Loading...
1963-03-21 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA, WAS HELD AT THE OFFICE BUILD~NG OF SAID COUNTY ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH~ 1963. PRESENT: MESSRS. dOHN W, WILLIAMS~ EDGAR N. GARNETT~ H. ASHBY HARRfS~ GEORGE C. PALMER~ I1~ M. Y. SUTHERLAND~ dR. AND ROBERT THRAVESo ABSENT= NONE. OFFICERS PRESENT: COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND ASST. COUNTY EXECUTIVE. THE MEETING OPENED WITH THE LORDIS PRAYER LED BY MR. M. M. PENCE. MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF ~EBRUARY 21~ 1963~ WERE READ AND APPROVED. ON RECOMMENDATION OF THE RESIDENT HIGHWAY ENGINEER, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED BY MRo SUTHERLAND~ SECONDED BY MR. PALMER~ AND UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGIN1A~ ~HAT THIS BOARD DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND AS THE NEXT FEDERAL AID PROdECT FOR ALBEMARLE COUNTY ROUTE 654 FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 830 TO IVY CREEK~ A DISTANCE OF lo~MILESo PETITION WAS RECEIVED REQUESTING REMARKING~ ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNS AND MORE POLICING ON ROUTE 53 FROM ITS CREST AT MONTICELLO MOUNTAIN TO THE SOUTH. ON MOTION OF MR. HARRIS~ SECONDED BY MR o PALMER~ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISCRS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA~ THAT THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS BE AND IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO GIVE STUDY AND CONSIDERATION TO REQUESTS INCLUDED IN THE ATTACHED PETITION~ NAMELY THAT A SOLID YELLOW LINE~ OR A SOLID DOUBLE LtNE~ BE DRAWN ALONG THE DANGEROUS AND STRETCHES OF ROUTE 53~ FROM ITS CREST AT [~)NTICELLO MOUNTAIN TO THE SOUTH,/THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNS BE PUT UP. COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE VIRGINIA ~EPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS ADVISING THAT THE FOLLOW- lNG SECONDARY ROADS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARE BEING ABANDONED AS A PERT OF THE SECONDARY SYSTEM~ EFFECTIVE dANUARY 1, 1963, DUE TO ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE= ABANDONMENTS; ROutE 1107 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 1102. ROUTE 1101 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 1104. ROUTE 1105 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD EN~o ROUTE 1102 - FROM ROUTE 1105 TO ROUTE 1107. ROUTE 1103 -- FROM ROUTE 1105 TO ROUTE 1101. ROUTE 1104 - FROM ROUTE 1105 TO ROUTE 1101. ROUTE 1106 - FROM ROUTE 1102 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 1102 - FROM ROUTE 1105 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY L~NE. ROUTE 776 - FROM ROUTE 828 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 821 - FROM ROUTE 7?6 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 828 - FROM ROUTE 776 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 742 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY'LINE TO 0.17 MILE SOUTH. ROUTE 845 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END. ROUTE 631 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO 0.96 MILE SOUTH. ROUTE 842 - FROM ROUTE 825 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 825 - FROM ROUTE 842 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1108 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD E~D. ROUTE 779 - FROM ROUTE 631 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 843 - FROM ROUTE 779 TO ROUTE 831. ROUTE 831 -- FROM ROUTE 779 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 849 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ~EAD END. ROUTE 833 -- FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END. ROUTE 826 - FROM ROUTE 833 TO ROUTE 860. ROUTE 832 - FROM ROUTE 826 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 780 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO 0.30 MILE SOUTH, ROUTE 860 - FROM ROUTE 826 TO CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE. ROUTE 861 - FROM ROUTE 860 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 782 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO 0.28 MILE SOUTH ROUTE 802 - FROM ROUTE 804 TO ROUTE 801. ROUTE 803 & 804 -- FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 801. ROUTE 801 - FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 803. ROUTE 850 - FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 782. ROUTE 854 -- FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO 0.32 MILE WEST. ROUTE 1423 - FROM ROUTE 29 TO ROUTE 1427. ROUTE 1428 - FROM ROUTE 1423 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1427 - FROM ROUTE t423 TO ROUTE 1425. ROUTE 1425 -- FROM ROUTE 1427 TO ROUTE 1423. ROUTE 1424 - FROM ROUTE 1427 TO ROUTE 1426. ROUTE 1426 - FROM ROUTE 1425 TO ROUTE 1423. ROUTE 743 - FROM ROUTE 250 (BY-PAss) TO ROUTE 29. ROUTE 743 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 250 (BY-PASS). ROUTE 1403 - FROM ROUTE 743 TO ROUTE 631. LENGTH 0~10 MI. 0.38 u~. 0.45 MI. 0.13 MI. 0.10 MI. 0.12 0.35 MI. 0.40 0.10 MI. 0.13 Mi. 0.10 0.17 M~. 0.12 M~. 0.96 M~. 0.16 M! 0.26 MI. 0.10 MI. 0.50 MI. 0.29 M!. 0.26 MI. 0.14 MI. 0.16 MI. 0.11 Mi. 0.14 Mi. 0.30 M1. 0.11 MI. 0.04 MI. 0.28 M~. 0.10 M!. 0.22 U~. 0.14 MI. 0.17 Mi. 0.32 Mi 0.35 MI. 0.08 MI. 0.14 MI. 0.38 MI. 0.12 MI. 0.17 MI. 0.40 MI. 0.20 MI. 1.99 MI. ROUTE 1414 - FROM ROUTE 1403 TO ROUTE 1403. ROUTE ?71 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO RTo 250 (BY-PAss). ROUTE 771 - FROM ROUTE 250 (BY-PASs) EAST TO ROUTE 1410. ROUTES 881 & ??2 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE ?71. ROUTE 1406 - FROM ROUTE 250 (BY-PAss) TO ROUTE 835. ROUTE 811 - FROM ROUTE ??2 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1402 - FROM ROUTE 1403 TO DEAD END, ROUTE 1401 - FROM ROUTE 1403 TO ROUTE 1406. ROUTE 14~0 - FROM ROUTE 1406 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1404 - FROM ROUTE 1406 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 835 - FROM ROUTE 1406 TO ROUTE 811. ROUTE 1405 - FROM ROUTE 835 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1411 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END, ROUTE 1412 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 1411. ROUTE 834 - FROM ROUTE 771 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 836 - FROM ROUTE 771 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1409 - FROM ROUTE 1408 TO ROUTE 1410. ROUTE 1429 - FROM ROUTE 1408 TO DEAD E~D. ROUTE 1408 - FROM ROUTE 771 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1407 - FROM RouTE 1~08 TO ROUTE 791. -ROUTE 1410 - FROM ROUTE ?71 TO DEAD END. ROUTE 631 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 653, ROUTE 6~2 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END, ROUTE 84? - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 1413. ROUTE 1413 - FROM ROUTE 847 TO DEAD END, ROUTE 1415 - FROM ROUTE 141~ TO ROUTE 631. ROUTE 819 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1416 - FROM ROUTE 819 TO DEAD END, ROUTE 848 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 748, ROUTE 822 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY L~NE TO ROUTE 1419, ROUTE ?48 - FROM ROUTE 839 TO DEAD END, ROUTE 839 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO DEAD END. ROUTE 1419 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 822, ROUTE ??8 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO ROUTE 742, ROUTE 82? - FROM ROUTE 631 TO DEAD END, ROUTE 781 - FROM CHARLOTTESVILLE COUNTY LINE TO 0o07 MILE SOUTH, ROUTE 653 - FROM ROUTE 631 TO ROUTE 771. TOTAL 0.35 MI. 0.08 M~. 1.21 MI. e,/38 M,. 0.64 M~. O.21 Mt. 0.29 M~. 0.20 Mi. 0.06 MI. 0.07 M!. 0.61 MI. 0.08 MI 0.07 MI. 0,02 MI, 0.05 M1. 0.26 M . 0.07 M . 0.04 M . 0.15 M . 0.13 M . O.10 M . 0.20 ~!. 0.08 MI. 0.25 MI. 0.17 MI 0.28 MI. 0.40 MI. 0.06 M~. 0.07 0,11 U~. 0.20 M~. 0.21 MI 0.09 M~. 0.10 MI, 0.43 0.07 MI. 0.73 Mi. 19.76 M~ THE FOLLOWING COPY OF LETTER WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD: "MR. T. R. MOORE R.F.D. 6, BOX 119 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA (2-27-63) DEAR MR. MOORE: 1 AM SORRY THAT THE FLU GOT YOU AND YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET WITH US THIS MORNING, MR, GEORGE PALMER REPRESENT-lNG THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS~ MR, FLOYD dOHNSON 'REPRESENTING THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSlON~ MR. H, W, RUNKLE REPRESENTING THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT~ AND MR. 0TIS BROWN~ ASSISTANT COUNTY EXECUTIVE~ MET WITH ME TO GO OVER THE PROPERY~ AND I WANT TO TRY BY THIS LETTER TO SUMMARIZE MY UNDERSTANDING OF. THEIR OPINIONS AS STATE~ AT THAT TIME, THERE SEEMED TO BE THREE OR FOUR POSSIBLE COURSES OPEN TO YOU~ AS THEY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION, I HOPE THAT A SUMMARY OF THEM WILL HELP YOU IN CONCLUDING WHICH APPROACH YOU FEEL WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO PURSUE. FIRST~ THERE SEEMS TO BE NO ~UESTION THAT IF YOU WANT TO SELL OFF ANY OF THE LOTS ACCORDING TO THE PRESENTLY RECORDED PLAT WITH NO EXPECTATION OF THE ROAD BEING TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE~ YOU CAN DO THIS WITHOUT DIFFICULTY, APPARENTLY~ HOWEVER~ THIS WOULD NOT APPLY TO ANY REARRANGEMENT OF THESE LOTS~ EVEN IF THE NEW LOTS WERE ALSO IN EXCESS OF THREE ACRES IN AREA~ SINCE THE THREE-ACRE RULE HAS NOW BEEN ABOLISHED,' IN OTHER WORDS~ THE LOTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECORDED IN EXCESS OF THREE ACRES MAY BE SOLD IN THAT FASHION ~ITHOUT DIFFI.CULTY~ BUT NO REARRANGEMENT OF THEM IS BEING PERMITTED EXCEPT UNDER THE NEW RULES, THIS IS THE RULE THEY HAVE ENFORCED REGULARLY IN FLORDON~ WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS PLATTED IN MORE TH~N THREE ACRE LOTS ABOUT THE SAME TIME YOUR PROPERTY WAS SO PLATTED. SECONDLY~ IF YOU WISH TO HAVE THE ROAD TAKEN OVER BY THE STATE AND MAINTAINED BY IT~ MR, RUNKLE FEELS THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE CAN DO THIS ~ITH LESS THAN A 40 FOOT RIGHT OF ~AYo THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST 40 FEET WIDE THROUGHOUT AND WOULD HAVE .TO BE GRADED~ DITCHED~ AND PAVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH MR. SHIELDS SENT YOU IN 1956, THEY WOULD HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY EXCEPTION FOR THE AREA ADdOINING THE MOTEL BUlLDING~ SO THAT NO ARRANGEMENT INVOLVING STATE MAINTENANCE WOULD BE POSSIBLE UNLESS YOU CAN WORK OUT SOME AGREEMENT WITH MRo CALHOUN FOR PART OF THE 40 FOOT AREA TO BE ON HIS LAND AND FOR THE ROAD TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, (I DID NOT SUCCEED IN GETTING IN TOUCH WITH MR, CALHOUN BEFORE OUR MEETING THIS MOR~ING~ BUT WiLL MAKE A FURTHER EFFORT TO RE~CH HIM IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE DAYS,) AS YOU KNOW~ THE USUAL REQUIREMENT FOR SUBDIVISION ROADS IS NOW 50 FEET RATHER THAN 40~ BUT ALL THE PEOPLE THERE THIS MORalNG WERE OF THE OPINION THAT~ IN THE FACTS OF YOUR SITU~TION~ THEY COULD EXPECT TO GET APPROVAL FOR AN EXCEPTION · HICH ~OULD PERMIT YOU TO LIMIT THE ROAD TO 40 FEET ALL THE WAY BACK (EXCEPT POSSIBLY RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE). PRESUMABLY~ IF YOU BUILD SUCH A ROAD WITH THE NECESSARY 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ALL THE WAY BAC~ YOU.WOULD THEN BE FREE TO RESUB~tVIDE THE LAND. ON ANY REASONABLE BASIS THAT YOU WANTED WITHOUT ANY REQUIREMENT OF MAINTAINING THREE ACRE LOTS, FURTHER~ ONCE THE ROAD WAS SO CONSTRUCTED~ IT ~OULD BE TAKEN INTO THE STATE SYSTEM AND YOU WOULD BE RELIEVED OF ALL FURTHER OBLIGATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE, THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME PROBLEM AT THE LOCATION OF YOUR WELL~ BUT MR. RUNKLE DID NOT SEEM TO FEEL THAT THIS WOULD BE TOO SERIOUS. IT MIGHT BE NECESSARY FOR THE PRESENT WELL HOUSE TO BE PUT BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE GROUND AND COVERED BY A MANHOLD OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT, I WOULD THINK THAT~ IF ALk THIS WERE DONE) YOU COULD VERY PROBABLY DIVIDE THE PROPERTY UP INTO EIGHT OR TEN LOTS~ EXCLUSIVE OF ANY LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. THE THIRD POSSIBILITY SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE THE MOST ADVANTAGES AS ~ UNDER- STAND THE SITUATION, THOUGH THERE ARE ALSO SOME UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS ABOUT IT. THIS WOULD BE TO PLAT THE PROPERTY IN CONVENIENT SIZED LOTS (PRESUMABLY YOU COULD HAVE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME NUMBER AS YOU WOULD HAVE' IF THE ROAD WERE ACCEPTED) BUT TO SHOW ON THE PLAT THAT THE ROaD WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR STATE MAINTENANCE SINCE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO THEIR STANDARDS. FOR THIS PURPOSE IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DEDICATE A 50 FOOT ROADWAY (EXCEPT IN THE AREA IMMEDIATELY ADdOINING THE MOTEL BUILDING) AND IT WOULD ALSO BE NECESSARY THAT THE 50 FEET BE SO PLACED AS TO LEAVE ALL BUILDINGS (OTHER THAN THE MOTEL BUILDING) SET BACK AT LEAST 55 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT AS TO THE CONDITION OF THE BOA) OR ITS PAVING~ AND IT WOULD NOT MATTER THAT THE ROAD WAS NOT IN THE CENTER OF TI~ RIGHT OF WAY. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT WOULD BE THAT THE NECESSARY LAND WAS DEDICATED FOR ROAD PURPOSES. ALSO EACH DEED TO A LOT ON THIS BASIS WOULD HAVE TO CONTAIN IN THE DEED ITSELF A SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE ROAD WAS SUBSTANDARD AND NOT ELIGIBLE FOR STATE MAINTENANCE. TH~ BIG PROBLEM ABOUT THIS APPROACH IS THAT THEY ]30 NOT HAVE ANY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH GETTING THE CITY TO APPROVE A PLAT ON THIS BASIS. THERE SEEMS TO BE ~IO DOUBT THAT THE NECESSARY COUNTY APPROVAL COULD BE OBTAINED~ AND IT IS MY PERSONAL dUDGEMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE A RESPECTABLE PROSPECT OF GETTING THE CITYIS APPROVAL. HOWEVER~ I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE fs ANY PRACTICAL WAY TO GET A DE- CISION FROM~E CITY OFFICIALS ON THIS POINT EXCEPT BY HAVING AN ACTJ~L PLAT PREPARED AND SOBMITTED TO THEM. AS iNDICATED ABOVE~ IN MY dUDGMENT THIS WOULD BE MUCH THE CHEAPEST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM SINCE IT WOULD PERMIT YOU TO MAKE REASONABLE SIZED LOTS AND MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY AS YOU HAVE UNDER THE PRESENTLY RECORDED PLAT~ WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO THE ENORMOUS EXPENSE OF CONSTRUCTING AND PAVING THE ROAD. ALSO~ THIS PROCEDURE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO YOU WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF WORKING SOMETHING OUT WITH MR. CALHOUN FOR A dOINT-ENTRANCE AND ROADWAY BACK PAST THE MOTEL BUILDING. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES INVOLVE THE PROBLEM OF HAVING TO SELL THE LOTS WITHOUT A STATE-MAINTAINED ROAD AN~ THE UNCERTAINTY AS TO THE CITyIS ACTIONS. I DO BELIEVEr HOWEVER~ THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AN OFFICIAL RULING BEYOND WHAT WAS WORKED OUT THIS MORNING ON ANY OF THESE MATTERS EXCEPT AFTER THE SUBMISSION OF A FORMAL PLAT PREPARED BY A COMPETENT S~RVEYOR. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER ALE OF THESE MATTERS~ AND AT YOUR OONVE~IENCE ADVISE ME WHAT COURSE OF ACTION YOU WISH TO PURSUE. ~ PERSONALLY FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT ANY S~TtSFACTORY ARRANGEMENT WHICH WO~LD PERMIT YOU TO MAKE A REASONABLE USE OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE A DETAILED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF THE PROPERTY~ WHETHER YOU WISH TO FOLLOW THE SECOND SUGGESTION ABOVE OR THE THIRD. ACCORDINGLY~ I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO AHEA~ WITH THIS PROCEDURE AS A NEXT ~EP IN ANY CASE. ~ BELIEVE I CAN PROPERLY SUMMARIZE OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING BY SAYING THAT ALL THOSE CONCERNED WERE ANXIOUS TO WORK OUT SOME PRACTICAL SOLUTION BUT STILL WERE SUBSTANTIALLY HAMPERED BY THE R~LES WITHIN WHICH THEY WERE PERMITTED TO ACT. ~R. RUNKLE SEEMED TO BE PARTICULARLY FIRM THAT HE HAD NOTAUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ROAD WITH LESS THAN A ~O FOOT WIDTH THROUGHOUT~ INCLUDING THE AREA ADdOIN~ lNG THE MOTEL BUILDING. ALSO I GATHER THaT HE DiD NOT FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY PRESENT PROSPECT OF TAKING INTO THE STATE SYSTEM A ROAD OF THIS SORT EXCEPT ON THE BASIS OF ~ITS BEING BROUGHT UP TO THE STATEtS SPECIFICATIONS~ WHICH INVOLVES GRADING~ DITCHING~ AND PAVING. IF 1 HAVE FAILED TO MAKE ANY PART OF THIS CLEAR OR IF THIS RAISES OTHER QUESTIONS IN YOUR MIND~ I HOPE THAT YOU WILL CALL ME WHENEVER YOU ARE SUFFICIENTLY RECOVERED TO GO INTO THE MATTER FURTHER. ~EANWHILE~ I CERTAINLY WISH YOU A SPEEDY RECOVERY. ~ITH BEST WtSHES~ I AM SINCERELY~ (SIGNED) ROBERT ~. ~USSELMAN" AFTER DISCUSSION OF THE FOREGOI~ MOTION WAS OFFERED BY ~R. PALMER~ SECONDED BY ~R. GARNETT~ AND UNANIMOUSLY: ADOPTED~ THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER BE ACCEPTED AND THAT 8AID LETTER BE FILED. PLAT WAS RECEIVED ON REDIVISION OF LOT ~ ~ECTION ~ CARRSBROOK SUBDIVISION~ AS PREPARED BY ~R. ~ILL~AM So ROUDABUSH~ ~Ro AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY AN~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS. ON MOTION OF ~R PALMER~ SECONDED BY ~Ro GARNETT~ THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED AND THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN SAME ON BEHALF OF THIS ~OARD. FIVE INDIVIDUAL PLATS WERE RE,LIVED COMPRISING TWO-MILE SUB-STANDARD ACCESS ROAD FROM ~OUTE ~0 TO AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH Co. OF VA. INSTALLATION AS PREPARED BY MR. ~OHN H. BARTENST/IN AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. ON MOTION OF ~Ro THRAVES~ SECONDED BY ~R. PALMER~ THESE PLATS WERE APPROVED AND THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZDD TO SIGN SAME ON BEHALF OF THiS ~OARD. PLAT WAS RECEIVED ON ~IVISION OF 61.190 ACRE TRACT OWNED BY E. R. ~ARTIN AND ADdOIN!NG ~EST LEIGH INTO THREE TRACTS~ AS PREPARE~ BY ~R. AMOS R. SWEET AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ON MOTION OF ~R. PALMER~ SECONDED BY ~R. GARNETT~ THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED AND THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN SAME ON BEHALF OF THIS BOARD. PLAT WAS RECEIVED OF LOT ON ROUTE ?O~ FROM A. LYLE ~AR~ TO E~WAR'D A. LEATHERS AS PREPARED BY ~R. PAUL ~. SAUNDERS AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. ON MOTION OF ~R. GARNETT~ SECONDE~ PLAT WAS RECEIVED OF 0..51 ACRE ON ROUTE;6~8 NEAR MOUNT FAiR FOR HARVEY GARRISON FROM GEORGE AND HAZEL SHIFLETT AS PREPARED BY MR, 0o R. RANDOLPH AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ON MOTION OF MRo GARNETT~ SECONDED BY MR. SUTHERLAND~ THIS PLAT WAS-APPROVED AND THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN SAME ON BEHALF OF THIS BOARD, PLAT WAS RECEIVED ON REDIVISION OF LOT 2 INTO LOTS 2 AND 3~ BLOCK E AND LOT 1~ BLOCK F~ WEST- FIELD SUBDIVISION~ AS PREPARED BY MR, B, AUBREY HUFFMAN AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY AND CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONS, ON MOTION OF MRo THRAVES~-SECONDED BY MR, SUTHERLAND~ THIS PLAT WAS APPROVED AND THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN SAME ON BEB~EF OF THIS BOARD. PLAT WAS RECEIVED FOR RE~ATING~ SHOWING LOT lB AND LOTS 2A, A DIVISION OF LOTS I AND 2~ BLOCK G~ SECTION 1~ NORTHFIELDS SUBDIVlSION~ AS PREPARED BY MR, Bo AUBREY HUFFM~N~ ON MOTION OF MR. SUTHER- LAND~ SECONDED BY MR, PALMER~ THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO REDATE THIS PLAT, PLAT WAS RECEIVED FOR REDATING~ SHOWING LOTS A AND B~ PROPERTY OF FRANCES dOHNSON~ 2 MILES EAST OF SHADWELL~ AS PREPARED BY MR, 0, R, RANDOLPH, ON MOTION OF MR, THRAVES~ SECONDED BY MR, PALMER~ THE CHAIRMAN AND CLERK WERE AUTHORIZED TO REDATE THIS PLAT, MR, ~OE YANCEY APPEARED WITH REGARD TO ROAD ABANDONMENTS~ STATING THAT SAME SHOULD BE RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ~R. YANCEY WAS ADVISED THAT ROAD ABANDONMENTS ARE NOW SUBMITTED TO THE CLERK FOR RECORDAT[ONo HOWEVER~ HE STATED SOMETHING SHOULD BE WORKED OUT WHEREBY OLD ABANDONMENTS COULD BE PICKED UP AND RECORDED, STATEMENTS OF EXPENSES FOR THE ~EPARTMENT OF FINANCE~ THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY~ 1~63~ WERE PRESENTED AND ON MOTION OF MR, PALMER~ SECONDED BY ~R, GARNETT~ WERE EXAMtNED~ VERIFIED AND APPROVED, STATEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY ~A1L WAS SUBMITTED ALONG WiTH SUMMARY STATEMENT OF PRISONER DAYS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRDARY~ 19~3~ ON MOTION OF MR, SUTHERLAND~ SECONDED BY ~R, THRAVES~ THESE STATEMENTS WERE EXAMINED~ VERIFIED AND APPROVED, CLAIM OF THE ~AIL PHYSICIAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $10o00 FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY~ 1~ WAS PRE- SENGED AND ON MOTION OF I~]R, SUTHERLAND~ SECONDE~ BY ~R. THRAVES~ ~AS APPROVED FOR PAYMENT, REPORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY~ 1~ WERE PRESENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 63-~?ol ~ND ~3-67,~ OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA. COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM MR, A. d, BELL~ ~Ro~ INTERNAL REVENUE 0FFICER~ IN REPLY TO INQUIRY FROM THIS BOARD~ ADVISING THAT IN CHECKING RECORDS OF ~R, WALTER A, LINDSAY~S ESTATE~ IT WAS FOUND THAT DUE TO THE POOR HEALTH OF MR, CHANCELLOR SHIFFLETT AND THE SMALL AMOUNT OF WAGES E~RNED'W. HILE WORKING FOR MR, LINDSAY~ HE DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE WORKED SUFFICIENT TIME TO~BE COVERED BY SOCIAL SECURITY, AT 10=00 A, M, THE 0HAIRMAN CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARING AS ADVERTISED IN THE DAILY PROGRESS ON MARCH ~ AND MARCH 1~. 1~ AS FOLLOWS= "NOTICE .IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA~ INTENDS TO CONSIDER ON THURSDAY~ ~ARCH 21~ 19~3, AT 10=00 A,M,~ IN THE COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING~ THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORT, ION OF A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY IN 0ARRSBROOK SUBDIVlSION~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA, SUCH RIGHT OF WAY~ KNOWN AS PO~ATAN DRIVE~ EXTENDS WESTERLY FROM MONACAN DRIVE FOR APPROXIMATELY ~00 FEET TO U, S, ROUTE 29, R~GHT OF WAY IS SHOWN ON PLAT DRAWN BY B. AUBREY HUFFM~N~ DATED 1961~ AND RECORDED IN DEED BOOK ~76~ PAGE 22~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY CLERKtS OFFICE, COPY OF SUCH ORDINANCE MAY BE OBTAINED AT THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTlVE~ ROOM 109~ COUNTY OFFICE BUlLDING~ CHARLOTTESVILLE~ VIRGINIA, BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA," THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE READ THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN ITS ENTIRETY, HOWEVER~ SEVERAL PERSONS APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SAME~ INCLUDING E, B, LOFTIN AND S, ~. HEISHMAN. THE ASST, COUNTY EXECUTIVE EXPLAINED THAT A ROAD IN SAID LOCATION WOULD HAVE SUCH A DEGREE OF GRADE AS TO PREVENT ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, AFTER CONSIDERABLE DtSCUSSION~ AND ON MOTION OF ~R, HARRIS~ SECONDED BY MR, SUTHERLAND~ THIS MATTER WAS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT AND I-T WAS ORDERED THAT A WRITTEN OPINION BE OBTAINED FROM THE COMMONWEALTHIS ATTORNEY ON THE MATTER. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ROAD ABANDONMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY PROGRESS ON FEBRUARY 13 AND FEBRUARY 20, 1963: ~PURSUANT TO SECTION 33-76.15, CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY WILL CONSIDER AT 10:00 A.Mo~ MARCH 21, 1963, BOARD ROOM, COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING~ THE ~BANDON- MENT OF A PORTION OF ROAD FROM STATE ROUTE 710 TO STATE ROUTE 712, NORTH OF U.S. ROUTE 29. ANY PERSON DESIRING TO DO SO SHOULD APPEAR AT THE APPOINTED HOUR AND MAKE HIS VIEWS KNOWNof~ MR. RICHARD SHEPHERD WAS THE ONLY PERSON WHO APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSED ABANDON- MENT AND HE STATED THAT HE DID NOT OWN PROPERTY WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTED. AFTER DISCUSSION, AND ON MOTION OF MR. SUTHERLAND, SECONDED BY MR. HARRIS, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: I~-IEREAS, ON FEBRUARY 13, 1963 AND ON FEBRUARY 20, 1963~ THIS BOARD GAVE NOTICE OF THE INTENTION TO ABANDON A PORTION OF ROAD FROM ROUTE 710 TO BeUTE 712, NORTH OF U. S. ROUTE 29, PURSUANT TO SECTION 33-76.15, CODE oF VIRGINIA~ AS AMENDED; AND WHEREAS, AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 1963, THIS BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT NO PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE SAID SECTION OR ROAD AS A PUBLIC ROAD AND THAT TH/ WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE SERVED BEST BY ABANDONING SUCH SECTION OF ROAD; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: THAT THE SECTION OF ROAD BEGINNING AT RT dUNCTION WITH ROUTE 710-A~]~MORELAND BAPTIST CHURCH AND EXTENDING TO EXISTING STATE MAINTENANCE SIGN ON ROUTE 712, NORTH OF ROUTE 29, THROUGH THE PROPERTIES OF RoY S. CLARK, DEWEY S. MAWYER~ EUGENE E. ESTES AND CHARLES E. KIDD, BE AND THE SAME HEREBY IS, ABANDONED AS A PUBLIC ROAD PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 33-76.13~ 33-76.1~, 33-76.15 AND 33--76.16, CODE OF VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION BE CERTIFIED TO THE CLERK OF THE'CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY FOR RECORDATION IN SAID OFFICE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE DAILY PROGRESS ON MARCH 8, 1963, AND MARCH 15, 1963, AND NOTICE POSTED AT THE COURT HOUSE ON MARCH 7, 1963~ THE BOARD HELD ANNUAL HIGHWAY MEETING TO RECEIVE REQUESTS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO ROADS tN THE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS. THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS WERE RECEIVED: IVY DISTRICT: DAVID WOOD AND OTHERS - ROUTE 676 FROM GLENAIR SUBDIVISION TO ~ERIWETHER LEWIS SCHOOL. RIyANNA DISTRICT: HARRY DISSTON - ALL ROUTE 799 IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND ROUTE 600 FROM INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 799 TO C~0 RAILROAD CROSSING AT CAMPBELL. CECIL HUFFMAN AND OTHERS -- ROUTE 645 FROM ROUTE 33 TO INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 646. SAMUEL MILLER DISTRICT: R~OHARD SHEPHERD - ALL ROUTE 814. HENRY GODWIN - ROUTE 633~ PHILLIP TO HEARDS ON TO NELSON COUNTY LINE. W. A. YOUNG - ROUTE 690, 1/~ MILE EAST OF COUNTRY STORE. ROCHARD GOO~LING AND OTHERS - ROUTE 696 BETWEEN ROUTE 710 AND BATESVlLLE ROAD. ~COTTSVlIIF DISTRICT: ~.. M. SCHAFER - ROUTE 630. ~ACK SPRADLIN AND OTHERS - ROUTE 618 FROM KIDD'S STORE TO ~OODRIDGE. 0. L. LEwis AND OTHERS - ROUTE 795 FROM SLATE HILL CHURCH TO BLENHEIM. D. FARLEY COX, ~R. - ROUTE 62? FROM CARTER'S BRIDGE TO ROUTE 72?. W. R. KIDD - ROUTE 622 FROM ROUTE 795 TO ROUTE 773. WHITE HALL DISTRICT= A. RICE GREEN AND OTHERS - ROUTE 672 FROM RESIDENCE OF LEONARD VIA .3 MI. NORTH. DR. ALFRED DIMILIA AND OTHERS - ROUTE 667 FROM ROUTE 665 TO ROUTE 601. C. A. NOUGARET AND OTHERS - ROUTE 810 FROM ROUTE 2~0 TO ROUTE 789. ON MOTION OF MR. GARNETT, SECONDED BY MR. THRAVES, IT WAS ORDERED THAT THIS LIST BE ADDED TO THE BACK-LOG FROM 1962 AND SUBMITTED TO THE RESIDENT HIGHWAY ENGINEER. MR., D. B. MARSHALL~ ATTORNEY, APPEARED WITH FURTHER REGARD TO THE BEAVER CREEK DAM PROdECT. ON HIS RECOMMENDATION, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS OFFERED BY MR. PALMER~ SECONDED BY MR. GARNETT, AND WHEREAS, D. B. MARSHALL, ATTORNEY ENGAGED BY THIS BOARD INCONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR THEBEAVER CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT, HAS BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH VARIOUS LAND OWNERS TO OBTAIN EASEMENTS TO PERMIT TEMPORARY FLOODING BY OVERFLOW WATER FROM THE PROPOSED LAKE IN THAT PROJECT, AND HAS RE- PORTED THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: 1. EASEMENTS OVER 5.30 ACRES OWNED BY THE DEVISEES OF JOHN H. LAMB AND OVER 0.O5 ACRE OWNED BY THE HEIRS OF ALBERT JONES HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THIS BOARD AT A COST OF $195oOO AND $10.O0, RESPECTIVELY, PURSUANT TO COMMISSIONERSI AWARDS IN CONDEMNATION SUITS. 2. THE FOLLOWING OFFERS WERE MADE TO THE REMAINING PROPERTY OWN/RS, ALL BASED UPON A PRICE OF $50.00 PER ACRE FOR THE AREA OF LAND TO BE AFFECTED BY THE EASEMENT= To PERCY R. ABELL (3.28 ACRES) To MRS° JENNIE P. WOODSON (3.18 ACRES) To BERNARD C. WARD (6.0~ ACRES) To MRs. LucY M. WOODSON (.96 ACRE) To MRS. SUSIE Wo BALLARD (13.90 ACRES) TO ELLIS A. SPROUSE (°90 ACRE) TO CYNTHIA SMITH (1.05 ACRES) $1'64.00 159.00 303.00 48.00 695.00 45.00 52.50 3. THE FOREGOING OFFERS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY ELLIS A. SPROUSE AND CYNTHIS SMITH, PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE AND DEEDS TO THE COUNTY FOR CONVEYANCE OF SAID EASEMENTS ON THE SPROUSE AND SMITH LANDS HAVE BEEN EXECUTED AND DELIVERED. 4. IT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT CHARLES WILLIAM WARD, BROTHER OF BERNARD C. WARD, OWNS A 1/ATH INTEREST IN THE LAND FOR WHICH THE OFFER TO BERNARD C. WARD WAS MADE AND~ THEREFORE, THE EASEMENT OVER THAT LAND MUST BE ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION. 5. THE REMAINING OFFERS HAVE BEEN NEITHER ACCEPTED NOR REJECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS INVOLVED. NOW, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ACQUISITION OF AND PAYMENT FOR THE EASEMENTS ACQUIRED BY CONDEMNATION FROM THE LAMB DEVISEES AND THE JONES HEIRS IS HEREBY RA~IFIED AND ALL ACTS OF SAID ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ARE HEREBY RATIFIED~ AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE OFFERS TO PURCHASE LISTED ABOVE MADE BY SAID ATTORNEY ARE LIKEWISE HEREBY RATIFIED, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE SPROUSE AND SMITH EASEMENTS, PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONVEYANCES THEREOF ARE HEREBY RATIFIED, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT SAID ATTORNEY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO PROCEED FORTHWITH TO INSTITUTE AND CONDUCT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS' IN THE NAME OF THIS BOARD AGAINST BERNARD C. WARD~ JUNE m. WARD, ROBERT m. WARD AND CHARLES ~ILLIAM WARD IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY FLOOD EASEMENTS OVER THEIR LANDS, SUCH EASEMENT TO AFFECT AN AREA OF 6.06 ACRES OF LAND, AND - BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT SAID ATTORNEY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO INFORM PERCY R. ABELL, MRS. JENNIE P. WOODSON, MRS. LucY M. WOODSON AND MRS. SUSIE W. BALLARD THAT THE AFORESAID OFFERS ARE FINAL OFFERS, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT SAID ATTORNEY IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE DEEDS AND MAKE PAYMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID OFFERS TO SUCH OF SAID OWNERS AS ACCEPT SAID OFFERS, AND TO TAKE SUCH OTHER ACTION AS MAY BE NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE IN HIS JUDG- MEET TO CONCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF SAID EASEMENTS AND CONVEYANCE OF SAME TO THIS COUNTY, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS FOR SAID EASEMENTS SHOULD BE INSTITUTED FORTHWITH AGAINST THE OWNERS OF ANY LANDS WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT SAID OFFER TO PURCHASE AND SAID ATTORNEY IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO INSTITUTE SUCH PRO- 'CLAIM AGAINST THE DOG TAX FUND WAS RECEI.VED FROM MR. PAUL PHILLIPS FOR ONE CALF KILLED BY DOGS. ACTION ON THIS CLAIM WAS DEFERRED PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE GAME WARDEN° CLAIM AGAINST THE DOG TAX FUND WAS RECEIVED FROM MR. FRANK GIBSON FOR ONE EWE AND ONE BUCK KILLED BY DOGS. ON MOTION OF MR o HARRIS, SECONDED BY MR. SUTHERLAND, MRo GIBSON WAS ALLOWED FOR THIS EWE AND CLAIM FOR THE BUCK WAS DENIED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT EVI~ENCEo CLAIM AGAINST THE DOG TAX FUND WAS RECEIVED FROM MRo FRED MACK FOR FOUR HENS AND TWO GUINEAS KILLED BY DOGS° ON MOTION OF MR. HARRIS, SECONDED BY MR° GARNETT, MR. MACK WAS ALLOWED ~1°O0 FOR EACH OF THE HENS AND ~)°75 FOR EACH OF THE GUINEAS. CLAIM OF ~ ~37o36 FOR HeSP1TALIZATION OF INDIGENT PATIENTS WAS RECEIVED FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HOSPITAL AND ON MOTION OF MR. PALMER, SECONDED BY MR. GARNETT, WAS APPROVED FOR PAYMENT. REPORT OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY] ~63, WAS RECEIVED, APPROVED, AND ORDERED FILED. THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ADVISED THAT IT HAD BEEN NECESSARY TO EXPEND THE SUM OF ~00.00 FOR A PANEL FOR THE STATE TAX BILLING MACHINE ~UE TO THE NEW STATE INCOME PROCEDURES. ON MOTION OF MR. THRAVES~ SECONDED BY MR. SUTHERLAND, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: WHEREAS~ IT HAS BEEN NECESSARY TO EXPEND THE SUM OF ~300.00 FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ADDITIONAL PANEL FOR BURROUGHS BOOKKEEPING MACHINE IN 'THE DE- P~RTMENT OF FINANCE, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, DUE TO THE NEW STATE INCOME TAX PROCEDURES, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BYTHE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT THIS EXPENDITURE BE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY AP- PROVED~ AND THE STATE COMPENSATION BOARD BE AND IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO PARTICIPATE IN ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF SAID EXPENDITURE. ON RECOMMENDATION OF COMMITTEE APPOINTED AT THE LAST REGULAR MEETING~ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIO~ WAS OFFERED BY ~R. HARRIS~ SECONDED BY ~R. GARNETT~ SND UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED= WHEREAS, OFFER HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FROM ALFONSO L. RUSH, ~Ro FOR THE PURCHASE OF SIX ACRES OF LAND OWNED BY THE COUNT¥~ FORMERLY IN THE NAME ~ LOUISANNA RUSH, LOCATED IN THE SCOTTSVILLE ~AGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FOR A TOTAL SUM OF $90°00; AND ~HEREAS, COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF H. ASHBY HARRIS AND HUGH F. SlMMS~ dR. INVESTIGATED THIS MATTER AND REPORTED SAID OFFER TO BE FAIR FOR THE SUBdECT LAND, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA~ THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED OFFER OF ~LFONSO L. RUSH, JR. BE ACCEPTED, SUGdECT TO APPROVAL OF THE COURT. AUDIT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED ~UNE ~0, 1962, FOR THE ~UVENILE AND ~OMESTIC RELATIONS COURT AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY COURT AND WAS ORDERE~ FILED. ON MOTION OF ~R. HARRIS~ SECONDED BY MR° SUTHERLAND~ THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED= BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ VIRGINIA, THAT THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT BE AND IS HEREBY REQUESTED TO GIVE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE ON ROUTE 20 CROSS~NG THE JAMES RIVER FROM BUCKINGHAM COUNTY TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY AT SCOTTSVlLLE~ VIRGINIA~ AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE HIGHWAY COMMISSION'S ATTENTION BE DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT SUCH BRIDGE IS OUTMODED TO THE EXTENT THAT AT TIMES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR TWO VEHICLES TO PASS AND THAT EMPHASIS FOR NEE~ OF REPLACEMENT PRESENT IS MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE ~HE/INAD~UATE STRUCTURE ACROSS THE JAMES RIVER IS LOCATED ON ONE OF THE PRIMARY HIGHWAYS OF THIS COMMONWEALTH; AN~ ~E IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THIS RESOLUTION FOLLOWS SIMILAR ACTION OF SEVERAL YEARS AGO REQUESTING THE IMPROVEMENT AT THIS LOCATION ON PRIMARY ROUTE 20. A MATTER WITH RESPECT TO A PROPOSED OPEN SEASON ON WILD TURKEY GOBBLERS BY CERTAIN GROUPS DURING THE SPRING MONTHS WAS PRESENTED BY MR. HARRIS. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION WAS GIVEN THE MATTER AND IT APPEARED TO BE THE SENSE OF THE MEETING THAT AN OPEN SEASON AT SUCH TIME ON WILD TURKEY GOBBLERS WOULD TEND TO DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SUCH GAME FOR FALL HUNTING. AFTER SUCH DISCUSSION AND ON MOTIO BY MR. HARRIS, SECONDED BY MR. THRAVES, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, THAT THE COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, BE ADVISED THAT THIS BOARD IS UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO PETITIONS BY ANY GROUPS RE- QUESTING AN OPEN SEASON ON WILD TURKEY GOBBLERS IN THE SPRING OF THE YEAR AND THAT SUCH COMMISSION IS HERESY REQUESTED TO LEAVE UNCHANGED THE PRESENT LAW ON HUNTING WITH RESPECT TO SUCH GAME. PALMER CALLED THE BOARDtS ATTENTION TO A MATTER WITH RESPECT TO A DOG OWNED BY MR. dAMES Co MAPLES WHICH WAS KILLED IN CONNECTION WITH AN ATTACK ON SHEEP OWNED BY UR. GEORGE NICHOLS° HE EX~ PLAINED THAT THE DOG WAS SHOT BY UR. ~(:.EFI~.ELM~:)RR;iS; ~(~USTOD;i.~,NLOF:'.'~H'E'"S~E~i!~H~"~IT,~,~AS F~UND ~OEESTING THE SHEEP BY MRS. ~ORRI$o MR. SAM ~OBERT$ON, ~OG ~ARDEN, EXPLAINED THAT MRo MORRIS WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTIONS. HOWEVER, ~R. PALMER STATED HE FELT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE SHOULD WRITE A LETTER OF EXPLANATION TO MR. MAPLES° CLAIMS AGAINST THE COUNTY AMOUNTING TO $323,45~,15 WERE PRESENTED, EXAMINED AND ALLOWED, AND CERTIFIED TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE FOR PAYMENT AND CHARGED AGAINST THE FOLLOWING FUNDS: GENERAL FUND SCHOOL FUND DOG TAX FUND CROZET SANITARY DISTRICT FUND VIRGINIA PUBL.IC ASSISTANCE FUND SCOTTSVlLLE HIGH SCHOOL PROdEOT PUPIL SCHOLARSHIP FUND TEXTBOOK FUND $ 34,183.45 152,433.44 1,091.48 4,058.31 24,068,47 ~2,581.12 42,130.54 ~52.90 CENTRAL FIRE DISTRICT FUND 4,315.47 COMMONWEALTH OF V~RGINIA CURRENT CREDIT ACCT. ~ TOTAL $323,451.1 5 ON MOTION~ THE MEETING ADdOURNED.