1973-10-18 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of' Albemarle County, Virginia,
was held on October 18, 1973, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
William C. Thacker, Jr. and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.
Absent: Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler.
Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney'.
The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by Mr. Thacker.
Upon motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Henley, the minutes of the~meetings
of August 22 and 23, 1973 were approved with the following corrections: Page 213,
half way down page, word "exclude" should be "exceed." Page 219, word "farm" should
be "fair." The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Batchelor presented the following communications concerning highway
matters:
"September 17, 1973
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Secondary System Addition
and abandonment, Albemarle
County
Gentlemen:
As requested in resolution by your Board on April 19, 1973,
the following addition to and abandonments from the Secondary
System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
September 17, 1973.
ADDITION LENGTH
Section 3 of new location Route 601 from Route
754 to ramp "F" of the Route 29-250 bypass,
project 7250-002-101,C501.
0. 016 Mi.
ABANDONMENT
Section 1 of old location Route 601 from Route
855 to ramp "F" of the Route 29-250 bypass,
project 7250-002-101,C501.
0.070 Mi.
Section 2 of old location Route 754 from Route
250 to new location Route 601, project
7250-002-101,C501.
0. 078 Mi.
Sincerely,
(Signed) J. E. Harwood
Deputy Commissioner"
"October 2, 1973
Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr.
County Planner
County OffiCe Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
Dear Mr. Batchelor:
22901
10-18-73
311
On September 20, 1973, I met with Mr. Daley Craig,
Mr. John Anderson, Mr. W. S. Roudabush, and Mr. C. B.
Perry, II, Assistant Resident Engineer, to review work
to be completed in Four Seasons.
As a. result of this meeting I received on September
27, 1973, a letter from Mr. Craig outlining work to be
completed or corrected by category. He has obtained
estimages for this work which is in the amount of
$38,223.00
In my letter to you of July 20, 1973, I pointed out
instances where Mr. Craig had not obtained permits for
~entrances and for work on Route 631 involving a deceleration
lane. I would like to clarify my statements in that
letter.
The initial entrance of Four Seasons Drive was con-
structed without a permit being issued; however, a permit
was subsequently issued to cover this work.
When the initial work was done on the deceleration lane
on Route 631 no permit was issued; however, a permit was
subsequently issued to cover the work as it has been done.
We therefore have on file permits to document the
above.
As stated above, the work to be done has been reviewed
and an estimate of $38,223 has been given to do the work.
I would assume that you will not require a bond in this
amount.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) R. G. Warner
Resident Engineer"
"September 26, 1973
Miss Lettie E. Neher
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
202 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
Subject:
Route 684 - Albemarle County
Project 0684-002-152,C-501
This is to let you know that the Highway Commission--after
reviewing the transcript of the public hearing held at the
Brownsville Elementary School in Crozet on July 24, 1973,
and considering the economic, social and environmental effects
of the proposed improvement of a section of Route 684 in
Albemarle County--has approved the location and major design
features as presented at the hearing, with a minor line shift
about 0.2 mile south of the intersection of Route 691 if
acceptable to the property owners.
Your interest in this proposed highway development is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
(Signed) D. B. Hope
District Engineer"
"September 20, 1973
Miss Lettie E. Neher
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
202 County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
18-18-73
312
SUBJECT:
Route 601 (Free Union Road)-Albemarle County
Project 0601-002-150,t~501,B-629
Attached, for your information, is a notice of willing-
ness to hold a public hearing concerning the proposed con-
struction of a bridge and necessary approaches over the
Mechum River on Route 601 in Albemarle County.
Written requests for such a hearing should be sent to
the Resident Engineer, Mr. R. G. Warner, on or before
October 19, 1973.
Sincerely,
(Signed) D. B. Hope
District Engineer"
"August 22, 1973
Route 20 - Albemarle County
Project 0020-002-110,C-501, B-603
0020-002-111,C-501, B-604
0020-002-109,C-501, B-602
Miss Estelle Neher, Clerk
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Room 202, County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Miss Neher:
Because of your interest in the above project, I wish
to advise that the Highway Commission, at its meeting on
August 16, 1973, approved the location and major design
features of this project as presented at the hearing.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) D. B. Hope
District Engineer"
"September 17, 1973
Request for Improvements in Albemarle
County and City of Charlottesville
Miss Lettie. E. Neher
Clerk, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
Charlottesville, Virginia
22901
Dear Miss Neher:
This is to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of
September 6, 1973 and also copies of a resolution adopted
by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on August 16,
1973, concerning improvements in the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County.
The Department has been requested by the City of Charlottes-
ville to program projects in the City of Charlottesville
as indicated in your resolution.
We have not agreed to program the projects as requested by
the City of Charlottesville for one very important reason.
The City of Charlottesville has alsO requested an improve-
ment on Main Street and Emmett Street to relieve the conges-
tion in the east west direction. We are in the process of
evaluating this request to determine the estimated cost and
our ability to participate in certain work that will be
required. A decision must be made on the Main Street - Emmett
Street request before we will be in a position to know if we
can participate in all of the projects requested by the City
Council. The projects as requested by the City and the County
are very important and we would like to be able to participate
in all of them.
10-18-73
It is very possible that our financial capabilities will
not allow us to do so. If~this is true, then it will be
necessary to discuss the priorities with Charlottesville.
We look forward to working with the City of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County to develop these needed improvements.
We will be happy to keep you advised of our decisions con-
cerning the projects in the City of Charlottesville.
As you know, part of Rio Road from just south of the
Southern Railway to Route 29 is under construction.
The section from the corporate limits of Charlottesville to
just south of the~Southern Railway is in the long range
Secondary Road plan, but, based on other critical needs
in Albemarle County, funds for the improvement of this
section will not be available in the forseeabl~ future.
Your interest in our mutual highway problems is
appreciated.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Douglas B. Fugate
Commissioner"
(Mr. Carwile abstained during the following discussion)
Mr. Thacker said the committee which had been appointed to draw recommendations
on Commonwealth, Peyton and Greenbrier Drives in reference to a request from
Stromberg-Carlson for industrial access funds had met several times. The last
time on yesterday. He said the roads were constructed to acceptable highway standards
in the mid 1960's.. In June of 1973 the highway department furnished an estimate
to bring these roads back to state standards at this time. This estimate was
for $53,000. Subsequently Dr. Hurt had agreed to pay 50% of the cost of upgrading
these roads, and asked that the Board request industrial access funds for the
other 50% of the work.
Mr. Bud Jamerson, plant manger of Stromberg-Carlson was present. He said
since this request was submitted, ten months ago, Stromberg's employment had risen
to between 1100 and 1400. They now have another expansion under construction and
need access to the back of this property.
Mr. Wood said the traffic pattern in this area will be much better when these
roads are accepted into the highway system. The committee asked that the Board
proceed with a request for industrial access funds, plus $5,000 or $6,000 for
entrance to the back of Stromberg-Carlson's property. The committee also recommends
that Dr. Hurt have the original bond brought up to date and furnish a~letter of
intent for the additional $26,000 needed for construction.
Mr. Fisher asked if the committee wished the Board to request industrial access
funds for private streets. Mr. Thacker said the committee would make a recommendation
provided; the original bond is brought up to date, in a form satisfactory to
the County Attorney, and a binding agreement is signed.
Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Hurt, was present and gave the following
statement:
"Re: Proposed Industrial Access Road
Greenbrier Drive and Peyton Drive
"Upon the Board of Supervisors obtaining industrial access money
to bring the above captioned roads up to Virginia State Standards,
and when bids have been received to complete this work, Dr. Hurt
agrees to pay 50% of the estimated cost~"
Mr. Batchelor said it has been recommended that when this work is completed
that the Hollymead roads be accepted into the state system. The performance bond
on
would be taken from the present bond/Hollymead. On July 1, $23,00.0 would be
deducted from the remaining portion of that bond. The remainder would be given
back to Dr. Hurt and the personal check, which has long been in contention, would
then be substituted.
Mr. Thacker said the Board should have an updated estimate from the highway
department. Mr. Humphrey said this was also related to Westfield Road, etc., and
the moratorium which was put on building permits. The as built drawings have been
submitted to the highway department, but, there are still details to be worked out.
Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Perry.if the Highway Department will accept the roads
into the state system. Mr. Perry Said the road cannot be taken into the system
until 51% of the ownership has been transferred to other parties than the developer.
He said Mr. Warner is checking to see if this policy can be waived.
Mr. Thacker asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for next month.
Mr. Jamerson said there are no assurances that the state will provide industrial
access funds until the request is made. He asked that the Board start the process
since Stromberg-Carlson is anxious to have this matter finished as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher said the Board needs a legal document before they can start processing
this matter.
Mr. Joe Wood was again present to request that Whitewood Road be accepted into
the state highway system. He said, several months ago, he was told to bring this
road back up to state standards and seed. Mr. Lloyd Wood had suggested, at that time,
that this road be recommended for acceptance along with the remainder of the roads
in this area, however, it did not seem to him that Dr. Hurt had made any progress.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said the roads in the area being discussed are grossly inadequate.
However, he felt the Board should not wait to initiate action. If they have a legal
document signed on the' 50% which Dr. Hurt will pay, this will be the first step in
solving this problem.
Mr. Hill assured the Board that Dr. Hurt was acting in good faith. He said Dr.
Hurt had written a letter several months ago stating that he would pay the 50%. If
the request is not made now it will postpone this work until next summer. Dr. Hut
would like to bid and have it finished sometime in the next three months. Mr. Thacker
then suggested that this item be put on the agenda for Wednesday night, October 24,
that the highway department be requested to upgrade the estimate they had made in
June, that Dr. Hurt furnish a legal document and that the performance bond be brought
up to date.
10-18-73'
315
Mr. Joe Wood again asked about~Whitewood ROad. Mr. Fisher asked if it had been
inspected and approved by the highway department. Mr. Lloyd Wood said he was not ready
to recommend that this be taken in since there is a bump in the road. Mr. Humphrey
said he had talked to Mr. Warner about this and Mr. Warner could see no problems.
However, he did not know if the highway department had made their final inspection.
Mr. Lloyd Wood said if the Board passed a resolution on this matter today they are
also committing secondary highway funds to be used for improvments since this road is
~not_up to state standards. He said, in the future, the Planning Commission will require
sidewalks~in this area. He said there are 20 acres on the opposite side of the road that
will be a fire station and a school in the next few months. This will require additional
money to be spent.. He did not see any sense in compounding the problem.
Mr. Carwile said secondar funds cannot be spent for sidewalks. Mr. Perry said
normally they do not require sidewalks, occasionally they do. Mr. Batchelor said there
are already approved plans and specifications at the highway department and those
specifications cannot be changed at this time.
Mr. Wood said if th~ standards and conditions have been approved by the highway
department, there is a need to change those standards since Whitewood Road was not designed
to a standard to serve the development in the area.
Mr. Carwile said this is a different situation and he could see no need to debate
the adequacy of the road. He said the issue is whether or not Mr. Wood has complied with
the request to have the road accepted. If the building designs..are inadequate it falls
on the highway department and the County.
Mr. Wood saw no reason to involve this request with Dr. Hurt and said he would not
vote for approval. He said the Planning Commission jas recently approved a site plan
for 93 units on this road and this is just the first of 400 or more toward Albemarle
High, Jouett and the new northside elementary school. He asked if the children will
have walk in the ditchs.
Mr. Carwile said there is nothing the County or the Highway Department to make the
developer change his plans. The roads were approved by the Highway Department and the
Planning Commission, acting as the Board's agent.
Mr. Fisher said he felt Mr. Joe Wood had complied with the request imposed on him.
He said in the future the Board may have to change some ordinances.
Mr. Henley said they may want to change the density requirements for this area.
Mr. Batchelor said the traffic that this road will receive will not be.generated by
the property but by the area in relation to schools, etc. He said that when the road
receives 50% of usage, the major portion will be from off site.
Mr. Humphrey said Whitewood Road will not be the main road from Route 29 North to
Hydraulic Road. There will be an exit to Minor Road, however, this is the only way
to accomplish the road system, piece meal.
326
Mr. Fisher asked if sidewalks
ordinance.
are only ~ in the present
10-18-73
subdivision
the Planning Commission
Mr. Humphrey said yes. In the subdivision ordinance/can recommend but they
cannot demand. The new ordinance spells out these conditionS. He said there will be
sidewalks on the north side for the bulk of the density. Eighty percent of the
population on the north will be urban streets and sidewalks will be good. Mr. Wood
~said the Board had been after Dr. Hurt for three years. When he built these roads
he did include sidewalks, curb and gutter. Now the Board is thinking about approving
this road and he felt it was a poor approach to planning.
Mr. Henley said if the Board had made a mistake they should work it out. Mr. Wood
said he felt they should work it out before approving this request.
Mr. Fisher said the final inspection should be made by the highway department,
otherwise, Mr. Wood would to know what should be completed. After this is accomplished
the Board could vote on a resolution. Mr. Thacker suggested that this matter be put
on the agenda for October 24. Mr. Lloyd Wood asked that it be included at the regular
meeting on November 15. He did not feel it was of an emergency nature and he thought
the Board needed time to explore possibilities without being rushed.
Mr. Wood offered motion to include this item on the agenda for November 15
between 9:15 A.M. and 9:30. A.M. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Carwile said he could not support the motion. He saw no reason to delay the
developer further if he had compiled with all standards. He said the Board cannot
legally impose more restrictive standards than existed at the time of approval.
Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Wood.
Messrs. Carwile and Thacker.
Mr. Wood said that Huntington Road had a posted speed limit of thirty-five
miles per hour. This was in a subdivision which is almost 100% completed. He~ felt
the speed limit should be reduced to twenty-five miles per hour.
Mr. H. Deane Brady was present. He said he had spent money to have mailboxes
replaced. There are seventy-five children walking along this road on their way to
the community pool. The speed limit is too high and there are only two signs. The
residents have complained to the sheriff's office about drag racing and the situation
is also complicated by minibikes. He felt there exists a critical situation con-
cerning safety and he asked that the speed limit be reduced and that additional signs
be placed by the highway department. Mr. Perry said that the highway department
could install additional signs but there would have to be study made concerning the
speed limit.
10-18-73
Mr. WOod offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Motion was
seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, this Board has been advised by citizens living
on Huntington Road, Albemarle County, that a safety hazard
exists relative to the speed limit on such road;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Super-
visors of Albemarle County, Virginia that the Virginia
Department of Highways be, and hereby is, requested to
conduct a traffic study in this area preparatory to lowering
the speed limit to 25 m.p.h, and the placing of additional
traffic signs.
Mr. Carwile said he had received calls from people who live on Barracks Road
near the proposed bypass ramp. They are concerned that the highway department will
not have a public hearing on this project since they have begun acquisition of
rights of way. He asked if that is correct. Mr. Perry said the highway department
is required to advertise for a public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is
hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway
Department, the following sections of roads in Hollymead:
HOLLYMEAD DRIVE-STATIONING TAKEN FROM PLANS FOR HOLLYMEAD DRIVE OF
FEBRUARY 21, 1972, PREPARED BY: B. AUBREY HUFFMAN
Beginning at the centerline station 0+00 of South Hollymead Drive,
a point in the eastern right-of-way of U.S. Route 29; thence, with
South Hollymead Drive in an easterly direction 1286.74 feet to
station 12+86.74, the beginning of Hollymead Drive; thence, with
Hollymead Drive, station 12+86.74, in an easterly and southerly
direction 2695.10 feet to station 39+81.84, the intersection with
Woodburn Road.
Beginning at the centerline station 0-56 of North Hollymead Drive,
a point in the eastern right-of-way of U.S. Route 29; thence, with
North Hollymead Drive in an easterly direction 1106.55 feet to
station 10+55.50 = station 12+86.74, the beginning of Hollymead
Drive.
Beginning at the centerline station 6+39.64 of North Hollymead
Drive; thence, in a southerly direction 304.80 feet to station
9+44.44 = station 8+63.41 of South Hollymead Drive.
WOODBURN ROAD-STATIONING TAKEN FROM AS BUILT PLANS FOR WOODBURN
ROAD OF NOVEMBER 28, 1973, PREPARED BY THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER.
Beginning at the centerline station 11+12 of Woodburn Road =
station 39+81.84 of Hollymead Drive; thence, with Woodburn Road
in an easterly direction 1112 feet to station 0+00, a point in
the centertine of Woodburn Road opposite the eastern property
line of Hollymead Elementary School.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of
Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 ft. unobstructed right
of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as
recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 531, page 308, 309, 311 and 313
and Deed Book 489, page 381.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
10-18-73
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile.
At 10:00 A.M., the vice chairman called for a public hearing on adoption of an
ordinance establishing the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code within the de-
fined limits of Albemarle County, which shall bring said locality into conformity
with state regulations which became effective September 1, 1973, with certain
exceptions; describing fees for issuance of permit; and fixing penalties for~the
violations thereof, said ordinance to be known as Building Code of Albemarle County.
Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 4
and October 11, 1973.
Mr. Carwile said he was concerned with the proposed fee schedule as it relates
to work to be performed for a nominal fee such as an electrical outlet in the basement.
He could see instances where permits would cost more than the work itself. Mr.
Thacker said he felt the Board could start with this schedule and perhaps make
changes next year.
Mr. Minor Omohundro said he had noticed that there is no maximum permit fee
listed in the schedule. Mr. Thacker said the committee had agreed to adopt this
schedule for an experience factor. Mr. Batchelor said the City had never tried to
recoup any major portion of the cost Of their building inspections department, how-
ever, it was the intent of this fee schedule to recoup the total cost of the
building inspections department. Mr. Fisher said if the fee schedule can be
changed by resolutiOn, he would suggest that the Board adopt as is and monitor to
see if some of the inspections cost more or some less. He said this should be
self-supporting. He then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance:
BUILDING CODE
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE WITHIN
THE DEFINED LIMITS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, WHICH 'SHALL BRING SAID LOCALITY INTO CON-
FORMITY WITH STATE REGULATIONS.
Be it ordained and enacted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as
follows:
SECTION 6-1. ADOPTION OF VIRGINIA UNIFORM STATEWIDE BUILDING CODE
There is hereby adopted by reference in Albemarle County, the Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code, Which is effective September 1, 1973, the provisions of which
are adopted and shall control all matters concerning the construction, alteration,
addition, repair, removal, demolition, use location, occupancy and maintenance of all
buildings, and all other functions which pertain to the installation of systems vital
to all buildings and structures and their service equipment as defined by the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code, and shall apply to existing and proposed buildings or
structures in Albemarle County.
SECTION 6-2. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
There is hereby established a building inspection department whose responsibility
it is to enforce the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code as
stated in Article 1, Section 9 of the Uniform Statewide Building COde. The cost of
enforcement may be defrayed through the levying of fees as set out in Section 6-3
herein contained. The department shall have a building official who shall be appointed
by the County Executive with the approval of the governing body. The building official
shall appoint inspectors and other necessary personnel as authorized by the County
10--18-73
319
Executive and the governing body, and the building official shall be responsible for
the organization and daily operation of the department.
SECTION 6-3. FEE SCHEDULES
No permit to begin work for new construction or other building operation shall be
issued until the fees prescribed in this section have been paid. The fees shall be
affixed at the following rates; which may be amended by resolution of the governing
body as well as by amendment to this ordinance:
Permit Fee Schedule
Building Permit (minimum charge) ............ $10.00
or
$0 to $100,000 of Value ................. 0.0Q35 percent of value
$100,000 to $200,000 .................. 0.0Q3 percent of value
Excess of $200,000 ................ - . . . 0.0Q2 percent of value
Plumbing Permits - (minimum Charge) ............. $10.00 plus
$4.00 per fixture
Electrical Permits -
or
0 - 100.00 ..................
100.01 - 150.00 ....................
150.01 - 200.00 ..................
200.01 - 250.00 ..................
250.01 - 300.00 ..................
300.01 - 500,00 ....................
500.01 - 1000.00 ....................
(minimum charge) ............ $10.00
$10.00
12.00
16.00
20.00
30.00
36.00
40.00
Ail over $1,000.00, $40.00 plus $10.00 per $1,000.00 or portion thereof.
Miscellaneous Permit Charges
Mechanical:
Elevator ........................ $30.00
Escalator (per floor) ................. 8.00
Power Driven Dumbwaiter or Manlift ........... 15.00
Hand Driven Dumbwaiter or Elevator ........... 10.00
Central Heating Furnace or Boiler:
Residential ................. 5.00
Commercial, First 100,000 BTU ........... 8.00
Each additional 100,000 BTU ...... 3.00
Maximum Fee .............. 120.00
Central Air Conditioning, Refrigeration and
Refrigeration Cycle of Air Conditioning Systems:
Residential, per unit ............... 5.00
(excluding cooling units installed simulta-
neously in and with heating system in Group
L-3 Buildings)
Commercial, First 5 Tons ................ 7.00
Each additional Ton .................. 1.00
Maximum Fee ....................... 175.00
Each Fire Danger or Subduct in Ventilation, Exhaust
or Duct System ...................
.50
Incinerators, Per i00 lbs. per hour burning rate,
or fraction thereof ...........
7.00
Coin Operated Dry Cleaning Machines ...........
(Plus $1.00 per Tumbler)
5.00
Miscellaneous Fees:
Miscellaneous Fees and Fees for Structures other than Buildings:
1. Swimming Pools, Residential ............. 25.00
(All other ½ of 1% of Total Cost)
,.
Foundations, per building ............... 10.00
Structures, other than buildings for which
no fee appears in this schedule, the fees
shall be calculated at the rate of one-
half of one percent of the actual cost of
the work, with a minimum fee of
7.50
4. Mobile Homes
10.00
10-18-73
5. Pre-Fabricated Homes with State Seal
15.00
For an inspection and report of any building or
structure made upon application of the owner,
occupant or prospective purchaser, the actual
cost of the inspection as determined by the
building inspector shall be paid by the applicant.
Reinspection
The fee for a reinspection when the work for which
an inspection request was made was not approved
or ready for inspection shall be ..........
10.00
2. The additional fee for final inspection after the
building or structure is occupied shall be fifty
percent (50%) of the building permit fee.
Fees
Fees for Required InSpection
(including but~not limited to): .............
$10.00 per
inspection
Hazardous Uses ......................
Places of Assemby ....................
Boilers and Unfired Pressure Vessels ...........
Fire Extinguishing ....................
Flow Test (Stand Pipes) .................
Fire Pump ........................
Automatic Sprinklers ...................
Open Sprinkler ..................... .
Fire Alarms .......................
Construction Equipment And Assembly ...........
Signs ..........................
Elevators ........................
Power Dumbwaiters or Dumbwaiters with capacity
of more than 100 lbs ................
Pressure Tanks ......................
Miscellaneous Hoisting and Elevating Equipment,
Conveyors and Amusement Devices ...........
Refrigeration Systems, Assembly & Institutional .....
3 Months
3 Months
Annually
2 Years
2 Years
90 Days
Discretion of
Building Official
Annually
Monthly
Initial
Annually
6 Months
Annually
3 Years
Discretion of
Building Official
As required
SECTION 6-4. BOARD OF SURVEY
(a)
The owner of a building or structure or his duly authorized representative
who has been served with an unsafe order and notice to make such structure
safe, secure or habitable or to take down and remove such structure shall
have the right, except in cases of emergency, to demand the appointment of
the board of survey if he deems such order to be unnecessary, improper, or
unreasonable. Such demand shall be in writing with a statement of reasons
therefor.
(b)
The Board of Survey shall be appointed and function in conformance with
Section 126 of the BOCA Basic Code.
(c)
Compensation for the third member of the Board of Survey shall be at a rate
of fifteen dollars ($15.00) per hour to be paid by the appellant.
SECTION 6-5. BOARD OF APPEALS
(a)
The owner of a building or structure or any other person may appeal from a
decision of the building official refusing to grant a modification of the
provisions of the Basic Code covering the manner Of construction or materials
to be used in the erection, alteration or repair of a building or struCture
to the Board of Appeals. Application for appeal may be made when it is
claimed that: the true intent of the Basic Code or the rules legally
adopted thereunder have been incorrectly interpreted, the provisions of the
Basic Code do not fully apply, or an equally good or better form of
construction can be used.
(b)
The Board of Appeals shall be appointed and function in conformance with
Section 127 of BOCA Basic Building Code and the administrative amendments.
(c) Compensation shall be determined by the Board of Supervisors.
SECTION 6-6.
Fire Districts as defined and prescribed under the Statewide Building Code shall
be established and/or re-established from time to time by the Building Official with
10-18-73
the concurrence of the Planning Officer, the County Executive, and the Fire Marshall.
SECTION 6-7.
Former Section 6.1 of the County Code insofar as it conflicts herewith, is
repealed.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The next item under discussion was a lottery permit application from the Loyal
Order of Moose, Crozet, Virginia, Lodge No. 2164. Mr. Joe M. Fix was present. After
a short discussion of this matter, motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to appoint a
committee of the Board before November 15 to draw a list of conditions under which
these permits would be approved. He asked that in the fut.ure all applications be
sent to the County Executive. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At the September meeting, Mr. Batchelor had been directed to draw costs for the
hiring of an additional dog warden. He gave the following cost' estimate based on
week:
a four-day work/Salary, $4,800; Truck with cage, $3,200; Radio, $1,000;
Maintenance and gas, $700; Uniforms, $50; and, Equipment, $50; or a total of
$9,800.
Mr. Batchelor said in order to finance the additional costs of a deputy dog
warden, there would need to be an increase in the cost of dog licenses. The Board
could consider such an increase because this man would he helping to enforce the
newly imposed leash law. If the Board decides against this action, the money will
have to be taken from the general fund. Mr. Fisher said-the Board had not taken that
position yet, however, he had expected that with the adoption of this ordinance that
there would be enforcement costs. He does not want to take this money from the
general fund. It has been stated that in years past Mr. Robertson had used his
time to check for people who had not purchased license tags for their dogs. He
felt that if this could be enforced and bring in more money, it should be done.
Mr. Henley said to raise the cost of male and unsexed female tags by $2.50,
as is proposed, is a large increase. He said he would support an increase of
$1.00. He felt this is an overall problem. The loose dogs have no tags and in
the long run the average citizen pays for this.
Mr. Fisher asked how the rest of the Board felt about hiring an additional
person.
Mr. Wood said the leash law had only been enacted for three areas and he felt the
request was premature.
Mr. Batchelor said Mr. Robertson had told him that with the work load he had
before this leash law was imposed, he could not keep up and he could not possibly
enforce the leash law also.
322
Mr. Fisher offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on December 20,
1973, at 10:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, an amendment
to Section 4-20, Chapter 4, Article 2 of the Albemarle County Code relating to
dogs and entitled "Amount of License Tax." This amendment to be advertised as
a $1.00 increase in the cost of license tags for male and unsexed femalesdogs.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At 11:00 A.M. the vice chairman called for a public hearing amending the
effectiv date of the land use tax ordinance to January 15, 1974. Notice of this
public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on October 3 and October 10, 1973.
Mr. Henley said he was disappointed that this could not be put into effect for
this year, although he appreciates the County's problem with~the Supreme Court's
decision on the reassessment.
Mr. Fisher said he was also concerned that if the Supreme Court did not change
their decision, the County may have a large tax rate increase next year in order
to pay rebates for the current year. If this occurs, the need for the land use
tax is that much greater. However, it seems as though most did not feel it was
that significant if it is delayed for one year and he would not oppose changing
the effective date.
Mr. Wood said he hated to see it delayed, but, in view of the circumstances
he did not see anyway out.
No one from the public spoke for or against the amendment.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Wood to amend the effective date of the land
use tax ordinance from August 23, 1973 to January 15, 1974. Motion was seconded
by Mr. Carwile, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Batchelor said after the Board met on September 28, he talked with
representatives of Soil Conservation about the implementation of this ordinance.
He said they cannot provide detailed help concerning the forms for classification.
They have agreed that if the Thomas Jefferson Soil Conservation District will
approve, and the County provides secretarial help, they will try to work this in
with their schedule. Mr. Fisher said he felt that the Board should adopt a
resolution to the General Assembly that once a person had qualified for the land
use tax and there was no Qhange in use, he would not be required to make an
annual application. He felt this would reduce the cost to the County and the
citizens.
Mr. John Smart was present. He said the Soil Conservation Service District is
set up for four Counties and the Soil Conservation Service is loaned to the
district to do a job for the farmers. They are now way behind on farm plans Mr.
10-18-73
323
Anderson is trying to service requests for the planning department and do work on
soil erosion. The district feels that if the County wilt furnish a clerk to the
-- district and put this clerk in Mr. Anderson's office, this will relieve him of his
office work so he can work in the field. This person can be trained on land use
classifications and work with the soil map in that office. They would need time
for training. Appointments could then be made with the farmers. Some areas of
the County are already mapped for the soil survey. This clerk could also type
for the men working on the soil survey.
Mr. Batchelor said the County planned to hire a clerk immediately.
Mr. Smart said the Soil Conservation District would have to approve this.
Mr. Thacker asked if he needed a request from the Board. Mr. Batchelor said no.
He had given him this authority. Mr. Henley said since this would cost less the
Board should study the fee schedule again. Mr. Batchelor said he would investig~ate
the costs again. Mr. Fisher said the question had come up on several occasions
about the number of parcels for the purpose of Zhe land use tax. He felt it would
be to the advantage of the farmer to have as few tracts as possible. He asked
how this could be accomplished.
Mr. Batchelor said this could also be a disadvantage to the farmer. If he
had six acres on the road and had combined all of his acreage into one parcel,
and wanted to sell a small tract he would have to go through the planning
department, etc.
Mr. Fisher said he felt that on the basis of the land use tax, the farmer
is giving up development rights for a certain period of time. He felt it would
be to the advantage of the County to have a smaller number of parcels on the
land book.
Mr. Thacker asked that the staff reevaluate the fee and have this matter put
on the agenda for November 15, 1973.
The next items under discussion were lottery permit applications for the East
Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company and Charlottesville Lodge 1028, Loyal Order of Moose,
Keswick, Virginia. Mr. James Samsell was present to represent East Rivanna. Mr.
Mac Stahl was present representing the Loyal Order of Moose, Keswick. Also,
Mr. Robert E. Bibb. These gentlemen were informed that the Board had decided
to appoint a committee to study this matter and further action on these permits
had been deferred until the next regular meeting of the Board, November 15. Mr.
Bibb said he had read the law several times and he thought he understood the
law. Tuesday night, from 7:00 to 9:30~P.M. would be the only time the Moose
.Lodge would be using their lottery permit. Mr. Samse~ said the Volunteer Fire
~ · Company has a budget of approximately $18,000 and they receive $7,000 from the
County. They provide a good service to the Countyand they need a new building.
The funds that they gain through this endeavor will be used for this purpose.
They also need a septic tank and a well and they must find another source of
324
10-18-73
income to keep the volunteer fire company going.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund from E. William Hess, for two (2) ewes
killed by dogs was received. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mr. Fisher, to allow Mr. Hess $80 for this claim. Motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwite, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Ollie B. Deane for three
(3) lambs killed by dogs. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile,
Mr. Deane was allowed $75 for this claim. Motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received from Clinton M. Ray, for
three (3) pigs killed by dogs. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood,
Mr. Ray was allowed $75 for this claim. Motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile, the following resolution
was offered for adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $5,470.66 be, and the same hereby is,
transferred from the General Fund to the General Operating
Fund to code 5-A-102, Salary, Judge of Circuit Court and
expenditure is hereby approved.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution
was offered for adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that $197.50 be, and the same hereby is,
appropriated to Code 0-1107 for repayment of a grant refund
for the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Program.
The foregoingmotion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Henley, the Clerk was ordered to
advertise for a public hearing, on November 15, 1973, at 11:00 A.M., in the
Board Room of the County Office Building, an amendment to the County code adding
10-18-73 ·
325
Section 12-91-1 exempting volUnteer firemen and'rescue squadsmen from the
purchase of County automobile stickers and/or license tags. Motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS:
None.
Upon motion by Mr. Fisher, seconded by Mr. Wood, Check No. I--00127,
dated September 19, 1973, payable to Virginia Telephone & Telegraph Company in
the amount of $14.21 , said check being a duplicate payment, was ordered
cancelled. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Statement of expenses of the Department of Finance, the Sheriff's Office
and the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney were presented for the month of
September, 1973. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, these
statements were approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance of the County Jail,
along with summary statement of prisoner days, for the month of September,
1973, were presented. Also presented was a statement of expense for the
Jail Physician in the amount of $14.00, of which two-thirds is reimburseable
by the State. Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the foregoing
statements were approved by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None. -
Mr. Batchelor said the County has been having trouble collecting a bill
from Madison County. This bill is for one of their prisoners while he was lodged
in Albemarle County Jail. He said this has happened several times in the past.
He asked authority of the Board to write the Board of Supervisors of Madison County
and tell them that if the bill is not paid, their contract with Albemarle County
will be null and void. He said Judge Berry has talked to the Clerk of Madison
Court and the bill still has not been paid. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to
allow Mr. Batchelor the option to cancel Madison County's contract for use of
the Albemarle County Jail. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Upon motion by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, the following resolution
was offered for adoption:
326
10-18-73
BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Association of Counties
is hereby requested to sponsor the following legislation:
The General Assembly should allow localities to impose
an admission tax on all entertainment activities. We
would like to have same latitude to place tax on this
potential source of revnue as the cities have.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
At 12:08 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Wood to adjourn into executive
session to discuss legal matters. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened at 1:35 P.M.
Report of the County Executive for the month of September, 1973, was
submitted as information.
Reports of the Department of Social Services were submitted for the month
of August, 1973, in accordance with Sections 63-67.1 and 63-67.2 of the Code
of Virginia.
* .... See Page 329 for resolution left out here.
Mr. Batchelor said it had been suggested that Albemarle County and the General
Assembly pursue more home rule legislation. Mr. Fisher said he did not see how
this could be written, it was too vague.
Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile, the Clerk was ordered to
advertise for a public hearing on November 15, 1973, at 11:05 A.M., in the Board
ROom of the County Office Building, an amendment to Section 4-31-1, Chapter 4,
Article 2, of the Albemarle County Code relating to dogs, the addition of the
town of Crozet as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at
large. Motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
Mrs. Patricia Tiffany was present to ask about conditions imposed on SP-261
concerning signs.
Mr. Carwile said at the time he made the motion approving SP-261, it was his
suggestion that a provision be included that there would be no sign in view of
1-64. Since that time he felt that Mrs. _Tiffany had not been treated in the same
manner as others in the County, with respect to approval of signs.
Mr Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the Board changed the conditions at this time
if this would require another application for a special permit be filed.
Mr. St. John said the Board in ~approving a special permit can attach certain
conditions which are allowed in the zoning ordinance. Signs are not One of these,
however, they can attach conditions to the sign. If a condition imposed was
10--18-73
327
invalid because it was outside of power or void-the Board does not need to hold
another hearing to remove that condition. If the condition was valid the Board
would have to go through another public hearing to remove that condition.
Mr. Wood asked if the Board placed a condition that was not in keeping with
the sign ordinance if it was not improperly imposed to begin with.
Mr. St. John said the Board could impose conditions within the framework of
the special use permit which could not be imposed if this were a use by right.
He said he was not as positive as he would like to be since he had not conducted
any research on this question. This is a matter of interpreting the law and the
ordinance.
Mr. Hank Tiffany said if the Board had placed a.condition on the building that
had some relation to standards of the zoning ordinance, such as health, light,
air, etc. as to those in the surrounding area the permit could have a valid
restriction. The only place where no people who live, breathe the air or are
affected by the light is on the 1-64 side of the store. He agreed with the Board
saying he 'did not want to see signs all along 1-64, however, this would merely be
a painting on the back of the store facing 1-64. The sign would not be above or
extending off of the store.
Mr. St. John said he felt the Board had the power to impose such conditions.
To change these conditions, the matter wOuld have to be put back on the Board's
agenda.
Mr. Thacker asked if this matter would have to go through the Planning
commission and back to the Board, etc.
Mr. St. John said everyone must be treated the same. He said it may not be
in accordance with what others have been allowed for signs and may be worthy of
review.
Mr. Batchelor asked if there were some way to review the conditions placed
on this special permit without all the time, energy and money required to go
through the same procedure again.
Mr. St. John said Mrs. Tiffany now has a vested right in the special permit.
To put this back on the Board's agenda would require nineteen days of notice. It
does not have to go back before the Planning Commission, but, can be put on the
Supervisor's agenda from their own motion.
Mr. Wood offered motion to advertise for a public hearing on November 15, 1973,
at 11:30 A.M., consideration of amending conditions of approval given special permit
261 for Patricia Ann Tiffany. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker and Wood.-
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Thacker said the committee appointed to study the needs of the Courts
and the County Office Building had met with the architect, Floyd Johnson.
He has
10-18-73
328
prepared pr.eliminary drawings. His estimate for this work is between $40-$45,000
and this has just been received--has not been checked. He said the Judge is pleased
with the proposal. A representative of the Historical Society was present and felt
it was also well done and acceptable to them. Mr. Thacker said-the committee has
only received authority from the Board for preliminary plans. They now need authority
to proceed with working drawings and some additional study in the County Office
Building.
Mr. Wood said he was glad the committee had fonnd a solution that was 'as pleasing
and acceptable as this. He said it may be expensive, but, he felt it is a favorable
solution.
Mr. Fisher said this tied in well with what was considered eight months ago. In
order to work the interior of the County Office Building into the plan he felt the
Board should proceed.
Mr. Henley said the architect would not have to tamper with the basement or
the first floor.
Mr. Thacker said this was what must be decided.
Mr. Wood offered motion to 'accept the preliminary drawings and to authorize
the committee to proceed with working drawings for bidding purposes.
Mr. Henley said he did not know-why Mr. Johnson could not proceed with the
work on the first floor and do this all at one time.
Mr. Thacker said this had been the committee's recommendation, however, they
were instructed by the Board that they were to go no further than the preliminary
drawings on the Courthouse and the study that this work entailed.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think it would take long to finish the drawings for
the County building and at that time approval could be given for working drawings.
Mr. Wood said if this would work well for the Judge he felt the Board should
proceed with the working drawings on the part that had been presented by-the
architect and that part put out to bid, The next step would be to see where to
align and expand into the finance department from the record room of the Clerk's
office.
Mr. Henley said he felt this should all be tied in now.
Mr. Batchelor said before Mr. Johnson can proceed with the working drawings he
has to see how the basement ties in with this overall plan, how they will tie the
record room into the finance department in the future and how to get from the Court
Room to the Judge's office. He felt that it was~appropriate to complete the total
project now and not have to come back to the Board for further approval. He said he
felt the $45,000 estimate was low and it would not include all expenditures. He
recommended that the Board approve $75,000 for this project and design and that the
money be taken from revenue sharing funds.
Mr. Fisher said he would not vote until he saw the bids.
329
Mr. Thacker said he would like to. see firm estimates.
Mr. Batchelor said the Board would be approving the contract later.
Mr. Henley saw no need approve this until the study is completed.
Mr. Batchelor said the staff should have some reasonable assurance that the
Board intends to complete this project and if it does go to bid the money should have
been appropriated.
Mr. Wood amended his motion to authorize the architect to proceed with working
~" drawings on the tie-in on the basement and the second floors of the County Office
Building, complete enough to be put out to bid. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: -None.
Mr. Batchelor said the bids for repairs to the airstrip had come in well under
the engineer's estimate.
Mr. Thacker said he had received a request from a county citizen that the Board
consider some type of mass transportation to Scottsville or the southern end of the
County.
Mr. Batchelor said there is a charter bus company serving that area at one time
or. another during the day. They have dropped some of these routes because they are
losing money. They were going to drop the Keene area and the Board asked ~them to
keep that route.
Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the Board could take any action to implement this
request.
Motion w~s then offered by Mr. Wood to adjourn until 4:00 P.M. on October 24, 1973,
in the Board Room of the County Office Building for the purpose of considering legal
matters which may or may not require an executive session. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood.
NAYS: None.
*--Left out on Page 326
Upon motion by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution was offered for adoption:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Association of Counties is hereby
requested to sponsor the following legislative proposal:
That the standard building code be amended to allow counties t~o have
--- a minimum amount of building that would be allowable without a building
permit. It is su~ested that this be $1000.00. This would save many
people from getting a building permit on wood shed, storage shed and
other items which the permit and the inspection and the nuisance of getting
these would nor sufficiently justify their cost or effort.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
~ NAYS:AYES: None. Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker~/~od.~~ /~~~~ Chairman