incurred in the Paulett-Totier Creek settlement.
This bill was for $50.00~ He asked for an appropriation of $500.00 to be coded to 1-H-299,
Legal Consultant Costs.
Mr. Jones said the Board had two options. If they did not choose to make a special appropriation
for these two amounts, they could authorize a transfer of funds from Code 1-A-254, Annexation
and Program DevelOpment, if no future use is anticipated for that code.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwi!e, seconded by Mr. Wood, to authorize a transfer~of funds
from C~de 1-A and to adopt the following resolution: ~
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $8,154.88 be, and the same hereby is., authorized to be transferred from
Code 1-A-254 and coded as follows: 1-A-202, $7,654.88 and 1-H-299, $500.00.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 24. Request to write off Over and Short Account. Mr. Jones said the. balance'of the
cash over and short account as of June 30, 1975, was $830.87 (over). This was reduced by $293..79
to a balance of $537.08 by the auditors. This audit adjustment was due to adjustments on uncollected
taxes in 1971, 1972, and 1973. The last write off of this account was in October, 1972. The
la!gest adjustment from October 19.72 to June 1975 was the June 30, 1974, audit adjustment resulting
from the roll-back of taxes in 1971, 1972 and 1973. .This adjustment amounted to $1,239.69.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt thg following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the. Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the cash over and short account in the amount of $537.08 be adjusted to
a zero balance on the County's general ledger as of June 30, 1975.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thaeker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, 'Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Jones gave to the Board an interim report on 1975 tax collections and
mentioned several items in this memo dated December 17, 1975. The total of all payments~through
December 15th amounted to $6,220,704.07 or 83.9% of the original levy. This is slightly under
last year s collection of 84.23% on a percentage basis. The County is $495,595.93 under the
amount of revenue estimated in the budget. The County will reach the $6,716,300 amount projected
in the budget somewhat later than expected, possibly not until June of 1976.
Mr. Wheeler said that at the time the Albemarle County Taxpayer's Association made a news
release several weeks ago about the County's levy they 'said the County would collect $700,000
more than was. needed. Mr. J~n~ h~ nnr~H r~ n~~ ~o ~ .... ~ ...... ~ .... ~=~
12-18-75
on collections. Until-the time of this release, the County was ahead of last year on a percentage
basis and then fell behind on collections. Mr. Wheeler said he told them at the time that instead
of having .$700,000 in excess funds and "rippingoff,' the taxpayers, the County might be faced
with a shortage of funds and the Board was concerned about this. He said the A.C.T.A. should
review some of the figures they publish.~ He said there is no question in his mind that this is
a disservice to the citizens of the County.
Not Docketed. Mr. Jones handed to the Board several communications relating to the creation of
an industrial bonding authority. 1) comments of Mr. George Pugh of Cragie, Mason and Hagen; 2)
reprint of a December 5, 1975, article from The Daily Bond Buyer; 3) comments of the president
of The Daily Bond Buyer on the impact of any default on the market.
Not Docketed. Mr. Wood said the Highway Safety Commission had applied for a grant to build
a driver education course at the Western Albemarle High School. The grant did not take priority
and was denied. Mr. Wood requested that the money appropriated to Code 18Co2 be. transferred
to construction of the new western high school, 19.26-205. He said the contractor has said he
can build this driver education course while constructing the high school and although it will
be a facility of lesser effeciency, it will be adequate. The course can also double as a parking
lot. Mr. ~Jones said Mr. McClure had also. spoken to him about this matter. The facility will not
have the curving, etc. normally contained on such a facility, but will be marked with white
lines for teaching driver education.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
$24,971.10 be, and the same hereby is, authorized to be transferred from Code 18C.2
in the General Operating Fund to Code 19.26-205 in the School Construction Capital
Outlay Fund for use in building a driver education course at the Western Albemarle
High School. ~
The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 25. Appointment: Emergency Medical Services Council. This item was ordered carried over.
Not Docke~ted. Mr. C. T. Lindstrom~, attorney for the bankrupty on Woodbrook~Subdivision,
said he underst~ood that the Board had adopted a resolution earlier in the day requesting that
the roads im~.Section 9 of Woodbrook Subdivision be taken into the Highway System..He said there
are two houses in Woodbrook Section 9, on which there is a building permit moratorium.. A mechanism
has been ordered to repair the sewer system in section 9. There is one lot (19M) which he wants
to sell Che~ first of January~and he asked that the board lift the moratorium on this one lot so
that a certificate of occupancy may be obtained.
Mr. Carwile then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED b~ the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the building permit moratorium previously imposed on Lot 19M, Section 9, Woodbrook
Subdivision, be lifted so the bankruptcy attorney may obtain a certificate of
occupancy on this one house. The remainder of the moratorium previously imposed
on Woodbrook Subdivision shall remain in full force and effect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Not Docketed. Mr. Wheeler said the Board had previously asked the Planning Commi.ssion to
hear Evergreen (SP-537) before the end of December. He asked Mr. Humphrey for comments.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Commission did not discuss the matter at their last meeting.
The staff had furnished them with a status report and a possible schedule for review of this
matter. The Chairman of the Planning Commission said based on the staff's report it could not
be heard~.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the Planning Commission was aware of the Board's resolution. Mr.
Humphrey said yes, the Chairman. was notified by telephone, as were several members of the Commission.
In view of the 14 items already scheduled for the Planning Commission's agenda on December 16,
it was not felt that this matter could be heard. Mr. Wheeler said the Board would now have to
remove this item from the~Board's agenda for December 30th.
Mr. Fisher asked if the matter has been scheduled for' January, Mr. Humphrey said it is
anticipated that all the needed information will be available by January 13. The staff is waiting for
a review from the County Engineer on information submitted this week. That review may be ready
tomorrow. The staff has not received the homeowners agreements on operetion of open space or
the new debris basin. The staff has not received any input from the~School Board. Also, there
are several property owners out of town and unable to be notified of the meeting.
Mr. Carwile said he attended the Planning Commission meeting at which they had considered
this matter. They seemed to be imposing more rigorous requirements on this applicant than is
normally done.
Mr. Wheeler said any approval or disapproval could be subject to review of the homeowners
agreements. Mr. Humphrey said this is not a normal requirement but it was a request of the
Planning Commisison in light of the debris basin~and operation of same.
12-18-75
Mr. Thacker said he is concerned about one item~ in connection with Evergreen and several other
matters. Evergreen is a matter of litigation now and members of the Board, as well as the County,
have been named as defendants in this suit. He said it would be appropriate for this Board to adopt
a resolution whereby any legal expenses incurred by the members of this Board. in performance of
their official duties would be paid by the County and should any damages be awarded~ these would be
paid by the County. He then offered motion to this effect.
Mr. Carwile asked if this motion included the right of Board members to obtain their own counsel.
Mr. Thacker said the motion refers to any and all legal expenses and that would be included as a
reimbursable item. Mr. Thacker said he would amend the motion so there is no question. The motion
was then seconded by Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Thacker said there are several matters which might become matters of litigation and he felt
that any matter of litigation should be included. Mr. Wheeler said as Board members, Mr. Henley and
Mr. Fisher might.want to. be represented by the. County Attorney. For the other members, Mr.' St. John
may not be County Attorney and-they may want to hire different counsel. Mr. Fisher said he thought
the State Code allowed the Board members to select their own cousel and the fee would be automatically
paid.
Mr. Wheeler said that was one reason the members of this Board felt this matter should be heard
in 1975. H~.~$~id this is being pushed over into the future where there will be four new Board members
and three new Planning Commission members and that will just push the matter further into time and
these new members will not be that familiar with the matter. He said he has questions about the
fairness of this to all concerned. He said this today because he may be asked this question in
court and he will have to say it then.
AYES:
NAYS:
Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
No. 32. Continuation of public hearing on an amendment to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to be known as Article 19, Residental Planned Neighborhood, to provide for variety and flexibility
in the residential district. (Public hearing continued from December 10, 1975.)
Mr. Humphrey said this matter was deferred from the December l
raised by Mr~ Carwile relative to putting in more details on the m
draft presented to the Board today is all the staff feels is neces
staff has also looked at other localities and this amendment spell
require. Basically this is all that is needed to determine~the pr,
adjacent property owners. This revision comes to the Board by an-
Planning Commission. This will replace the Planned Unit Developme~
pure residential development. The existing PUD will remain until
eliminated.
Mr. Carwile said at the time the Board held their public hear
the staff look at 19-2-3 and he commended the staff for the revisi4
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Article 1
was seconded by Mr. Thacker.
neeting because of questions
~aning of preliminary filing. The
~ary on a preliminary filing. The
out more than most localities
~per densities and the impact on
~nanimous recommendation of the
~t which is being used for basically
~uch time as it is strengthened or
lng, it was at his request that
m and offered motion to amend
as set out below, The motion
(Note: Changes made since the public hearing on December 10 are u~derlined.)
19-1
ARTICLE 19
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED NEIGHBORHOOD, RPN
PURPOSE AND INTENT
19-2
19-2-2
19-2-3
The Residential Planned Neighborhood District is intende~ to encourage and provide for a
variety and.flexibility in land development for residential purposes, and uses anCillary
thereto, that are necessary to.meet those, changes in technology and demand which will be~ .
consistent with the best interest of the county and the area i~ which it is located. It
is also the intent of this district to promote economical and efficient land use, an improved
level of amenities, appropriate and harmonious physical development, creanive design and a
better environment.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE
The Board of Supervisors may authorize the development of
within the Agricultural A-I, Residential Suburban RS-l,
and R-3 Districts created by this ordinance, after notice
Section 15.1-431 of.the Code of Virginia.. Such authorize
having a minimum a.crea~e of ten acres under common owner
Additional land. area may subsequently be added to an appr
hood if it adjoins or forms a logical addition to the exi
procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an orig
all requirements of this section shall apply except the
specified above.
The applicant shall file an application for rezoning with
shall furnish with his application twelve copies of a pre
(a) S~nmary of total number of dwelling unit.s by type an
(b) ~ummar~ of land uses by type ~and area;
(c) Land u~es to be color code~, indicati~e~i~--iocati
units desired;
(d) Gross density and net residential densities;
(e) Gen~ral road alignments with proposed right-of-wa~
internal roadS;
(f) Method of access from roadS to proposed areas of d
(g) General alignment of sidewalks, bike and pedestrJa
(h) A general water layout Pla~ indicating the size an,
'o~f'.lines and the location df fire hydrants;
(i) A' general sanitary sewer layout indicating the siz,
pum~. statiOns and manholes
residential planned neighborhoods
nd Limited Residential R-i, R-2,
and hearing as required by
tion shall be given only to land
hip. or con~rol..
oved residential planned neighbor-
sting planned neighborhood. The
inal application was filed, and
inimum acreage requirement as
the Zoning Administrator and
liminary plan showing:
d area;
Dn on the plan with. the acreage and
including adjacent or
of lines and the location
location of lines, location of
12-18'-75
19-2-4
19-2-5
19-2-6
19-3
19-3-1
19 -4
19-4-1
19-4-2
19.-4-.3
19-4-4
19-5
19-5-1
19-6
19-6-1
19-6-2
19-6-3
19-7
19-7-1
19-8
19-8-1
19-9
19-9-1
The staff of the county shall review the application for rezoning and the preliminary~
plan as submitted by the applicant and evaluate the proposed project and present its
recommendations for necessary utilities and other facilities to protect other uses
within the area. No approval shall be given of any such rezoning and preliminary plan
until the recommendations of the staff have been considered by the Planning Commission
after studying the characteristics-of the area in which the proposed planned neighbor-
hood is to be located.
Following the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the approval of the Board
of Supervisors of the rezoning and preliminary plan, the applicant shall submit a final
site development plan in keeping with the approved preliminary plan and in conformance
with ArticIe 17 of this ordinance and with the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and
Development Ordinance. The minimum area to he shown on any final site plan or subdivision
plat. shall be not less than two acres of the~land originally submitted on the Preliminary
plan. Thereafter, no modification may be made in the final plan except by an amended
final plan submitted for approval.
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, Article 17 of this ordinance
and the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance shail--gpply to
any residential-planned neighbor~hood-developed PUWsuant to thiSArticle.
USES PERMITTED
There shall be no special exceptions permitted in the RPN Districts.
uses shall be permitted by right.
The following
(a)Dwelling units in detached, semi-detached, attached and multi-storied structures, or
any combination thereof;
(b) Institutions to the extent that they are designed and intended to serve the residents
of the RPN District;
(c) Commercial convenience facilities designed and intended to serve the residents of
the RPN District, subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance.
(d) Educational institutions;
(e) Fire and rescue stations;
(f) Public utilities: poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters~ and related or similar
facilities; water, sewer, and gas distribution lines.
(g) Day care centers;
(h) Home occupation, Class A;
(i) Community centers;
(j) Parks and recreation facilities.;
(k) Accessory uses and buildings.
DENSITY PERMITTED
Except as otherwise provided by law, the maximum residential density shall not exceed
the following number ~of units per gross acre for each type of RPN District:
(a) RPN-AL: 0.5 dwelling units per gross acre;
(b) RPN-RSi: 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre;
(c) RPN-RI: 5.3 dwelling units per gross acre;
(d) RP~-R2: 8.4 dwelling units per gross acre;
(e) RPN-R3: 34.3 dwelling units per gross acre.
Nothing herein shall be construed to_ supersede or. impair the application of any provision of
the A15emarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance.
Commercial uses, including parking shall be permitted in developments gr.eat.er than 50 acres and
shall be limited to 1.5% Of the gross area o~ development. It is the intent that commercial
areas not be larger than required by 'the development.
For purposes of this section, the term "gross .area" shall be construed to include the
· enti~e ~rea within'the reSidential planned neighborhood, whether or not the same shall
be developed in any particular manner.
AREA REGULATIONS
No more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the site shall be developed with lots, buildings,
streets, and off-street parking.
SETBACK, YARD AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REGULATIONS
There shall be no minimum setback r.equirement within the RPN District; except that all
structures ~o be located on the outer perimeter of such district shall conform to the
setback of the adjoining district and provided further that setback lines on roads,
streets or highways, mn the Virginia State System of Highways, either existing or
~proposed shall be determined by the Planning Commission.
The location of all structures shall be shown on the final plans.
Accessory buildings to the overall development and their aggregate area shall not exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of the area designated as open Space.
HEIGHT REGULATION
No building shall be greater than 65 feet in height.
CORNER LOT REGULATION
The yard on the side facing the side street shall be thirty (30) feet or more from the
street right-of-way for both main and accessory structures.
MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING REGULATIONS
Minimum off-street parking requirements shall be as set forth in Article 11-7 of this
ordinance.
12-18-75
!~-g4-75
12-30-75
Vote was taken at this time and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Wood.
445
No. 4f. Request to have roads in Hollymead Subdivision taken into the Secondary System.
(Mr. Carwile abstaining .during discussion and vote on this matter.) (Discussed three times previously
during this meeting).
Mr. James Hill appeared at this time to speak about this matter. Mr. Wheeler said the Board
has already requested that this matter be deferred to the January 15, 1976, meeting because the Board
~wants further information on the sewer lines which will be installed in the roads. Mr._Hill said he
did not understand why this should hold up having a resolution adopted so the roads can be taken into
the State System. The roads have been inspected and a bond was posted with the 'Highway Department so
the roads could be accepted as of January 1, 1976. Mr. Hill said he withheld the bids on the roads
for~two weeks so the Highway Department would have a chance to inspect the roads. When the contract
was-let, an addendum was included saying that all of the lines and all of the roads disturbed are now
..under control of the Highway Department, will need Highway permits, and will be bought up to Highway
standards~if disturbed.
Mr. Henley asked who will pay for digging-up the roads, in the future, when a lot. is sold. Mr.
-Hill said this will be paid by the contract.or building the house. The contractor always pays for
...... installation of utilities. Mr. Wheeler. said he had stated earlier in the day that these objections
~,should have been made by .the engineering staff at the time the plans were approved. He said he does
feel it is correct.~to object at this late date. The Clerk noted that the Board had previously
. adopted resolutions .on several of the roads .in Hollymead, but no action had been taken.bY the Highway
Department.
Mr. Wheeler said the Highway Department is willing to take in the roads but they do-not want any
work. done until the roads are in the system so permits are obtained from the Highway Department.
Mr. Hill said the contract is written so the contractor must obtain his permits from-the Highway
Department and comply with all Highway .procedures.
Mr. Wood then offered motion to adopt the-,following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of.County Supervisors of 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 Engineer, the following roads in Hollymead
Subdivision:
Section II: . -
~Maiden Lane from Hollymead Drive to cul-de-sac - 638.05 feet
Robin Lane from Hollymead Drive to cul-de-sac - 849.48 feet
Woodburn Road from Hollymead Drive to Poe"s Lane - 591+- feet
Poe's Lane from Woodburn Road to cul-de-sac - 983.68 feet
Section III:
White Oak La-ne from Goldentree Place to cul-de-sac - 573.72 feet
Goldentree Place from Hollymead-Drive to cul-de-sac - 1,199.37 feet
Easy Lane from Hollymead Drive to cul-de-sac - 1,346.81 feet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Depar.tment 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 531, pages 309, 311 and 313.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile.
At 4:20 P.M.., motion was offered by Mr.. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood to adjourn this meeting
until December 30, 1.975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. (Clerk's note: The
regularly schedul~meeting to be held on December 24, 1975, was previously cancelled by vote of the
Board taken on October 1, 1975, thus did not stand in the way of this adjournment.) The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
-'AYES:
SAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
12-.24-75
The regular meeting scheduled for December 24, 1975, was cancelled by vote of the Board on
October 1, 1975, and was not rescheduled for another date.
12-30-75 (Night)
..... An adjourned meeting of the Board of--Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was-held on
'December 30, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the.Albemarle County Courthouse; meeting adjourned from December
18, 1975.