1974-05-16 A-regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on May 16,. 1974, 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. ~. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: None.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney.
The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer, led by Mr. Wheeler.
Upon motion by Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley, the minutes of the meetings of
March 6, March 13.(afternoon), March 13 (night), March 20, March 21, March 25, and
March 27 (afternoon)., were approved, with the exception of pages 107 and 108, with
the following corrections: Page 52, first line should read; "Mr. William Wood spoke
for the petition, no one spoke against." Page 85, 3rd paragraph, where Mr. Wheeler
is speaking, should read; "Through development of this property the developer has almost
developed it to a point that prohibits any expand.ed use of these roads. Page 95,
at the end of the 7th sentence, change the word "now" to "not". Page 100, 26th line,
change sentence to read; "Now is the time to put it clearly into the record, if the
Board is adverse to having the subdivision approved with the entrance as it is.''
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At 9:15 A.M. the Board continued with a discussion of Ednam Forest Roads. Mr. John
Rogan was present to again request final approval of his request, for a restricted roads
system in Ednam Forest. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, gave a status report on the
items which ~ere part of the approval for Section 5 of Ednam Forest. (Note: See Pages
8-13, 94-1G9, and 235-238 of this minute book). Mr. Humphrey said the road plans have been
submitteH to Mr. R. G. Warner of the Highway Department to be checked fo~ compliance
with State road standards. When this is completed, the County Engineering Department
will check these plans to be sure they are based on State road standards, less the
requirements for sight distances and slopes. Thereafter, the County Engineer, along
with someone from the State Highway Department will check the roads to be sure they
are in compliance with the plans. Ail work must be completed, and/or a bond set for
completion, prior to the final plan being approved. The County Attorney has been
asked to review and approve restricted roads documents. The Planning Department has
received a letter with reference to the as-built water lines. Plans for these lines
were submitted to the City Engineering Department and Mr. William Ely has stated that
the City inspected and tested the 8-inch water line installed at Ednam Drive, etc.
They found that Lots 17 and 18 on Wellington Place and portions of Lots 20 and 21,
Block F, and Lots 21 through 26, Block H, ~eeded individual pressure boosters acceptable
to the City. These have been installed. Mr. Humphrey said the County is now back to the
original question of how far back the entrance road should be improved for safety purposes.
247
Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident HZghway Engineer, said it is a matter of record that
the roads presently within the subdivision do. not meet current subdivision standards.
It is a matter of opinion as to whether or not they will handle any increased traffic.
Mr. Warner said he would l~mit his comments to this since he did not want to get into
the position of recommending something that would later be dictated to Mr. Rogan~ He
said it is within the Board's power if they want to impose such restrictions.
Mr. Fisher said he realizes that Zmproving the road 70 or 80 fee~ from the right
of way will help the traffic turning from Route 250. However, he felt that once the
traffic is off of the highway and on the narrower roads, the traffic will be backed up
to the entrance and he questioned whether this will be adequate. He asked if this was
a recommendation of the Highway Department. Mr. Rogan said he has a~reed to do what
has been asked of him and what Mr. Warner has recommended. Mr. Wheeler said the
request was for the work to be completed in two parts. Mr. Rogan said that was only a
suggestion.
Mr. Thacker said he understood Mr. Warner's position, but felt the Board needs
quidance as to what should be considered for the road from the entrance back to the
dam. He felt the Board had asked Mr. Warner's opinion as to whether the road is
adequate to handle the traffic flow to be generated by the new sections of Ednam
Forest.
Mr. Warner said over the long period of time that Ednam Forest has been developed,
that Highway Department standards have been changed and upgraded considerably. Based
on the current standards, these roads will not handle any greater volume of traffic.
Mr. Fisher asked who maintains the roads between the entrance and the dam. Mr.
Rogan said the maintenance costs are shared by Boar's Head, Inc., Ednam Village,
Boar's Head Sports Club, the Ednam Forest Homeowners, and Ednam Forest Corporation.
He said they have taken care of their own problems and are not calling on the County
for any heZp.
Mr~ Fisher asked if the agreement for maintenance of the roads is written in such
a manner that the roads can be upgraded by a vote of a certain number of these people.
Mr. Rogan said there is a thorough understanding and it is clearly spelled out Within
Ednam Foresv itself. The cost of maintenance of the road from 250 down to the Boar's
Head Inn is figured on the usage of the road.
Mr. John Stroud, attorney for Mr. Rogan, said the legal documents state that the
homeowners association must maintain, not only the roads within the subdivsion, but
also the connecting roads to Route 250, and to upgrade these at their expense. They
have c~hosen not to bear the full expense on the connecting road but to negotiate a
voluntary agreement with the other users and have in fact contracted out the work to
the Boar's Head Inn. If the homeowners, association decided to upgrade all the roads
by their vote and were prepared to pay the full cost, they oould do this. Their
current a~reemenv runs only on day-to,day maintenance and there is no agreement beyond
this.
248
5-16-74
Mr. Thacker asked if these are not privately maintained roads dedicated to
public use. Mr. St. John said the statement of the subdivision contains what is to
be recorded, plus the articles of incorporation and by-laws, which are not to be
recorded. He read a section from the bo~oklet which stated: "fee in and easement for
all purposes over all roads shown on the respective subdivision plats is hereby
reserved by the developer". Mr. St. John said these roads have not been dedicated to
public use and nobody can traverse these roads except those who live w~thin the sub-
division. He said there is a State statute which says that when a subdivision is
platted that the roads shoWn on it are automatically dedicated to public use, however
the statement he just read refutes that. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Stroud what would happen_:.
if the developer owns the fee to the grounds under these roads and there is no, easement
in the roads, except to those who own lots on the roads, and the developer has finished
the development and is no longer an entity. Mr. Stroud said the statement read by
Mr. St. John was from the statement of subdivision printed in 1959 whan the subdivision
scheme was presented to the the Board of Supervisors and approved by them. It was
said at that time that the roads would be owned privately, maintained privately, and
limited to the traffic of the residents living in the subdivision. Mr. Stroud said
the Board is faced wi.th the State statute and the language in the booklet and he did
not propose to solve it. in 1968 there was s:crunity of the statement by the County
Attorney and the City Attorney. They both said that the State statute ~took precedent
and could not be countermanded, but the developer is not prepared to yield to that
interpretation or to oppose it at this time. This is not the issue. The original
scheme also contemplated a homeowners association which Wasacreated in 1959 and
presented to the Board and approved by that Board. The homeowners association was
intended to be the vehicle to receive ownership of the roads and to hand'l'e all
maintenance. It wa-s designed to be as fl-e×i'b!e as possible in order to allow the
people liv&ng there to use the roads, to own them, and keep the roads to their standards.
In excha-nge, they got roads t'hey felt were more attractive, in keeping wi'th the
nature of the subdivision, and which were not connecting streets to any other property,
but purely interior streets totally closed off to any other traffic.
Mr. Fisher said that sounded fine, but upgrading these roads requimes that all
part~icipate in the upgrading. If this is purely voluntary, at the time the mo. ads
become impassable and the people start complaining, if the~ homeowners ~ho are ready
and w±!ling to put up their share o'f money to upgrade the roads do not get cooperation
from all the people, they will have a bad situation, but this is purely speculation on
his part. Mr. Stroud said each of the owners bought, with one of these books, a
contract that was explained to them. The booklet explains that they must pay the
cost of maintenance and improvements for the entire subdivision, includ2ng the entrance
road. ~he owners are nowwgetting a windfall because the developer has worked out a
savings for them on the cost of maintaining the entrance road. If at sometime in
the future that benefit is not available, it in no way nullifies their obligation.
249
Mr. Wood said he did not believe the Boar's Head Inn would ever renege on their
responsibility.~ He said this development was created 15 or more years ago and he did
not think the Board should destroy the atmosphere that has been created by imposing
undue or unnecessary standards of today. This is a self-contained subdivision and
it is binding that the homeowners maintain the roads.
Mr. St. John said as long as the fee to the roads is retained by the developer
and the right to u~se the easement in the roads is not made public, but is reserved by
the developer and the homeowners association, it will not do any good to widen these
roads s~nce they cannot be used as a throughway to any other place. If the Board is
considering widening the roads to allow through traffic at some future date, the
homeowners association would have to request the developer to offer the roads for
dedication.
Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Fisher and Mr. Thacker were only talking about the commercial
portion of the road from Route 250 to the Boar's Head Inn, and not anything beyond
that point.
Mr. Wood said he did not think the commercial area was ever intended to be a big
shopping center. He would be opposed to widening the r~ad all the way to the dam to meet
standards. Mr. Thacker said he is not concerned with meeting standards, as such, but
is concerned with the safety of the people using the road and wants~.to be sure there
is adequate width of pavement to provide safety. He agreed with Mr. Wood that the
road system adds a great deal to the complex. If the owners of the road f~eet there
is a hazard, he wants to be sure the safety aspects can be accomplished.
Mr. Fisher said it is not his intent to change the character of the complex. He
is worried that 10 or more years in the future the people living there will have
problems with the roads that cannot be ~esolved. He ~aid Mr. Warner's recommendations
for the entrance, are minimal, but since Mr. Warner is reluctant to get into this, he
will accept, his judgment.
Mr. 'Wheeler said the Board has before them a recommendation from the Highway
Engineer as to the entrance and the question of whether these improvements should be
accomplished in one part or two parts. He feit the Board should accept Mr. Warner's
recommendations and require that all the work be done at one time.
Mr. Humphrey said the Planning Staff and the County Engineer recommend that~ the
work be performed at one time.
Mr. Fisher offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Staff,
the Highway Department, and the County Engineer, that this entrance be improved, all
at one time, according to the documents submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wood and passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
250
Mr. St~oud sa:id he would like to obtain a clarification. It was his understanding
from the last meeti'ng at which this matter was discussed that: l) Section 5 received
final approval and Section 6 preliminary approval subject to comptian, ce with Planning
Commission conditions; 2) that the interior ~oads in Section 5 and 6 are to be. built
according to standards, except sight distance and grades; and 3) that the entrance is
to be built according to recommendations approved by this Board and the County Engineer.
Mr. Humphrey said there are some other items, such as inspections, which need to
be completed. Mr. Stroud asked if after the necessary inspections the plat-will be ready
for approval. Mr. Fisher said the standards for Sections 5 and 6 are to be residential
road standards of the State highway department and not county restricted road standards.
Mr. Warner said he has received the plans and reviewed same. As far as the roads
in Section 5 are concerned, he did not think the roads can be built to State standard's,
with exceptions, since they cannot be taken over for public maintenance if. they are
not built entirely to State standards. The plans were reviewed on that basis; for
pavement design, etc. In the mountainous terrain of this property most of the degrees
of curvature are abaut in line. The only real problem is with grades which exceed 12%
in a couple of places. This will not meet State highway standards in any design
classification. Mr. Fisher asked if the base, surface treatment, and drainage
structures meet requirements. Mr..Warner said they have not reviewed the plans for
drainage ay this time.
A Mrs. Lamb was present to discuss State Route 769 off of. Stony'Point Road. She
said the road is very curvy and dangerous and she asked that something be done to
the road before someone' is killed. Mr. Batchelor checked the HighWay traffic count
for 1972 and found that Rt. 769 East had 45 vehicle trips per day and 769 North had
47 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Wood sa±d Mrs. Lamb has talked, to him about-'this road.
He asked if.they had discussed rights of way. Mrs. Lamb said she thought they have a
30' right of way. Mr. Wheeler asked that Mr. Warner look into what type of remedial
measures can be taken at this time and said the Board will investigate the possibility
of upgrading the road in the future. Mr. Wood said Mrs. Lamb should contact the
property owners along this road and ask them to sign a petition stating that they
wZl! donate additional right of way. He said this will help if the road is upgraded
in the future.
Mr. Jim Hill was present to discuss a highway matter. (Mr. Carwile abstaining
during the following discussion). Mr. Hill said Broadway Road, which is an extension
of Franklin' Street, will be upgraded. The plans have been presented to-the highway
department. This street, which lies in Albemarle County, connects on both ends to a
City street and the highway department will not accept the street into t~e State
system. Mr. Perry said the State highway department cannot take a road into the
system if it does not connect to another state road, and if the street is to be
developed as commercial they cannot take it in under subdivision regulations. Mr.
25i
Hill said the owner of the property is in the process of building a paper waste
disposal plant and needs access out from the property. Mr. Wheeler said it appears
that the owner wilt build the road, own it, and maintain it, for some time to come.
Mr. Batchelor asked if Mr. Hill was requesting that this be built as a private road.
Mr. Hili said it would have to be either a private road or be put into the State
system. Mr. W~heeter asked Mr. Warner if it was not best to have the road constructed
to State standards at this time since neither the Highway Department nor the Board
of Supervisors has any authority to ~recommend that the road be taken into the State
system. Mr. Warner said the Highway Department has reviewed the plans for design on
that basis. Mr. Humphrey said a question arises as to whether a bond will be required
and how long it would be held if required. Mr. Wheeler suggested that Mr. Humphrey
confer with the County Attorney on this matter. Mr. Thacker said it should be stated
that since the road cannot be brought into the State system the developer is con-
structing the road at his own risk.
The next item before the Board was a public hearing, as advertised in the Daily
Progress on March 31 and April 6, 1974, to abandon a section of Route 1102. No one
from the public was present to speak for or against this abandonment. Mr. Thacker
asked what happens to the abandoned portion of the road. Mr. Warner said all of the
land along the abandoned portion of road will belong to Blue Ridge Sanatorium.
Motion to adopt the following resalution was offered by Mr. Thacker:
WHEREAS, due. to construction of Route 53, a portion of
the old road was made a dead-end road and renumbered Route
1102; and
WHEREAS, in June, 1973, owners of property fronting on
this road asked that this road be abandoned to public
use; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors having followed
abandonment procedures prescribed in Virginia Code
Section 33.1-151, held a public hearing and no one appeared
in opposition to this abandonment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the
Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested
to abandon that section of Route 1102 from the dead-end
to 0.17 mile east.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
The following communications were received from the Virginia Department of
Highways:
5-16-74
"April 23, 1974
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on February 21, 1974, the
following abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County
is hereby approved, effective April 23, 1974.
ABANDONMENT LENGTH
Route T-1307 - Hrom Route 20 to Route T-1306. 0.03 Mi.
Sincerely,
(Signed) J. E. Harwood,
Deputy Commissioner and
Chief Engineer"
"April 22, 1974
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution of your Board on February 21, 1974, the
following addition to and abandonment from the Secondary System of
Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective April 22, 1974.
ADDITION
Sections 7, 8, 9, !0, 1i and 12 of new location
Route 602 between station 40+00 and station
139+90, project 0602-002-127,C501.
ABANDONMENT
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of old location
Route 602 between station 40+00 and station
139+90, project 0602-002-127,C501.
LENGTH
0.43 Mi.
0.67 Mi.
Sincerely,
(Signed) J. E. Harwood,
Deputy Commissioner and
Chief Engineer"
Mr. Batchelor noted that the Clerk has on file a copy of the 1974-75 Tentative
Allocations for Interstate, Primary and Urban Construction, from the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways.
Mr. Warner asked that the Board set a time for a public work session and review
of the highway master plan for Albemarle County. This plan must be returned to
Richmond by July 1, 1974. It was suggested that this meeting be held on May 22,
1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has not given an answer to the Highway Department on
a proposed route for Route 637. He said-he does not feel the Board is in a position
to make any recommendation until they know how the Planning Commission and Planning
Staff feel this will affect planning for that area. Mr. Wheeler asked that Mr.
Humphrey request recommendations on this matter from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Fisher announced that a sign has finally been erected at the Ivy interchange
of 1-64 stating that it is two miles to Ivy.
Mr. Fisher said an Albemarle County school bus driver has spoken to him about
5-16-74
25'3
the condition of Route 7a5 behind Gleco Mills. He feels that the road surface is
dangerous for school buses. Mr. Warner said there is a bridge on this section of road
which is only posted for three tons and is in need of repairs. The School Board has
been advised of this. Mr. Wheeler asked if buses are using this bridge. Mr. Fisher
said that was his understanding. Mr..Batchelor asked if this is a bridge which is to
maintained by Southern Railroad. Mr. Warner said yes, they have been advised of the
condition of the bridge. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any more bridges like this in
the County. Mr. Warner said the Highway Department ohecks these bridges constantly and
he does not believe 'there are any others needing repairs at this time. Mr. Wheeler
suggested the Board pass a motion directing the School Board to not use this bridge
until it is felt the bridge is safe and to also contact the Southern Railroad at once
to get the bridge repaired. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded
by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs'. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Thacker asked if a pub&~ic hearing will be held on the proposed realignment of
Route 20 around the Town of Scottsviile. Mr. Warner said yes, preliminary plans for
location and design have been developed and there will be a hearing on the combination
of these two items.
Mr. Carwile again asked about sidewalks along Barracks Road where the new U. S.
Route 250 by-pass interchange is being constructed. Mr. Warner said several people have
asked that sidewalks be provided o.n one side, preferably on both sides. He has
recommended that sidewalks he included in the contact on the north side and this is
being incorporated into the design now. If sidewalks are installed on the south side
of the road, it will require additional property damage because of proximity to the
road.
Mr. Henley asked about Route 684 between Yanceys Mill and Greenwood. Mr. Warner
said all revisions have been incorporated into the design. This will now go to public
hearing and soon thereafter the Highway Department will begin to obtain rights of way.
Mr. Henley also asked about Route 614. Mr. Warner said this project is in
preliminary stages; the design work has not'been completed.
Mr. Wheeler requested Mr. Warner to check Route 647, south o.f Route 22 at
'Cismont, for maintenance.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has received a letter from the Highway Commissioner,
Mr. Douglas Fugate, concerning House Bill 578. This bill allows counties to use a
certain amount of revenue sharing funds for highway constructions. Mr. Wheeler said
there is a deadline on the proposal and asked if the Board or staff has given this
any thought. Mr. Batchelor said. no, it has been a policy of this Board that no monies
will go toward highway construction.
25a,
Mr. Humphrey said there, is a problem on Route 601 at Old Garth Road. A new
entrance has been constructed with an uneven surface which causes a bump. He
asked that this be checked by the Highway Department.
Mr. Wheeler asked about the roads in Jefferson Village Subdivision. Mr.
Warner said he met with Mr. Williams once, and he has heard nothing further from
Mr. Williams. Mr. Warner said he has given Mr. Humphray a list of items which must
be corrected, of ~hich only four,out of the 20 items arc.complete. Mr. Wheeler
asked if the moratorium, imposed by the Board on building permits is still in e£fect.
Mr. Hartwell Clarke said no permits have been issued. Mr. Humphrey said he does
not have the staff to continmousiy go out to see if the items on the lis~ have been
corrected. He felt that if Mr. Williams were interested he would notify the Highway
Department when items are completed. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should ta~e drastic
action. He asked that the staff report back to the Board at the nex~ meeting and
that the Board send Mr. Williams a letter requesting his appearance at the June
meeting and that the letter be sent by registered mail. Motion to this effect was
offered ~by Mr. Carwiie, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
None.
Mr. Humphrey said there is a similar problem with Eartysville Heights Subdivision
which is almost complete. The Highway Department and the Planning staff have made
every effort to get Mr. Amon P. Williams to correct minor items in order to bring
these roads into the State system. There are several building permits pending at
this time. Mr. Humphrey said there are approximately 12 other subdivisions in the
County in this same type of situation, but the County holds bonds on these sub-
divisions. Mr. Thacker asked what type of bonds are being held. Mr. Humphrey said
they are constructions bonds. Mr. Batch~lor asked how long it will take to get the
minor items completed so the roads can be taken, into the system. Mr. Warner said
the biggest problem with Earlysville Heigh~ is ~drainage easement. Mr. Fisher
asked if there are lots which have been pl~tted and subdiv±~ed but not developed.
Mr. Humphrey said yes. Mr. Fisher said after this conversation today, it is likely
that building permits will be applied for immediately. Mr. Humphrey said Mr. Amon
Williams has one building permit pending now. Mr. Fisher said if the Board is
concerned a~out these roads, they should take some action before any more building
permits are applied for.
Mr. Humphrey said there are others; one which is of concern is Canterbury
Hills. Mr. Wheeler said he would support a 30-day moratorium. Mr. Thacker agreed,
but questioned the necessity of having a bui~ldi~ng permit moratorium si~nce the
County holds a valid bond. Mr. Humphrey said most of these items are not ones
5-16-74
255
covered by the bond. Mr. Clarke said with the.sewer problems in the subdivisons
close to town, these are the ont.y areas where people can build and they do employ
quite a lot of people.. An~overall moratorium could be a big disruption of the
building activity in the County. The Board doeS have other means to do the same
thing, such as withholding a certificate of occupancy. He suggested that imposing
a building permit moratorium might be considered a hardship on a large number of
people.~ Mr. Wheeler said he was only speaking of imposing a moratorium on bu&tding
permits ~n Earty~sville H~eights at this time. It shoul.d be stated that the Board is
only trying to'help the developer. It is to the developer's advantage to get the
roads into the State system as quickly as possible.
Mr. Humphrey said the County can withhold the certificate of occupancy. Mr.
Fisher said if this method is used, the people who. have paid for the house will not
be able to move in. Mrs. Fisher then offered motion to impose a temporary moratorium
on building permits in Earlysville Heights Subdivision for the purpose of encouraging
the developer to get the road problems straightened out to the satisfaction of the
Highway Department. On acceptance by the Highway Department, of the corrections,
the moratorium will be automatically lifted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Warner said a gentleman had~'sent a letter to the district office in Culpeper.
This concerned street lights for Four Seasons and he had pleaded for assistance
stating that he has been unable to obtain help from either the County or the Highway
Department. Mr. Warner said he had met with representatives of VEPCO in February.
He told them that with the new policies of the Highway Department concerning street
lights they could proceed with installation. Plans for Four Seasons were submitted
for the entire development. T~hese plans called for colonial fixtures in the townhouse
and patio areas and the proper lighting along Four Seasons Drive, which is a major
collector. Mr. Warner said no one has contacted him about these lights in the past
three months. It is not being pursued through lack of cooperat&on. At one time
the Highway Department felt there were certain standards by which they must abide.
These obstacles have been overcome, but it does take time to get plans approved.
Mr. Thacker asked the status of a request for street lights in the Porter's
Precinct. Mr. Batchelor said Appalachian Power Company has been directed to install
the lights.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the new Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance has
been returned by the City. Mr. Humphrey said it has, with their comments, and Mr.
St. John is recommending that their comments be accepted.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has received a request from Piedmont Virginia
College to establish a parking ordinance applicable to the Piedmont Virginia Community
College campus. Mr. Batchelor said this has been sent to the County Attorney for
drafting of such an ordinance.
250
5-16-7 4~----
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has discussed restricted roads ,quite often. He did
not feel the Board should ap. pro~e re.stricted roads with only deed restrictions, but
has received quite a lot of negative feedback on this.
a time to discuss how these requests will be handled.
'this be discussed on May 22, 1974.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board has discussed signs several times.
there is anything pending b. efore the Planning Commission on signs.
He said the Board should set
Mr. Fisher suggested that
He asked if
Mr. Humphrey
said there is an amendment, which will be heard on May 20, which in effect eliminates
all future billboards. This will probably be heard by the Board at their last
meeting in June.
Mr. Wheeler said there is .a great deal of misunderstanding about the,County's
Sign Ordinance. He has received several calls from people installing signs at shopping
centers. Evidently they can install a sign saying a shopping center is being
built, but they are not allowed to put the name and telephone number of the agent on
the sign. He suggested that the Board discuss this in more detail at a later time.
(Note: Mr. Carwile abstaining during the following discussion). Mr. Humphrey
said he has a request from a Steven W. Johnson asking that the Board set a public
hearing date for a public amusement, pursuant to Section 7-1-26 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance, The request is for a Go-Kart facility to be located on
Route 250 east on Pantops Mountain. Mr. Fisher asked why the request was presented
to the Board. Mr. Humphrey said this is considered to be a public amusement and
these requests come directly to the Board unless the Board orders the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on same. Mr. Wheeler said the Board should
refer this to the Planning Commission and let it go through normal channels. Mr.
Humphrey said it will not be heard by tJhe Board until the end of August if it goes
that route. Mr. Wheeler said that would probably put the.man out of business. Mr.
Humphrey said if the Board would set a date for a public hearing, it would require
the Planning Commission to set an earlier hearing date. After a short discussion,
Mr. Fisher offered motion to set this on the Board's agenda for June 26 and requested
a full report on this request from the P~anning staff. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thacker and carried by 'the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: No.ne.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile.
Mr. Humphrey said the Health Department had called this morning to ask if the
Board will support them in requiring a lot size higher than 20,000 sq. ft., particularly
in the Crozet area. He had informed Mr. Chevacci that the Subdivision Ordinance
allows the Health Department to require a higher size, but evidently they want the
full support of this Board. Mr. Wheeler said the Board has already gone on record
on this matter. Mr. Batc,helor said Mr. Chevacci has the latitude to require a
larger lot size.
5-16-74
25?'
At 10:58 A.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on an ordinance to adopt
by reference the Building Official's and Code Administrator's Basic Fire Prevention
Code. Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progess on May 1
and May 8, 1974.
Mr. Hartwell Clarke, from the County Staff, was present. No one from the
public spoke for or against adoption of this ordinance. Motion was offered by Mr.
Thacker to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AHOPT BY REFERENCE
THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AND CODE ADMINISTRATORS
BASIC FIRE PREVENTION CODE
Chapte~ 6 - Section 6-8 of the Albemarle County Code:
BE tT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Building Officials and Code
Administrators Basic Fire Prevenvion Code be,and the same
hereby is, adopted by reference pursuant to Section 27-5.1
of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At 11:O0 A.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on the amended Airport
Commission Ordinance as advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1 and May 8~ 1974.
No one from the public spoke for or against. Motion to amend and reordain Article IV
of Chapter 2 of the Albemarle County Code by repealing Sections 2-29, 2-30, 2-31,
and 2-32 and amending and reenacting Sections 2-22 through 2-28 as follows was offered
Mr. Carwile:
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors o.f the County of
Albemarle:
1. That Article IV of Chapter 2 of the C.ode of the County of
Albemarle, Virgini.a, be amended and reenacted as follows:
ARTICLE IV. Airport Commission
Section 2-22. "Airport Commission" defined.
For the purposes of this article, the term "Airport Commission"
shall mean the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission.
Section 2-23. Established.
There is hareby established a Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint
Airport Commission.
Section 2-24. Composition; appointment of members.
The Airport Commission shall consist of seven members. The
members shall be citizens of the City or the County who hold no other
municipal office and who shall be appointed by joint action of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of
Charlottesville.
Section 2-25. Composition and terms of office of members.
Ail members of the Airport Commission shall serve without
compensation. The City Manager and the County Executive and the ~
5-16-74
Airport Manager will serve as advisory, non-voting members of the
commission, and will be in addition to the seven members of the
commission. Ail voting members will serve terms which expire on
December 1st of the th~ird year following their appoin.tment. No
voting member will be reappointed who has served as a member for
six consecutive years immediately preceding such reappointment.
Section 2-26. Officers.
As soon after their appointment as possible, the voting members
of the Airport Commission will convene and elect a chairperson and
vice-chairperson from their group for a term of one year. The Air-
port Manager's secretary shall serve as a secretary to the Airport
Commission and will perform such duties as may be assigned, including
the keeping of Proper minutes of the meetings of the Commission.
Se~ction 2-27. Vacancies.
Vacancies occuring in the Airport Commission for any reason
shall be filled by appointment through joint action of the City
Council of Charlottesville and the County Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County.
Section 2-28. Powers and Duties.
The Airport Commission shall be an advisory body having the duty
of keeping the two governing bodies and the Charlottesville,Albemarle
Airport Board advised on all matters pertaining to the airport.
2. That Sections 2-29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-32 be repealed.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wood asked that the enabling legislation be checked to see if a member of the
Board of Supervisors can serve as a member of the Airport Commission.
Mr. Robert E. Bibb was present to speak to the Board about renewal of a lottery
permit for Charlottesville Lodge No. 1028, Loyal Order of Moose, Keswick. He said he
had not applied for the permit on paper, but ~s~interested in renewing the permit.
Initially, he understood the permit would be a perpetual permit. He said since the
law allowing issuance of these permits was passed by the State once,.an organization
files a proper application and establishes the fact that they are authorized, under
the law, to file this application that the Board consider making the permits permanent
under the following con'ditons: 1) that the organization operates within the law; and
2) that they file a financial report with the County Director of Finance and pay a
County license fete. Mr. Bibb said order for his organization to be in business they
must be properly established by law. He felt issuance of permits under these conditions
would establish a safeguard.
Mr. Wheeler said the Board had initially issued the permits for a fairly short
period of time to see what the performance would be. He said now may be the proper
time for the County to approve these for a longer period. Mr. Bibb said the Loyal
Order of Moose is a non-profit group and are required by Federal law to file a non-
profit Federal tax report form 990. This form shows all the receipts and disbursements
of the organization. He asked permission to send a Xerox copy of this report as his
financial report. Mr. Batchetor said this would have to be checked by the County
Attorney.
5-26-74
259
Mr. Wheeler said Mr. St. John has ruled that it is the responsibility of the
governing body to issue these permits, but screening and policing of the permits can
be delegated to the County Executive or the Director of Finance. Mr. St. John has
also said that these permits can be issued for no longer than a year at a time.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to renew the lottery permit of the Charlottes-
ville Lodge No. 1028, Loyal Ord.er of Moose, Keswick, Virginia, for one year, in
accordance with the adopted policy of the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lem Coffman was present. He asked that the Board look into the matter of a
work experience program administered through the County Welfare Department.
Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and presented the following
to the Board:
"May 15, 1974
Memo To: Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr.
From: Mr. J. Harvey Bailey
Subject: Estimate of Cost for Fire Suppression:
SLF-1
We have in hand daily tickets from the Spratt Equipment Company, Inc.,
showing the hours worked for the several pieces of equipment worked,
from the beginning of the job on May 3, 1974, through May 13, 1974.
Our calculations, based on the per hour rates quoted show a cost of
$6,705 has been incurred.
Beginning May 13 the contractor has had at his disposal an
irrigation pump and pipe furnished by Mr. George Palmer. On this
he is using an additional man. Also, we have used the chemicals
supplied us by Mr. Reynolds of the Marks Manufacturing Corporation.
The value of the chemical as a wetting agent has been inconclusive
so far as we are able to tell. It may be that we are not applying
the mixture rapidly enough to be effective. However, we are some-
what limited by our equipment. Our efforts were confined to a small
area. At eleven o'clock on May 15, after two days of spasmodic
use, we dug into the mass and turned up large quantities of red,
hot coals. We are not prepared to say that their presence was
due to the inefficiency of the chemical; it is probable that we
have not applied the water in sufficient quantity.
On the other hand, the use of the irrigation system has speeded
the work of removal and watering out the fire. Beginning on the
16th we will use two hoses in conjunction with the equipment and
abandon the chemical application.
We estimate that by the end of May, 1974, the contractor
will have earned $20,000 according to the equipment rate schedule.
As nearly as we can judge, he will by then have accomplished in
excess of two-thirds of the work."
Mr. Fisher asked the daily working hours of the contractor. Mr. Bailey said
they are irregular. Some days they work as many as 10 and other days as few as six.
They work until they have had all they can stand and then quit. Mr. Fisher said
several people have called him and suggested that the contractor is not working
as expeditiously as can be expected. They have complained of bronchitis, asthma
and being unable to sleep. He asked if there is any way to encourage the contractor
to work a few more hours a day. Mr. Bailey said he thought the crew is working close
to the limit of their capacity. He said, with all due respect, that the people calling
5-16-74
are suffering at a distance. The conditions these men are working under are far
from favorable and the County is fortunate to get any one to do this work. If the
Board wants to speed up the operation, a second crew and additional equipment would
have to be authorized. These conditions are also hard on the equipment and it requires
extra maintenance. Mr. Wheeler said Mr. Bailey might discuss, the poss_ibility of a
second crew with the contractor. Mr. Fisher said he has received so many calls from
people complaining about their health that he must be sure the County is doing
everything they can to extinguish the fire. He asked if the operation is limited by
water supply. Mr. Bailey said they could possibly go further downstream and find
another branch coming in and, if pipe can be obtained, there would be an ample supply
of water. The biggest problem would'be additional personnel.
Mr. Fisher said it has been charged that the County was notified, by the State
Solid Water and Vector Control Bureau, that the debris was a potential fire hazard.
Mr. Bailey said he had never been informed of this.
Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mr. C. Sherman Grove,. Jr., and read
the following into the record:
"May 12, 1974
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher
Albemarle ~County Board of Supervisors
Sheffield Road, West Leigh
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Gerry:
You will recall that I sent you certain material.pertinent to sanitary
landfills and the Ivy "dump" on February 22, 1.973. I had previously
discussed this material personally with the county executive and had
offered to work with the count.y, city, and/or the University on a
joint investigation of the rehabilitation of the Ivy dump, in order
to make it a sanitary landfill. I received no encouragement at that
time and have not been consulted about any of the county-city joint
problems (although a number of citizens' groups have requested my
services in the matter of sit.~ng future landfills.) You know my
thoughts as a result of my testimony before the County Planning
Board and the Board of Supervisors re: the Cason site.
Now you are confronted with the costly problem of a bur.ning dump, a
problem which could have been averted had the Ivy dump been rehabilitated.
More bulldozers, operated under incompetent supervision~ are not going
to solve the problem. A viable sanitary landfill can be engineered and
operated within the reg~ta~mnso6.ft~.he:~'~O;ommonwealth of Virginia without
detrimental effects on the environment.
I have given considerable thought as ~o whom this letter should be
addressed and finally decided to communicate again with you s~nce the
problem exists in your magisterial district and since I had communciated
with you previously. I would appreciate it if you would share this
letter w~th the Board of Supervisors and inform them that I will be
happy to sit down and discuss the solution' to this problem with them.
Although I would do so as a consulting engineer with considerable
experience in this area, I would be willing to adjust my fee out of
a sincere concern as a taxpayer in Albemarle County.
Kindest personal regards,
(Signed) C. S. Grove, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.
Engineering Consultant"
5-16-74
26!__
Mr. Fisher said he had brought this letter to the Board's attention ~n the event
they wanted to solicit Mr. Grove's help. Mr. Wheeler said he could understand his
concern as a citizen and he would certainly welcome any assistance he might offer.
However, any professional help that the Board might employ would only be employed
after some recommendation from the County Executive and the County Engineer. He
did encourage Mr. Grove to contact these gentlemen if he wanted to offer help as a
private citizen. Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to respond to Mr. Grove's letter in that
vein. Mr. Wheeler said he has full confidence in Mr. Bailey's ability. The County
does have problems with the landfill, but these will be corrected. Mr. Batchetor said
the staff has received many good suggestions from citizens, however, the staff has
received competent advice from State and Federal agencies and he cannot, at this time,
recommend the hiring of any additional consultants.
Mr. Wheeler said he has received a report from Sheriff Bailey about his
investigation of the landfill fire. Mr. Mac Sandridge made the investigation for
the Sheriff's Department. From his past experience investigating arson cases, he
has said it is almost impossible to establish the cause of the fire because there are
so many ways the fire could have started.
Upon a request from the County Executive, motion was offered by Mr. Wood and
seconded by Mr. Thacker to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $20,000 be, and the same hereby is,
appropiated from the General Fund and transferred to the
General Operating Fund for expenditures incurred in
extinguishing a fire at Sanitary Landfill #1 and expenditure
of these funds is hereby approved.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Statement of-expenses of the Director of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the
Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of April, 1974, were presented.
On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood ~hese statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carw~le, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Statement of expenses incurred in the operation of the County Jail for the
month of April, 1974, was presented. Also presented was statement of the Jail
Physician in the amount of $35.00, of which two-thirds is reimbursable by ~he State.
On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood, these statements were approved as read.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
262
Report of the County Executive for the month of March, 1.974, was received as
information.
In accordance with Code Section 63-67.I and 63-67.2, report of the Department of
Social Services for the month of March, 1974, was received.
On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Carwile, Ck. No. I003751, dated
April 10, 197.4, payable to Albert R. Crittenden, in the amount of $47.95, was ordered
cancelled, said check being returned marked duplicate payment. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The following request was received from Jim Ritchie, Director of~the Social
Services Department:
"April 29, 1974
Memo To:
From:
Tom Batchelor
Jim Ritchie
As discussed with you previously, we need to make several adjustments
in our budget for this fiscal year in order for it to balance. The
following additional appropriations are requested:
80-B-214 - Rent. We request an ~propriation of an additional $8,000
to cover the increased cost of rental for the Tarteton Sqaare Office
for which we did not budget. The State will reimburse $6,400 of this.
80-B-299 - Tarleton Square Project. An appropriation for $3,000 which
will cover the cost of moving into the building and installing telephone
and Xerox equipment as well as purchasing signs and miscellaneous items
involved in the move to this building. The State will reimburse $2,400
of this amount.
We would like to request the following transfer of funds that will require
no additional appropriation.
We request a transfer of $644.57 from 80-B-403, Furniture and Fixtures,to
80-B-405, Office Equipment.
Transfer $75.00 from 80-B-220.1, Traveling Expenses-Food Stamps, to
80-B-220.2, Travel Expenses-Board Members.
Transfer $500.00 from 80-B-212, Insurance Premium,Surety Bond and 3800.00
from 80-B-ii1, Medical Examinations, to 80-B-251, Computer Service ($1300.00)
Transfer $2,000.00 from 80-B-109, Compensation, Assistants and Clerical Help
to 80-B-217, Equipment Rental. This is to cover the cost of the Xerox
machine.
In the 80C section of the budget, we request a transfer of $17,316.00 from
80-C-703A, Supplementation, to 80-C-703, General Relief. This money is being
used for the same purpose it was originally budgeted for, but must be expended
from the General Relief category for State reporting p.urposes.
We hope these two appropriations and the transfer requests can be approved."
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to allow these transfer of funds as requested
to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $11,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, transferred
from the General Fund to the General Operating Fund for expenditures
of the Department of Social Services and expenditure of these funds
is here $ approved.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. (Mr. Carwile stated that he was a trustee in the sale of
the Tarleton Square Building.)
and
5-16-74
263
Request was~received from C. Franklin Drumheller, Director of Federal Programs,
for the following corrections to the 1973-74 budget:
t7Qa
ApproVed
1973-74
Administrative:
135a Compensation of Other Administrative
Personnel
135b Compensation of Administrative Secretary
2.18 Postage
220 _~Tma~l Expenses-Administrative Staff
236 In-Service
319 Stationery, Forms, Office Supplies
326 Surveys, Reports, Dissemination
Revised
Appropriation
$ 4,000.00 $ 334.00
1,500.00 ~ 2,100.00
5O.OO 25O.OO
100.00 100.00
2,000.00 .00
5O.OO 5OO.OO
100.00 200.00
17Qbl Instruction: Regular Day School:
134b Compensation of Substitute Teachers
134c Compensation of Other Instructional Staff
135c Compensation of Supervisor~
500.00~
5,000.00
11,000.00
5,200.00
3,840.00
12,500.00
17Qb2 Other Instrmctionat Costs:
220 Travel Expenses-Instructional Staff
236 Professional Improvement-In-Service
299 Xerox Charges
305 Instructional Supplies
314 Library Books, supplies, periodicals
1,200.00 500.00
500.00 2,S00.00
.00 540.00
56,220.00 40,034.00
500.00 3O.O0
17Qfl
218
312
Operation of School Plant:
Telephone Service
Vehicle Expenses, gas, oil
2,100.00 425.00
.00 200.00
17Qf2 Maintenance of School Plant:
215~ Repairs and Replacements-Equipment
200.00 1t0.00
17Qg Fixed Charges:
295 Employers' Contributions to F.I.C.A.
2,200.00 1,200.00
l?qd
Capital Outlay-:
403 Equipment: Furniture and Fixtures 7,780.00 29,197.00
601 Improvement to ~.~.~.~.~e~0.~i~g 6,000.00 240.00
TOTAL 17Q
$ 100,000.00
$ 100,000.00
On motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood, the foregoing changes were allowed.
The motion was passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
N~YS: None.
Mr. Wheeler had the following letter r~ad into the record:
"April 29, 1974
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Room 200, County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Gentlemen:
The Four Seasons Townhouse Association considers the current tax assessment
unfair to owners of homes bUilt since 1967. The 163 homeowners of this
Association (homes built since 1967) object to paying almost twice as much
tax on their homes than owners of homes of comparable value built in 1967.
It is noted that this problem iS not of the County Board's making, however,
in the interest of £air and equitable taxation, we request that the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors take some action, 'such as obtaining a declaratory
judgement fr'om the Court on the matter, in order to eliminate this unfairness.
Thank you for giving this request your consideration.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Miss Rose L. Mancini
Vice-President"
Mr. Wheeler said the Board discussed this matter, at another meeting.. They were
told that the d~eclaratory judgement must be initiated by a citizen. Mr. Batchelor said
the County Attorney has advised that it is not ~n the discretion of the Board of Super-
visors or the County'%ring such a suit, but would have to be brought through a civil
procedure by a citizen. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. St. John had said something
slightly different. Mr. Carwile said Mr. St. John had advised that in order to bring
a declaratory judgement, there must be a controversy. The County cannot make a con-
troversy so that such a suit can be filed. Mr. Wheeler asked that the letter be referred
to the County Attorney for reply.
Mr. Wheeler read the following letter from the Virginia Employment Commission into
the record:
"May 10, 1974
Mr. Gordon Wheeler
Chairman of Board of Supervisors
908 E. High Street
~ha~tOttesv~lle, Virginia
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
We have been informed by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency that
will serve as. the deliverer of services or will handle the Youth Employment
programs in your county (or city).
It is not our intent to solicit the handling of successful, ongoing programs
operated by other agencies. The VEC, however, has the capabi, lities and the
authority to handle such programs. The VEC will assume the role of chief
deliverer of s.ervices (will handle programs) whenever it is desired by the
county or city authorities.
If your county is interested in the above mentioned service for summer 197'4~
or fiscal year 1975, including summer of 1975, please contact me, 293-5124.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) T. E. McGehee, Manager"
Mr. Batchelor sJaid he had not seen the letter before this time. Mr. Wheeler asked
that he investigate and make a report to the Board at the next meeting.
At 11:47 A.M., the Chairman requested the Board adjourn into executive session to
discuss legal matters and purchase of land. _Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.
Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At 1:47 P.M., the Board reoonvened.
Dr. George Moore was present to discuss the following request:
"Request for fox trapping in western part of Albemarle County"
"There is urgent need to trap foxes in Albemarle County west of
Route 810 to the Augusta County border. Augusta County suffered
a serious outbreak of fox rabies beginning last fall with serious
loss of cattle, horses, and poultry. State trappers have now thin-
ned the Augusta fox population to where the rabies epidemic has
subsided. In March '74 the State trappers, at the request of
the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, trapped foxes along the
Nelson-Augusta border to insure that no rabid foxes had entered
Nelson County. In three weeks, almost three hundred predator
animals had been trapped. The trappers have now moved on to
southwestern Virginia where another outbreak of fox rabies has
bee~ reported."
5-16-7~. ...........
265
"We sampled a number of Nelson County foxes for rabies and our
lab reported no evidence of fox rabies in Nelson County. Thus,
we are reassured that Nelson County has been free from fox rabies
since 1970. You may remember serious outbreaks of fox rabies
in Nelson County during 1964 and 1968.
No trapping has been conducted in Albemarle County since 1966.
At that time, two out o.f 256 foxes trapped were found to be
rabid. The State recommended another year of trapping for 1967
but this was not carried out due to lack of local funds. The
State now co.nducts the trapping without cost to the counties.
From reporvs of fox rabies among all counties surrounding
Albemarle, I am most concerned about the Augusta-Albemarle border.
Practically all rabid foxes reported recently have been confined
to the mountainous areas.
In my opinion, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors should
forward a letter of request to me for State trapping along the
Augusta border as soon as possible. If any rabid fox has
crossed the Albemarle border, he would soon infect red and gray
foxes throughout Albemarle County. I believe you would agree
that in deference to fox hunters in central and eastern Albemarle
County, we should take preventive measures and trap along the
mountains now. My plan calls for trapping only west of Route
810. The State trappers should need only three weeks o~f time
to trap on public and private lands wherever permission is
granted. The traps used are such that any dogs accidently
caught could be released without injury. Presuming that
Albemarle fox hunters hunt east of the mountains and desire
their foxes to be free from rabies, I am recommending that
action be taken now for this particular project.
Each year some 200 humans who are bitten by animals in Char-
lottesville and Albemarle County must be immunized for fear
of rabies. If we can confirm that no fox or skunk rabies exists
in Albemarle County, I feel that we can relax our rules and rabies
immunizations for humans to the satisfaction of all. Rabies
immunization is still expensive, painful, and hazardous. Trapping
east of the mountains may also be difficult but necessary if a
rabid fox is found east of Route 810.
Your urgent consideration is requested."
After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood,
to allow the State trappers to trap foxes in Albemarle County, west of Route 810 to
the Augusta County border. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
In line with a request made at a meeting held on April 24, 1974, Miss Page
Godsey was present to discuss with the Board the adoption of a noise ordinance.
She said in 1974 S.B. 358 passed the General Assembly. Phis bill gives authority
to counties, cities, and towns to regulate motorcycle noise. However, passage of
this bill appears to only give localities authority to regulate the amount of
noise that emanates from already illegal equipment. If the motorcycle exhaust
system does not conform to the standards of Section 46.1-302 and Section 46.1-302,
the operator and owner are already, under existing law, open for conviction for
operation of the illegally equipped vehicle. Section 15.1-867.1, added to S.B.
358, apparently means that the county can now set standards, for example decible
levels, for enforcing the statewide regulation contained in Section 46.1-301.
This would make the operator and owner liable for conviction under a county ordinance
as well as the state traffic code. Miss Godsey said three general areas should be
5-16-74
addressed in the discussion of enacting either a general noise ordinance or a
specific ordinance particularly restricting motorcycle noise: l) what restrictions
can be achieved through strict enforcement of present law? 2) what authority
exists for the county to adopt a general or specific noise ordinance? and 3) what
is required to develop and enforce a noise ordinance?
Miss Godsey said two types of noise ordinances may be considered. One is a
flat prohibition against certain activities which have been deemed to create
armf.ul or noise levels. Such prohibitions might be limited to certain
times of day and/or to certain places. A second type of ordinance controls on the
basis of quantity and quality of noise. This requires the development of decibel
level standards of the amount of noise allowed from different types of activites.
The conditions under which to apply standards would have to be delineated as well
as the specific procedures for how measurements will be taken to determine if the
standard is being exceeded. Sound level meters would be required to measure the
amount of noise emission.
Mr. Fisher said he had read the code sections and they only apply to vehicles
on a highway and do not refer to such motorized vehicles as go-karts, minibikes,
etc. which operate, without mufflers, on private property. Most of the complaints
he has received are for vehicles on private property. He said he is not sure what
the Board can legally do to help alleviate this-problem.
Miss Godsey said if the Board wants to enact a general noise ordinance Mr.
St. John will have to interpret the Code as to what can be done specifically in
reference to motorcycles. She asked if the Board wanted her to check further on a
general noise ordinance or only on one that deals with vehicular traffic on highways.
Mr. Wood said he was interested only in an ordinance to regulate motorcycle
noise, not a general noise ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Board should be careful
about the definition because there are vehicles that can never be licensed for
street operation that are as much of a nuisance as motorcycles. Mr. Thacker said
he would like to see what can be done about motor vehicles that do not meet the
original factory noise levels, whether on private or public property.
Mr. St. John was requested to draft an ordinance using these guidelines and
send copies to the Board for further discussion.
Mr. Fisher said his children were Playing in the yard yesterday when a
bullet ricocheted off a tree from a gun fired from the road. He said he would
also be interested in looking at an ordinance prohibiting the firing of firearms
in subdivisions.
After discussion of an ordinance to equalize the pay of certain boards and
commissions, the matter was ordered carried over to Wednesday, May 22, 1974.
The next item was discussion of appointment of an auditor for the 1973-74
County audit. The following communication from Lincoln G. Dulaney was presented:
267
"May 1, 1974
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Gentlemen:
I am now preparing my program of county audits for the currenv year.
As my records indicate, you will shortly consider this matter. Please
consider this letter as a proposal for the audit of your County records
for the year ended June 30, 1974. As you know, I have audited your
records for the past several years and while I cannot give you a firm
commitment as to cost, I anticipate that the cost for the current
year will run from fifteen to twenty percent more than the previous
year. The reasons for this increase are as follows:
Last years charge of $9,500.00 was approximately $2,500.00
under my standard billing rates plus out-of-pocket expenses.
(This is not unusual for me because I like to do county
audits and I also can make effective use of Junior
Accountants, who after having successfully assisted in
a county audit will never again be frightened by having
to work with a large volume of figures.)
e
The continuing increase in the volume of work involved.
(Example- One line in the land book subdivided into several
hundred lots.)
Increases in my costs. (Example: A twenty-five percent
increase in postage in the last year and at least ten percent
increase in wages.)
Anticipated additional time involved in auditing Real Estate
Tax refunds.
As usual I will make every effort to keep the cost of this service
to you at a minimum and at the same time maintain generally accepted
auditing and reporting standards.
If awarded this work, I will in so far as possible, schedule it at
the convenience of your officials.
I appreciate the confidence that you have placed in me in the past
and hope that I will have the pleasure of serving you again this year.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Lincoln G. Dulaney
Certif±ed Public Accountant"
Mr. Batchelor said the State Auditor of Public Accounts sets the rules and
regulations by which localities are audited. They are among the most rigid in the
United States. Mr. Dutaney's work has been acceptable to the State and while the
staff does not comment on the audit, Mr. Dulaney has always been available to the
staff when making procedural changes.
Mr. Wheeler said the National Association of Counties recently sent a report
on ~he average cost of auditors, with the cost based on population. Mr. Dulaney's
projected cost fits in with the average cost of auditing a county of like size.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to employ Mr. Lincoln G. Dulaney as auditor
for the 1973-74 County audit. 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.
Adoption of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance was the next item before the
268
Board. Mr. Batchetor said there were several items which need to be clarified
before adoption of this ordinance. 1) The Land Use Tax category is requested at
$16,602. There are indications that this sum will be inadequate. The Board stated
that the staff should proceed with the amount in the budget and if there are
indications that the amount will be inadequate to report this to the Board when
difficulties arise. Mr. Wheeler said the staff has not had time to run into
difficulties yet. Mr. Batchetor said he could see no reason to change this
amount, at this time, as long as everyone is aware of the ground rules. 2) The
Chamber of Commerce is approved for full funding. Mr. Batchelor suggested that
the funds for convention promotion be impounded until such time as a contract,
satisfactory to all persons involved, is worked out. 3) The staff is not sure
that the Board wanted to include $7,132 in the budget for-Piedmont Virginia
Community College; part of this money to be used for proposed athletic facilities.
The City has voted to leave their share of the money in the budget and to give it
consideration again at a later date. Mr. Wheeler felt this amount should be left
in the budget. 4) The staff is not sure about the status of a request for
$6,200 for Offender Aid and Restoration. Mr. Fisher said OAR has made application
for other funding. The application has passed the Planning District Commission
and been forwarded. He felt this amount should be left in the budget on a hold
basis. 5) Mr. Batchelor said a request from the Commonwealth's Attorney for a
salary of $18,500, which is $2,000 over the original request, was received after
the public hearing on the budget and this amount has been added to the appropriation
ordinance. With the changes noted above the total budget for 1974-75 is $18,313,356.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the Annual Appropriation Ordinance,
incorporating the changes mentioned above. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr.
Wood. Mr. Wheeler said th~s_~dr~inancefisi~jmstz~a~gu±deline to be used by the staff.
Adoption of this ordinance does not mean that the County will spend all of these
monies. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
(The complete taxt of the Appropriation Ordinance, as adopted, is Set out below.)
.... ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1975; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and
proviaions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and
all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such
inconsistency.
BE tT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
269
SECTION I
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the General Fund the sum of one million
five hundred twenty-eight thousand seven hundred dollars and no cents
($'1,528,700) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Refunds $1,528,7QQ
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$1~528,700
To be provided as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974
Revenue from Local Sources
Transfer from General and Capital Outlay
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
mOm
228,700
1,300,000
$1.,52.8,.7.0,0
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
the sum of nine hundred ten thousand nine hundred sixty-six dollars
and no cents ($910,966) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
t. Board of Supervisors $140,307
2. County Executive's Office 14,800
3. Personnel Department 186,581
4. Purchasing Department 28,900
5. Di:rector of Assessment and Board
of Equalization
Land Use Tax
Director of Finance
i 8~$tElectionsa
9. Recording COsts
10. Virginia AsSociation of Counties
1!. Road Viewers
12. Xeroxing
13. Chamber of Commerce
14. Economic Development Commission
15. Unidentified Telephone Calls
169,954
16,602
297,018
37,724
5o
1,800
8o
3,000
9,950
4,000
20O
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
the sum of eight hundred sixty-three thousand two hundred thirty-one
dollars and no cents ($863,231) is appropriated from the General Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
!. Fire Prevention and Extinction
2. Engineering Department
3. Inspections Department
4. Planning & Zoning Department
5. County Landfill #1, Ivy
6. County Landfill #2, Keene
7. Parks and Recreation
8. Maintenance of Buildings and Grounds
9. Soil Survey
10. Advancement-Agriculture and Home Economics
11. Emergency Preparedness
12. Electric Current-Street Lights
13. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
$151,569
60,402
117,924
164,800
67,050
45,100
97,231
79,342
12,000
40,500
11,713
7,000
8,600
27O
5-16-74
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum
of two million one hundred thirty-five thousand four hundred forty-
four dollars and no cents ($2,135,444) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Administration, Dept. of Social Services
2. Public Assistance; federal, state, and local
3. Health Department
4. Mental Health
5. Community Action Organization
6. Madison Hall Volunteers
7. Youth Employment Service
8. Rescue Squad
9. Highway Safety Commission
!O. L~b~a~y~J
11. Bicentennial Commission
12. District Home
13. Lunacy Commission
$400,060
1,266,620
173,727
28,399
34,074
4,OOO
2,500
2,500
6,000
200,000
9,564
5,000
3,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE the sum of seven hundred thousand six hundred fifteen dollars
and no cents ($700,615) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. County Attorney's Office $39,850
2. County Clerk and Commissioner of Accounts 69,449
3. Circuit Court 12,300
4. General District Court 6,280
5. Commonwealth Attorney's Office 41,550
6. Juvenile Court 23,259
7. Policing and Investigating 348,578
8. Confinement and Care of Prisoners 53,000
9. Protection of Livestock and Fowl 23,424
10. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home 3,000
11. Debt Service-Jail 73,725
12. Offender Aid and Restoration 6,200
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL OPERATING FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$4,610,25.6.
To be provided for as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total GENERAL OPERATING FUND r. esources
available for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1975
--0~
2,593,827
1,968,980
5,900
41,549
$4,610,256
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL OPERATING fund the sum of
ten million five hundred thirty-seven thousand six hundred four dollars
and no cents ($10,537,604) is appropriated from the School Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Administration
2. Instruction Regular Day School
3. Other Instructional Costs
4. Attendance and Health Services
5. Operational Costs-Pupil Transportation
6. Replacement of Transportation Vehicles
7. Operation of Food Services
8. Operation of School Plant
$197,010
6,028,122
717,000
65,OOO
703,550
110,000
11,500
568,000
5-16-74
271
9. Maintenance of School Plant $
10. Fixed Charges
11. Adult Education
12. Other Educational Programs
13. Capital Outlay
14. Debt Service
212,650
214,500
92,000
245,000
290,500
1,082,772
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of
nine hundred eighty-six thousand ninety-one dollars and no cents
($986,091) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. ESEA Title I-Low Income $246,000
2. ESEA Title I-Migrant 24,775
3. ESEA Title II-Library Resources 20,000
4. ESEA Title III-Innovative Programs 66,666
5. Vocational Education (Handicapped) 50,550
6. Division of Justice and Crime Prevention 28,095
7. ESEA Title VII-Spectra 490,005
8. Handicapped-Early Childhood (REEACH) 60,000
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of the item below the
sum of seven thousand one hundred thirty-two dollars and no cents
($7,132) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Miscellaneous-Piedmont Community College
$7,132
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June. 30, 1975
$11,530,827
To be provided for as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974 $ -0-
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.)6,347,940
Revenue from the Commonwealth 4,068,912
Revenue from the Federal Government 1,036,325
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975 $1.1,530,827
SECTION IV
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are
appropriated for the purposes specified herein for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1975:
Paragraph One
For the function of CAPITAL OUTLAY the sum of twenty-five
thousand dollars and no cents ($25,000) is hereby appropriated
from the Capital Outlay Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Legal Expenses
2. Surveying and Engineering
3. Site Testing and Preparation
$ 1,000
20,000
4,000
SUMMARY
Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND appropriation
for fiscal year end.ing June 30, 1975
$25,000
To be provided as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.)
Total CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
--0--
25,000
$25,000
SECTION V
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1975:
272
~16-7L~
Paragraph One
For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of four hundred
seventy-five thousand dollars and no cents ($475,000) is hereby appro-
priated from the Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $475,000
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriation for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$475,000
To be provided for as follows:
Anticipated surplus at July 1, 1974
Receipts from Cafeterias
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
_OB
475,0OO
$475,000
Paragraph Two
For the function of CROZET SANITARY DISTRICT operations the sum of
five thousand seventy-three and no cents ($5,073) is hereby appropriated
from the Crozet Sanitary District Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Redemption of Bonds
2. Payment of Interest
$5,000
73
SUMMARY
Total CROZET SANITARY DISTRICT FUND appropriations
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$5,073
To be provided as follows:
Receipts from Albemarle County Service
Authority .... $5,073
Total CROZET SANITARY DISTRICT FUND resources
available for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975 ~_~..~[.~[$5,073
Paragraph Three
For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred thirty-
five thousand dollars and no cents ($135,000) is hereby appropriated
from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks $135,000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$135,000
To be~provided as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1974
Receipts from Rental Fees
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
~0~
135,000
$135,000
Paragraph Four
For the function of the MCINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of three
thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($3,500) is hereby appro-
priated from the~McIntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 3,500
SUMMARY
Total MCINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
$ 3,500
$ 3,500
$ 3,5oo
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total MCINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975
5-16-74
273
Total Appropriations mentioned in Sections I through V in this
Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1975:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V
General Fund
General Operating Fund
School Operating Fund
Capital Outlay Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds
$ 1,528,700
4,610,256
11,530,827
25,000
618,573
GRAND TOTAL:
$18,313,256
SECTION VI
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Section I through V are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said items and
those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all
appropriations made out of the General Fund, the General Operating Fund,
the School Operating Fund, the Capital Outlay Fund, the Cafeteria Fund,
the McIntire Trust Fund, the Crozet Sanitary District Fund, and the
Textbook Rental Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and propor-
tionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only
in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the
fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay
all the appropriations in full. Otherwise, She said appropriations shall
be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all
realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue
estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of
Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the oontrol of the Board
of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare
not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund
budget as submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by
the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the
School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of
the Board of Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these
agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item
of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropri-
ation without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of propriations payable out of the General Fund of
the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th)
day of June., 1975, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the county
treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations which
may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year,
beginning July 1, 1975. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be
construed to be applicable to the School Operating Fund, any Capital
Outlay Fund, Self-Sustaining Fund, or any other especially restricted
fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in
financing proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year
beginning July 1, 1975.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or con-
tractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department,
bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the director of finance; provided,
however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications,
travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions sha!l
be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual
services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis
shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of
the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the director
of finance, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids
on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department,
bureau, agency or individual.
274
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein
required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through
appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not
be cons±dered obligations of the county, and the director of finance
shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance
by any or all county departments~ bureaus, or agencies under the control
of the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for
expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their
personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be
paid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for
its employees and sh'all be subject to change from time to time to main-
tain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and
according to regulations prescribed or approved by the director of
finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JULY FIRST, NINTEEN HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY-FOUR.
Mr. Wood offered the name of Mrs. Ellen Craddock, as Planning Commission representative,
and Mr. Henley offered the name of Mr. James Binns of Afton,. for appointment to
the Historic Landmarks Committee. Mr. Binns works~for the Waynesboro nursery,
but is not a landscape architect. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to appoint Mrs.Craddock and
Mr. Binns to this committee ~The motion was seconded by Mr. Carwi!e and carried by ~
the following recorded vote:~
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ~
NAYS: None.
Appointment for the Joint Jail Board was ordered carried over to Wednesday,
May 22, 1974.
Mr. Wheeler offered the names of Messrs. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., Allen Cutright,
Warren Jones, Richard Roane, Roger Baber, Julian Taliaferro and Calvin Moyer as
members for the Fire Station Committee. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr.
Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Appointment to the Welfare Board was passed over.
Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to reappoint Mr. Robert Sampson as a
member of the Community Action Organization, for a one-year term. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Carwile offered the name of Dr. Frank Finger and Mr. Fisher offered the
name of Mrs. Nancy Joyner, as members of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
sion's Council on Aging, said terms to begin on June !, 1974. Motion to this
275,
effect was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler said this Board still has the responsibility of locating a
juvenile court facility. Since it was the decision of this Board that the Levy
Opera House not be used for that purpose, a new site must be located. The City
has appointed Mr. Giltiam and Mrs. Rinehart to continue their work on this committee.
Mr. Wheeler offered the names of Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wood as County members of
this committee. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by
Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Wheeler said it was the expressed desire of the majority of those voting
that the Friends of the Levy Opera House be given an opportunity to see if they
can raise the monies needed for restoration. He has discussed this with the
Mayor and they feel this matter should be turned over to this committee and ask
that the committee make a report to the Board on Wednesday.
The next item before the Board was clarification of conditions imposed on
restricted roads for Ridgefield Subdivision. The question which had arisen since
approval of this request was whether or not the Board intended there to be an
incorporated homeowners association.
Mr. St. John said he did not remember the Board setting a final policy for
once and all to require in all cases where restricted roads are being privately
maintained~that a corporation is required. Mr. Richmond has not done this, but
has written deed restrictions to be recorded.
Mr. Wheeler said that during Mr. St. John's absence this morning the Board
had decided to discuss the matter of restricted roads again. He has been convinced,
by numerous people, that deed restrictions are a better idea than a homeowners
association. This will be on the agenda of May 22.
Mr. Thacker said he was confused on the day the Board voted on this matter
and i confused. This is!a subdivision that was approved in 1971. The
road was approved at that time, for a subdivision of four lots. The request at
this time is to alter that subdivision by making four lots into six lots. He did
not feel the request for restricted roads was before the Board.
Mr. St. John said the developer will go along with the restricted road
concept and do whatever is necessary, but does not feel that a corporation is
feasible where only six owners are involved. He said he is inclined to agree
with him. Maintenance of the road can be enforced better with deed restrictions.
Mr. St. John asked if the Board voted and decided that this road had to have a
corporation. Mr. Fisher said it was pointed~a-t that the road would have to
conform to the Board's policy. Mr. Carwile said he had made the motion and when
he referred to standards, he was referring only to construction standards.. He
did not feel the quastion of restricted roads was properly before the Board.
The Clerk was requested to have Mr. Richmond present on Wednesday night, May 22,
during discussion of the general restricted road question.
Mr. Thacker said the Board needs to give the architect working on the addition
to the Courthouse instructions on how to proceed with that project. He asked if
a determination has been made on the Davis/Bacon Act. Mr. Batchelor said the
staff has received a communication from HUD saying they will expedite a wage
determination schedule. If this project is to be paid from Federal Revenue
Sharing funds, the County will have to adhere to the Davis/Bacon Act. Mr. Thacker
asked if a formal request had been made. Mr. Batchelor said no, if the Board
orders that a request be made it will ha2~a~led this week. Mr. Henley said this
should be done, even if it is not used. Mr. Thacker said he felt the Board had
ordered this determination be made several months ago. Mr. Wheeler directed that
the request be made and in R±chmond b,efore next Wednesday night.
At 2:52 P.M., Mr. Thacker offered motion to adjourn this meeting until May
22, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs; C~rwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Chairman