1996-07-03July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000233
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 3, 1996, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest
R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development,
V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the
Chairman, Ms. Humphris.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
Mr. Scott Peyton asked for an opportunity to have public comments on the
Route 250 West Scenic Highway discussion.
Mr. George Larie said he would like to speak about the Squirrel Ridge
issue.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Regarding Item 5.12, Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has received title
yet. When Sams and Wal-Mart were approved by this Board, one of the proffers
offered were a strip of land along the Reservoir. Mr. Tucker said he does not
believe the County has title to this property yet, unless it just happened
recently. He explained that there is funding in the CIP adequate to move
forward on this project whether or not the grant is received. He said
application for grant funds for this project is desirable, though, in order to
reduce local funding. He pointed out that the staff attempted to get this
grant last year, but didn't succeed. If the grant does not come through this
year, the County will probably move forward with the project, anyway. He
stated that this is when the title to the property should be forthcoming, and
construction can take place.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that part of this funding would also purchase
some of the Greenway in this area. Ms. Humphris agreed. She said a 2,400
foot piece of the Greenway is involved with this project, which is a signifi-
cant portion of the Greenway, and it is in a significant place.
Regarding Item 5.6a, Ms. Thomas asked if the $29,007 for remedial summer
school is tuition or coming out of the general fund. Mr. Tucker said he
thinks it may be carry over of some funds, but he will check.
Regarding Item 5.6c, Ms. Thomas asked for a progress report on the
Murray Electronics employees.
Regarding Item 5.8, Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the research done on
that issue. However, she thinks it is important to point .out that the money
the County is putting into this position does not mean that the deputy's
position in Scottsville is in any sense a free position. She explained that
money is being used which would not have had to be used, had it not been for
the Scottsville deputy's position. She emphasized that she thinks the
bailiff's position is also necessary.
Regarding Item 5.17, Ms. Humphris said she found Mr. Mullaney's report
quite interesting, but one of the major findings is that the City is spending
$472,136 subsidizing recreation services for Albemarle County residents. She
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~4
(Page 2)
added that when Mr. Mulla~ ahaI~z~d this ~eport, he found no recognition
whatsoever of services the County provides to the City. She noted that the
balancing factor is totally missing, and there is no analysis in the differ-
ence in philosophies between the City's and County's provision of recreation.
Although this is a very revealing document, she hopes any study the County
does is not like this one, because she would not like it if the study is not
totally fair and showing both sides of the story. If City officials really
feel the County residents are costing this amount of money, then they should
be remedying this problem by developing a solution.
Mr. Tucker stated that it points out again the fallacy of trying to do a
study independently when two jurisdictions are involved. He said this ties in
with the attempts the County officials are making to encourage the County
School Board to have a joint study with the City School Board. When studies
are done independently things are skewed, and the other agency then feels
defensive and has to react to some things which are simply not true. He added
that he has talked with the City Manager about this report.
Ms. Humphris noted that the public is reacting to the report, and the
public doesn't have the rest of the story.
Regarding Item 5.19, Ms. Thomas stated that this Committee didn't have a
quorum with only three counties being represented. She inquired if Albemarle
County is represented on this Committee.
Mr. Tucker replied that Albemarle County is represented, but it is
always difficult to have someone present at these meetings. He said a member
of this Board, as well as a member of the staff, attempt to get to the
meetings. However, they cannot make every one of them.
On motion by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, items 5.1 through
5.14 on the consent agenda were approved and the remaining items were received
for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Item 5.1. Appropriation: Contribution Fund, $11,558.35 (Form #95010).
In FY 1994/95, the Board authorized the establishment of a Contribution
Fund to encourage and provide a means for residents and businesses to donate
funds to various activities. The contributions.could be designated for a
specific project/program or, if not specified, the contribution could be used
for any County expense with the approval of the County Executive.
During FY 1994/95, the following contributions were received:
Contributor
T.J. Memorial Foundation
Virginia Power
Albemarle Rotary Club
Sam Kaplan
Jefferson National Bank
Purpose
Route 20 Maintenance
Rescue Squad
After School Enrichment Program
Undesignated
FY 1995/96 Housing Program
Total
Amount
$2,OO0 00
400 00
500 00
28 00
$5,000.00
$7,928.0~
The $2,000 contribution to maintain the Route 20 median strip was used
by Parks and Recreation to offset a portion of their expense of this project.
The $400 contribution for rescue squads was distributed equally to the three
squads. The remaining contributions will be disbursed in FY 1995/96.
During FY 1995/96, the following contributions have been received:
Contributor Purpose
The Police Foundation Police - SMART Sign
Piedmont Virginia Community College Route 20 Maintenance
Virginia Municipal Clerks Assoc Police - Color Guard
Anonymous Police - Miscellaneous
The Police Foundation Police - Newsletter
Amount
$ 775.00
500.00
35.00
100.00
2,032.35
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meetihg)
(Page 3)
Nztch~ann/County Yance~ ~ommunzty Fund
Forrest Marshall/Bill ~'~ .~,~?i~
United Way of Montgomery Co. & Radford Fire/Rescue
Total
2,495.00
93.00
$6,030.35
Staff recommends approval of the reappropriation of the unexpended FY
1994/95 contributions in the amount of $5,528 and appropriation of the FY
1995/96 contributions in the amount of $6,030.35.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95010
FI/ND: CONTRIBUTION
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FY 95/96 FUNDING AND REAPPROPRIATION FROM
FY 94/95
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1840590910999804
1840590910999803
1840590910999810
1840590910999806
1840590910999801
1840590910999807
1840590910999808
1840590910999809
1840590910999805
1840590910999811
ALB. ROTARY CLUB
JNB-HOUSING
MISC CONTRIBUTIONS
POLICE-SMART SIGN
PVCC-RT. 20 MAINT.
POLICE-COLOR GUARD
POLICE-MISC
POLICE-NEWSLETTER
YANCEY COMMUNITY FI/ND
FIRE/RESCUE
TOTAL
$500.00
5,000 00
28 00
775 00
500 00
35 0O
100 O0
2,032 35
2,495 00
93.00
$11,558.35
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2840518110181109 CONTRIBUTIONS $3,535.35
2840551000510100 FI/ND BALANCE 5,528.00
2840518110181111 YANCEY FUND 2,495.00
TOTAL $11,558.35
Item 5.2. Appropriation: Sheriff's Department, $35,000 (Form #95078).
Due to the increase in providing private security, the Sheriff's
Department will overexpend its appropriation for this service. The FY 1995/96
budget projected an expense and offsetting revenue of $25,000. As of June 14,
1996, expenses have totaled $53,965.54 and revenues collected equal $57,910.
Staff recommends that the budgeted appropriation be increased by $35,000 to a
total of $60,000 to cover activities through June 30, 1996.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95078
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ADDITION FI/N-DING DUE TO INCREASE IN SHERIFF'S
DEPT. REIMBURSABLE OVERTIME.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031020129900 OVERTIME-REIMBURSi~BLE $35,000.00
TOTAL $35,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100016000160304 SHERIFF'S DEPT. SERVICE FEES $35,000.00
TOTAL $35,000.00
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
000236
Item 5.3. Appropria~i0ni ~en~i~hd, $292,406.06 (Form #95080).
Based on the FY 1994/95 Audit recommendations, the Finance Department is
attempting to reduce the year-end adjustments normally performed by the audit
staff. For a number of years, the County's budget has been prepared with the
tax revenue accounts being recorded net of the Tax Relief for the Elderly and
Handicapped and the Volunteer Fire/Rescue Tax Credit. Since numerous reports
require the actual amount of the programs and, in some cases, they are
considered expenditures, the auditors have requested that they be budgeted
items and recorded in the County's financial records. The amounts detailed on
the appropriation form reflect the amounts from December 1995 and June 1996.
Due to 1996 being the first year of split billing, the FY 1995/96 real estate
tax relief exemption includes the full 1995 exemption amount and one-half of
the 1996 exemption.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95080
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO SET UP ACCOUNTS FOR TAX RELIEF AND
FIRE/RESCUE CREDITS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100059000579100 TAX RELIEF-ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED $249,215.76
1100039000561405 FIRE/RESCUE TAX CREDITS 43,190.30
TOTAL $292,406.06
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100011000110195 REAL ESTATE TAX-95 $160,753.53
2100011000110196 REAL ESTATE TAX-96 88,462.23
2100011000110395 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX-95 21,576.44
2100011000110396 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX-96 21,613.86
TOTAL $292,406.06
Item 5.4. Appropriation: Federal Drug Seized Assets, $48,769.69 (Form
#95081).
Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal
and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional
law enforcement activities. This appropriation requests approval of the
receipts and expenditures for federal drug seized assets for the period July
1, 1995 through June 30, 1996. This appropriation requests approval of the
expenditure of the unrestricted July 1, 1995 fund balance in the amount of
$29,769.69.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NI3MBER: 95081
FI/ND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF FEDERAL SEIZED DRUG
ASSETS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1123539000580902 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $48,769.69
TOTAL $48,769.69
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
2123515000150101 INTEREST $1,000.00
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
2123533000330205 ~Q~~ ~
2123551000510100 FUND BALANCE
0002;3?
18,000.00
29,769,69
Item 5.5. Appropriation: State Drug Seized Assets, $4,317.16 (Form
#95082).
Periodically, the County receives revenues for assets seized in federal
and state drug enforcement actions. The proceeds are utilized for additional
drug enforcement activities. This appropriation requests approval of the
receipts and expenditures for state drug seized assets for the period July 1,
1995 through June 30, 1996. This appropriation requests approval of the
expenditure of the unrestricted July 1, 1995 fund balance in the amount of
$1,317.16.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95082
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF STATE SEIZED DRUG
ASSETS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1123639000580905 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $4,317.16
TOTAL $4,317.16
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2123624000240403 DRUG SEIZED ASSETS $3,000.00
2123651000510100 FI/ND BALANCE 1,317.16
TOTAL $4,317.16
Item 5.6a. Appropriation: Education - 1995 Summer School Program,
$95,235.28 (Form #95083).
At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved an appropria-
tion of $95,235.28 for the 1995 Summer School Budget. The 1995 Summer School
appropriated budget was in the amount of $182,069.00. Several programmatic
changes were implemented prior to the opening of summer school, following the
1995-96 budget process, which caused an increase in expenditures of
$95,235.28. These additional summer programs included Elementary Summer ASEP,
Summer Middle School, and Remedial Summer School at additional locations.
Ms. Thomas asked if the $29,007 for Remedial Summer School is from
tuition paid or coming out of the General Fund.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95083
FUND: SUMMER SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1331061120132100
1331061120134100
1331061120135000
1331061120152100
1331061120210000
1331061120350000
1331061120420100
P/T Wages - Teacher
P/T Wages - Teacher Aide
P/T Wages - Office Clerical
Sub/Wages - Teacher
FICA
Printing & Binding
Field Trip Mileage
$47,763 54
10,320 34
1,003 13
464 05
4,555 54
107 70
(357 04)
July
(Page 6)
3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
1331061120420110
1331061120520100
1331061120520302
1331061120550100
1331061120580000
1331061120580305
1331061120600100
1331061120600200
1331061120601200
1331061120601300
1331061120601700
1331061124112100
1331061124132100
1331061124152100
1331061124210000
1331061124520100
1331061124520301
1331061124600200
1331061124601300
1331061124601700
1331061126119400
1331061126210000
1331061126601300
1331061127119400
1331061127210000
1331061127601300
1331061128601300
1331060210601300
1331061101601300
1331061125111400
1331061125112100
1331061125114100
1331061125115000
1331061125132100
1331061125135000
1331061125210000
1331061125221000
1331061125241000
1331061125420100
1331061125520100
1331061125520302
1331061125540100
1331061125550100
1331061125580000
1331061125600100
1331061125601300
1331061125601700
1331061125601200
~chooi
Postal Services
Telephone - Long Distance
Travel-Mileage
Misc. Exp.
Excess Fees
Office Supplies
Food Supplies
Books & Subscriptions
Educ & Recreation Supplies
Copy Supplies
Salaries - Teacher
P/T Wages - Teacher
Sub Wages - Teacher
FICA
Postal Services
Telephone - Local
Food Supplies
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Copy Supplies
Salaries - After School
FICA
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Salaries After School
FICA
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Ed. & Rec. Supplies
Salaries Other Management
Salaries Teacher
Salaries Teacher Aide
Salaries Office Clerical
P/T Wages Teacher
P/T - Office Clerical
FICA
VRS
Life
Field Trip Mileage
Postage
Telephone
Lease/Rent
Mileage
Misc.
Supplies
Ed. Supplies
Copy Supplies
Books
TOTAL
000 8
1,017.03
167.20
(150.00)
(73.98)
134.18
(220.00)
(257.30)
8,416.28
146.74
(18,189.48)
(453.00)
4,346.50
18,969.70
37.35
1,786.55
22.08
49.00
155.00
257.29
202.53
10,181 00
778 83
127 49
8,055 61
616 26
19 69
6 71
30 00
16 36
(1,500 00
50,034 29
2,101 48
1,029 95
(51,185 35
(1,007 45
(40 48
(571 00
(18 00
(5,000 14
20 99
(26.32
1,526.47
(52.72)
3,940.37
(3O0.O0)
(8,317.21)
(1,088.52)
5,636.04
$95,235.28
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2331016000161221
2331016000161222
2331016000161228
2331016000161230
2331016000189900
2331018000189900
2331024000240282
Tuition - Elem. Summer Scho
Tuition - H.S.. Summer Scho
Tuition - Middle Summer Sch
Tuition - Sum/ASEP
Misc. Revenues
Misc.
Remedial - Summer School
TOTAL
$32,969 86
2,400 00
2,225 00
27,864 53
9,471 89
(8,703 00)
29,007 00
$95,235.28
Item 5.6b. Appropriation: Education - Grants, $94,648.56 (Form #95084).
At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved the following
appropriations:
Appropriation of $26,629.99 for the Improving Vocational Education
Through Community Based Organizations Grant. These funds will be used
for the Summer Vocational Work Experience Project. The project will
provide pre-vocational, basic skills development, and work-based
learning experiences to selected project youth to facilitate their
completion of vocational education programs or their entrance into the
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
0002 9
local work force. Collaborative partners for this grant are MACAA,
CATEC and Charlottesville City Schools.
Reappropriation of the 1994-95 Drug Free Schools/Communities Act Grant
Balance in the amount of $16,880.56. These funds will be used to
provide education and staff training for the prevention of substance
abuse.
Appropriation of $1,500.00 from the Virginia L. Murray Elementary School
PTO. These funds will be used to purchase computer software and other
related materials to enhance computer technology education at Murray
Elementary School.
Appropriation of $49,639.00 for CATEC State Flow-Thru Funds. CATEC
receives State Flow-Thru funding for equipment purchases. Albemarle
County Schools serves as the fiscal agent in receiving these funds and
forwards them directly to CATEC. State reimbursement for equipment has
been substantially higher than budgeted for FY 95-96 and therefore
results in higher outlays.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
FUND: SCHOOL/GRANTS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1320861311312700
1320861311312701
1320861311380100
1320861311420100
1320861311550100
1320861311580500
1320861311601300
1320861311800710
PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANT
DATA PROCESSING CONSULTANT
SUMMER-TUITION
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION
TRAVEL-MILEAGE
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
INST/REC SUPPLIES
COMPUTER SOFTWARE
$10,629 00
800 00
3,600 00
1,675 00
1,000 00
4,225 00
4,500 00
200 00
1221561101601600 DATA PROCESSING SUPPLIES
1,500.00
1310760000312700 PROF. SERVICES-CONSULTANTS
16,880.56
1210261103701200
CATEC STATE FLOW-THRU
TOTAL
49.639.00
$94,648.56
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2320833000330108 COMM. BASED VOC. ED GRANT $26,629.00
2200018000181141 V L MURRAY PTO DONATION 1,500.00
2310724000240233 DRUG FREE SCHOOLS GRANT 16,880.56
2200024000240229 CATEC-STATE FLOW-THRU 49,639.00
TOTAL $94,648.56
Item 5.6c. Appropriation: Education - Grant Fund, $11,913.93 (Form
#95086).
At its meeting on June 10, 1996, the School Board approved an appropria-
tion for the Piedmont Job Training Administration (PJTA) requesting that
Albemarle County Public Schools act as a vendor/service provider to provide
instruction to Murray Electronics employees in reading, writing and mathemat-
ics. The overall goal will be to help the employees meet education and career
goals. The need for this service is a result of Murray Electronics recent
decision to close the plant located in Earlysville. At its June 12, 1995
meeting, the School Board granted approval to enter into this agreement with
PJTA to allow Albemarle County Schools to act as the service provider to
administer the EDWAA funds. The funding will come through PJTA to Albemarle
County in the 100% federally funded Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
oooz4
Assistance Act (EDWAA) program. When EDWAA funds have been spent, Murray
Electronics will pay for the remainder of the classes themselves.
Ms. Thomas asked for a progress report on the Murray Electronics
employees.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
NUMBER: 95086
FI/ND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ECONOMIC DISLOCATION FUNDS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1311663348132100 SALARY-TEACHER $10,989.52
1311663348210000 FICA 840.70
1311663348601300 ED/REC SUPPLIES 83.71
TOTAL $11,913.93
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2311633020330019 PJTA/EDWAA REVENIZE $9,956.89
2311616000161206 MURRAY ELECTRONICS 1.957.04
TOTAL $11,913.93
Item 5.7. Appropriation: Department of Criminal Justice Services Grant
Refund, $40.00 (Form #95085).
The County of Albemarle received $3,500 for a Department of Criminal
Justice Services grant in FY 1993/94. The County spent $3,460. The excess
was refunded to the Department of Criminal Justice Services. This appropria-
tion requests approval of the $40 refund.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1995/96
A/UMBER: 95085
FUND: GRANT
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CLOSE OUT OF DCJS GRANT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1152029402312700 OVERPAYMENT REFU1W-D $40.00
TOTAL $40.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2152051000510100 FUND BALANCE $40.00
TOTAL $40.00
Item 5.8. Appropriation: Additional Bailiff - Juvenile Court, $45,657
(Form #96001).
On April 10, 1996, the Board approved the FY 1996/97 Operating Budget,
which provided a total of $51,500 in funding for an additional bailiff (1 FTE)
in the Juvenile Court, contingent upon demonstrated need by the Sheriff's
Office, and which extended the contract with Scottsville for one additional
year, through June 30, 1997. That same day, the Board requested that staff
report back to the Board on the Sheriff's staffing needs prior to July.
At the Board's request, staff conducted a review of staffing needs in
the Sheriff's Office, based on an analysis of the historical, current and
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
projected workload of the Sheriff's deputies. Based on its review of this
information , staff has determined that if the locally-funded deputy serving
in Scottsville were returned to County service, that the existing number of
state and locally-funded deputy positions would be adequate to meet current
and projected staffing needs in the areas of courtroom security, prisoner/
patient transport, civil process, and service in the D.A.R.E. program.
However, while the County deputy is assigned to law enforcement duty in
Scottsville, there exists a temporary shortage of staff to provide courtroom
security.
Staff considered the following factors in reaching this conclusion.
Over the past few years, the number of civil papers served and transports
completed have not increased significantly, although an increase in number of
courtroom hours, particularly in the Juvenile Court, has increased the number
of bailiffs needed to provide Courtroom security. Further, the current number
of funded FTE's in the Sheriff's Office are sufficient to meet the increased
workload in the Courts, although the assignment of the County deputy to
Scottsville has required that civil process servers be used as temporary
bailiffs, when the need arises. As a result, the Sheriff indicates, that a
backlog of civil papers exists, and that his deputies are unable to serve all
papers in a timely manner.
Currently, there are 3.63 bailiffs assigned to the Juvenile Court, one
of whom is a "floater", who provides courtroom security as needed, in addition
to moving juveniles between the holding cells and the judge's chambers and
transporting juveniles back and forth to the detention home. Judges Shannon
and Berry have indicated that an average of 3-4 bailiffs are needed daily to
work in the Juvenile Court, with the exception of Tuesdays, when an average of
6 bailiffs are needed. Using the floater deputy, the Sheriff typically has
been able to provide the required number of bailiffs on Mondays, Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday. (When additional bailiffs are needed, civil process
servers are used as temporary bailiffs to make up the difference.) On
Tuesdays, however, the Sheriff must utilize additional staff to provide court
security, pulling the 1.63 FTE bailiffs assigned to the General District Court
(which is not in session on Tuesdays), and using a part time civil process
server.
The cost of providing an additional full-time bailiff in the Juvenile
Court is $51,500. Should the Board decide to approve this additional posi-
tion, it could use the $51,500 in additional funding that has been set aside
for this purpose in the Board's budgeted contingency reserve for FY 96/97.
However, the Sheriff indicates that if an additional staff person were to be
approved, that he would prefer to increase two part-time deputy positions to
full-time at a cost of $45,657 instead of an adding another full-time posi-
tion. (One of these part-time positions serves the Juvenile Court, and one
serves the General District Court. This would increase the number of assigned
FTE's in Juvenile Court by .37, for a total of 4 FTE (2 comp board, 2 local),
and increase the number of deputies assigned to General District Court by .37,
for a total of 2 FTE (1 comp board, 1 local).
Judge Helvin has indicated that the need for additional bailiff staff in
General District Court has increased substantially in the past few years,
particularly in the criminal cases. This full-time General District bailiff
would be available to provide security and additional transports to and from
the Joint Security Complex, as well as assist the Juvenile Court on Tuesdays.
Based on this information, staff recommends the following:
that the Board provide temporary funding to increase two part-time court
security positions to full-time at a cost of $45,657 to adequately meet
court security needs while the tripartite agreement with Scottsville is
in effect (from July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997);
that these staffing ratios of local and comp board funded positions be
maintained for both Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and General
District Court;
that any staffing changes or reassignments that would affect locally
funded positions or service levels at either court be reviewed by County
staff prior to implementation;
that the Board re-examine this issue during the next budget cycle, to
determine what impact the return of the deputy from Scottsville will
have on staffing needs in the Sheriff's Office and whether temporary
funding for the sheriffs deputies should continue; and
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
000242
that the Board approve Appropriation #96001 in the amount of $45,657 to
temporarily increase two part-time deputies to full-time for FY 1996-97.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NUMBER: 96001
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COST OF EXPANDING PART-TIME DEPUTY TO
FULL-TIME.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031020110000
1100031020210000
1100031020231000
1100031020232000
1100031020221000
1100031020270000
1100031020370000
1100031020530900
1100031020600854
1100031020800500
SALARIES
FICA
HEALTH INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VRS
WORKERS COMP.
LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING
AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE
VEHICLE OPERATION
MOTOR VEHICLES
$16,120 00
1,233 00
1,480 00
93 00
3,826 00
402 00
157 00
406 00
2,040 00
19,900 00
1100095000999990
BOARD RESERVE
TOTAL
(45.657.00)
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
$o.oo
TOTAL $0.00
Item 5.9. Appropriation: Cascades Subdivision - Road/Subdivision
Performance Bond, $14,800 (Form #96002).
In June 1995, the County demanded payment on a letter of credit from
Jefferson National Bank that secured the Cascades Subdivision road/subdivision
bond. This bond was called due to failure of the developer, Richard Walden
Jr., to take action on written requests to complete the project. These funds
were placed in the County's performance bond account.
Mr. Walden has now completed construction of the road in Cascades
Subdivision. Two items are preventing the State's acceptance of the road
maintenance: VDOT performance bond and VDOT maintenance fee. Mr. Walden has
agreed to allow the bond proceeds held by the County to be used to pay the
required VDOT maintenance fee and ensure the one year performance bond. The
maintenance fee is $687.50 and the performance bond is $7,500. Funds in
excess of this amount will be returned to Jefferson National Bank.
Staff requests approval of Appropriation #96002 in the amount of $14,800
for funds to be placed into an expenditure account to be used for the VDOT
maintenance fee and performance bond at Cascades Subdivision. Any accrued
interest should also be placed in the expenditure account so that it may be
returned to Jefferson National Bank.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NUMBER: 96002
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: MAINTENANCE FEE AND PERFORMANCE BOND FOR
CASCADES SUBDIVISION.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
000243
1100041000950101 CASCADES ROAD BOND $14,800.00
TOTAL $14,800.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100014000140120 ROAD BOND FORFEITURES $14.800.00
TOTAL $14,800.00
Item 5.10. Appropriation: Beating the Odds, $11,410 (Form #96003).
At the June 12 meeting, the Board received and reviewed a June 3 memo
from Cynthia Stratton, Chair of the CACY Commission in response to questions
about "Beating the Odds", a proposed program for teenage pregnancy. The
questions submitted to CACY addressed some concerns raised by the Board and
staff during budget work sessions about the collaborative nature of the
program, further demographic analysis and a review of the proposed project
costs.
The letter addressed the majority of the concerns raised during budget
work sessions. Service costs for the project have been lowered by increasing
the number of children served from 8 to 16. The Commission's letter also
proposes that Beating the Odds be a pilot project with careful monitorin~ of
the program benefits and results. Staff will work with CACY and MACAA as the
program begins to ensure that evaluation criteria and performance standards
are developed and put into place.
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #96003, which will authorize
the transfer of $11,410 from the Board's Reserve Fund to the Beating the Odds
Program operated by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency.
By the above recorded vote, the Board approved the following Resolution
of Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 1996/97
NUMBER: 96003
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE BEATING THE ODDS PROGR3%M.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100059000560155 BEATING THE ODDS $11,410.00
1100095000999990 BOARDS RESERVE (11.410.00)
TOTAL $0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
$0.00
TOTAL $0.00
Item 5.11. Police Contractual Overtime Rate Increase, Request Board of
Supervisors to authorize the increase of the overtime rate from $20 to $23 per
hour.
Currently, County policy dictates a charge for persons who contract for
police services at a rate of $20 per hour. From this, we pay the officer a
flat rate of $17 per hour and $3 per hour is taken by the County for matching
F.I.C.A. and other administrative overhead. With the implementation of the
new compensation plan in July, the police officers' average pay rate will
become approximately $13 per hour which will raise the average time-and-a-half
rate to almost $20 per hour.
Raising the contractual rate to $23 per hour would effectively cover the
officers' average pay increases and still allow $3 per hour for administrative
overhead. Implementing the new overtime rate on July 1, 1997 would give the
private sector contractors time to make the necessary budgetary adjustments.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
000244
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the increase of
the police officers' contractual overtime rate to $23 per hour effective July
1, 1997.
By the above recorded vote, the board authorized the increase of the
police officers' contractual overtime rate to $23 per hour effective July 1,
1997.
Item 5.12. Adopt resolution authorizing a request to the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation for funding assistance for a segment
of the Rivanna Greenway along the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.
The Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program is a grant program
established for the purpose of providing and maintaining recreational trails
and trail-related facilities. It is funded by the National Recreational
Trails Act, which establishes a program for allocating funds to the States for
recreational trails and trail-related projects. The program is administered
by the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), in consultation with the Department of the Interior. The state agency
which is responsible for administering the program in Virginia is the Depart-
ment of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) .
This project, the Rivanna Reservoir Segment of the Rivanna Greenway, is
currently approved for funding in the 1996/97 Capital Improvements Program in
the amount of $75,000. A previous appropriation of $25,000 in 95/96 makes
total funding available for this project of $100,000. In January, 1995 the
Board passed a resolution in support of this project as part of an unsuccess-
ful Virginia Transportation Enhancement Program grant request.
This project includes the purchase of 4 acres of property to be used in
conjunction with land proffers to develop an accessible parking area and a
2400 ft section of paved pathway adjacent to the existing boat launch site
near the water treatment plant. The estimated project cost is $100,000. The
grant program will provide successful applicants with reimbursement of 50% up
to a limit of $50,000. This particular application is for the maximum
reimbursement amount of $50,000.
The application package requires a resolution of support from the
governing body.
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the enclosed
resolution authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials
and to enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a VRTFP grant.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following resolution
authorizing the County Executive to provide the necessary materials and to
enter into such agreements as necessary to qualify for a Virginia Recreational
Trails Fund Program grant:
RESOLUTION
FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR
RECREATIONAL TRAILS AND TRAILS-RELATED FACILITIES
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Recreational Trails Fund Program
provides grant funds to assist political subdivisions of the
Commonwealth of Virginia in Providing and maintaining recreational
trails and trails-related facilities.
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle desires to develop an
accessible section of the Rivanna Greenway along the Rivanna
Reservoir; and
WHEREAS, the funding available from the Virginia Recre-
ational Trails Fund Program is limited to 50 percent on projects
totaling $20,000 to $100,000.
WHEREAS, funding necessary in addition to the Virginia
Recreational Trails Fund Program share to complete the project
will be provided by the County of Albemarle;
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000245
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Albemarle that the County Executive is hereby
authorized to cause such information or materials as may be
necessary to be provided to the Virginia Department of Conserva-
tion and Recreation and to enter into such agreements as may be
necessary to permit formulation, approval and funding of the
Rivanna Reservoir Segment of the Rivanna Greenway.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, Albemarle County hereby agrees
to accept all maintenance responsibilities, and keep this facility
reasonably open for public use for the expected useful life of the
project.
Item 5.13. Appointment of Building Official for Albemarle County.
As you will remember, Mr. Jesse R. Hurt will be retiring from his
position of Albemarle County Building Official on June 30, 1996. Because of a
scheduling conflict, we have continued Mr. Hurt's employment as Building
Official on an hourly basis through July 12, 1996 at which time the County
Executive is recommending that Mr. Jay Schlothauer be appointed by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors as Building Official for Albemarle
County. Under the proposed merger of the County Zoning and Building Inspec-
tions Departments into a new department titled Building Code and Zoning
Services, the Building Official will report, for administrative purposes,
directly to Amelia McCulley, Director/Zoning Administrator.
Staff recommends that the Board officially appoint Mr. Jay Schlothauer
as Building Official for Albemarle County effective July 13, 1996.
By the above shown vote, the Board appointed Mr. Jay Schlothauer as
Building Official for Albemarle County effective July 13, 1996.
Item 5.14. Amended Service Agreement for Law Enforcement in the Town of
Scottsville.
In January of 1994, the County, the Sheriff, and the Town of Scottsville
entered into a tripartite agreement which authorized the Sheriff to act as
chief of police for the Town of Scottsville and to provide law enforcement
services in the Town. That Service Agreement specifically provided that the
funding for such law enforcement services would be provided entirely by
sources other than the County. In December of 1994, the Service Agreement was
amended so that one locally funded County deputy position could be assigned
for law enforcement services until July 1, 1996. During this year's budget
discussions, the Board authorized the Service Agreement to be further amended
to extend the use of the County deputy position until July 1, 1997.
Approval of the Amended Service Agreement is necessary for the Sheriff
to continue to use a county funded deputy in Scottsville. The Sheriff and
Mayor Thacker have executed the proposed Amended Service Agreement.
To carry out the decision of the Board to permit the Sheriff to extend
the use of the County funded deputy in Scottsville until July 1, 1997, the
Chairman should be authorized to execute the Amended Service Agreement.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the Chairman to execute
the following Amended Service Agreement:
AMENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 21st day of June,
1996, by and between the Town of Scottsville, Virginia, (hereafter
"Town"), the Sheriff of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (here-
after "Sheriff"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (hereafter
"County"),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, duly approved a boundary adjustment, "Agreement to
Relocate Boundary Line Between the Town of Scottsville and the
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
000246
County of Albemarle", pursuant to Section 15.1-1031.1, Code of
Virginia, (1950), as amended, on September 27, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, the Town agreed with the County to provide full-
time police protection in the Town when the said Boundary Adjust-
ment became effective at midnight of December 31, 1993; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 14.1-70 and 15.1-131.3 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), the Town, the Sheriff, and the County
entered into a tripartite Service Agreement dated January 31, 1994
and amended December 21, 1994, for the purpose of having the
Sheriff furnish law enforcement services in the Town; and,
WHEREAS, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County now wish to
amend the Service Agreement to recognize the County's willingness
to temporarily continue to contribute to funding for law enforce-
ment services in the Town until July 1, 1997, and to further
recognize that, thereafter, the County will no longer fund any
deputy positions assigned for law enforcement services in the
Town.
NOW THEREFORE, the Town, the Sheriff, and the County hereby
agree as follows:
The Service Agreement between the Town, the Sheriff, and the
County dated January 31, 1994 and amended December 21, 1994,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by
reference, is hereby amended by replacing paragraph 5 there-
in with a new paragraph 5 fully set out below:
5o
Funding shall be provided entirely by sources other
than the County. Salaries of the deputies shall be
paid solely by the Town or the State Compensation
Board, and all other costs not covered by the State
including, but not limited to, vehicles, police equip-
ment, supplies, uniforms, medical insurance, liability
insurance, FICA, retirement benefits and related costs
shall be paid by the Town. Notwithstanding the above,
the County shall allow one locally County funded
deputy position to be assigned for law enforcement
services in the Town until July 1, 1997, provided that
the State Compensation Board has not funded a law
enforcement position for the Town. Thereafter, no
locally County funded deputy positions shall be as-
signed for law enforcement services in the Town.
Ail other terms, conditions, requirements, and obligations
of the Service Agreement, referenced above, shall remain
unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement
to be duly executed in several counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original.
TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE, VIRGINIA
By:
A. Raymon Thacker, Mayor
Approved as to Form:
Town Attorney
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By:
Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
By:
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
000247
Terry W. Hawkins, Sheriff
Item 5.15. Analysis of Volunteer Fire Companies and Rescue Squads,
Property and Liability Insurance, received for information.
Item 5.16. Report on Audit for the Year Ended June 30, 1995, for Shelby
J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, from the
Auditor of Public Accounts, received for information.
Item 5.17. Memorandum dated June 12, 1996, addressed to Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Mr. Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks
and Recreation, re: City Parks and Recreation Cost of Service Study, was
received for information.
Item 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle
County Service Authority for May 16, 1996, received for information.
Item 5.19. Copy of minutes of the Blue Ridge Committee for Shenandoah
National Park Relations for April 25, 1996, received for information.
Item 5.20. March, 1996, Financial Report, received for information.
Item 5.21. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) monthly
Bond and Program Report for the months of April and May, 1996, received for
information.
Item 5.22. Copy of letter dated June 28, 1996, addressed to Ms. Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, regarding
transportation matters discussed at the June 5, 1996, Board meeting, received
for information.
"We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were
discussed at the June 5, 1996, Board meeting.
We have reiterated to Mr. D. R. Askew, Culpeper District Administrator,
the Board's desire to include the four laning of Route 20 from the 1-64
interchange to the proposed Route 20/742 Connector Road (Monticello High
School road) in the Primary Six Year Plan. Please present this project
as a priority at the annual preallocation hearing which involves urban,
primary and interstate projects.
The potholes along Route 240 at the railroad underpass in Crozet have
been patched. The pavement along this section of Route 240 will be paved
this summer.
The low shoulder on Park Road (Route 1204) has been repaired.
The following is a list of new guardrail locations planned for installa-
tion in fiscal year 96-97:
Route Length Location
Route 29 NBL 225'
Route 29 SBL 675'
Route 29 SBL 4500'
Route 29 NBL 525'
Route 250 W 1050'
Route 250 W 525'
Route 250 W 250'
Route 29/250 2125'
Route 29 SBL 550'
Route 29 SBL 750'
Route 250 E 1675'
Route 250 W 3015'
0.1 miles north Route 643 (Polo Grounds
Road)
Rt 643 (Polo Grounds Road)
from Rt 250 bus to Route 29 bus
0.1 mile north Route 29 bus
Route 29 overpass
0.6 miles west Route 809 (Deer Path Road)
0.2 miles west Route 682 (Broad Axe Road)
Ramps
0.2 miles south Greene County line
Route 763 (Dickerson Lane)
Route 731 (Keswick Road)
Route 738 (Morgantown Road)
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
Route 250 W 765'
Route 810 1275'
(Whitehall Road)
Route 810 4500'
(Whitehall Road)
Route 854 425'
(Carrsbrook Drive)
000248
Route 676 (Owensville Road)
0.25 miles south Route 674 (Sugar Ridge
Road)
Route 674 (Sugar Ridge Road)
0.3 miles south Route 29
Resident on Route 20 has been contacted regarding installation of
fencing on right of way to allow grazing.
Pavement markings ("puppy tracks") will be placed for turning movements
at the Route 29/649 intersection this summer.
Trees/brush along the edge of pavement on Burnley Station Road (Route
641) are being reviewed for removal, priority given to safety.
Route 676 (Owensville Road) will be paved this season between Routes 743
and 660 (2.44 miles)."
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: April 5, 1996; March 13 and
June 5, 1996.
Ms. Thomas had read the minutes of March 13, 1996, pages 1 - 11, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of March 13, 1996, pages 12 - end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of June 5, 1996, pages 1 - 15 (Item
#7a), and found them to be in order.
Ms. Humphris had read the minutes of June 5, 1996, pages 15 (Item #Ta) -
29, and gave some minor corrections to the Clerk.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 631
widening from Route 743 to Route 29 to include sidewalks on the west side
(deferred from May 1, 1996.)
Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development, stated that in May,
1996, this Board deferred action on the proposed construction plans for the
Route 631 widening project in order to receive further information on con-
struction, as well as sidewalks recommended for the outside of the loop on the
west side of Rio Road. He said VDoT has provided cost estimates, and Ms.
Tucker is available at this meeting to answer any questions. He added that
the proposed plans already call for sidewalks on the eastern side of the loop,
and previously the staff had recommended sidewalks be constructed on both
sides of the road. He commented that this recommendation was based on the new
road standards in the Land Use Plan. He said although it would be desirable
to have sidewalks on both sides, based on VDoT comments and the costs and
impacts of some of the properties involved, the staff feels the sidewalks are
not essential at this time. He went on to say the staff has broken the
improvement into two pieces. He explained that the portion from Berkmar Drive
to Woodburn Road lies completely within the Urban Area, and this area is the
most desirable for having sidewalks. He stated that the remaining part is in
the Rural Area, and extensive development is not anticipated for the future,
so sidewalks in this location are less important.
Ms. Humphris remarked that the staff report was thorough, although she
had a problem following the segments from one place to another. She noted
that the staff's recommendation is for this Board to endorse VDoT's recom-
mended improvements including the construction of sidewalks on the east side
of Rio Road only.
000249
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Bowerman disclosed that he has property where one of the sidewalks
is going to be built.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adopt the
following resolution endorsing VDOT's recommended improvements to Route 631
(Rio Road) between Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive),
with the addition of sidewalks on the east side of this segment of Route 631
only. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a
Location and Design Public Hearing on March 14, 1996, to consider
the proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road) between Route 743
(Hydraulic Road) and Route 1403 (Berkmar Drive) in Albemarle County
(Project #0631-002-185,C501); and
WHEREAS, written comments were received from twelve persons,
although none of the citizens in attendance at the public hearing
made any verbal statements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does
hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department of
Transportation, which includes the construction of sidewalks on the
east side of Route 631 (Rio Road) only.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Other Transportation Matters.
Ms. Tucker gave a brief update on the Route 29 project. The segment
from Hydraulic Road to Rio Road is complete and was accepted under a partial
final acceptance on July 1, 1996. There will be a few barrels left as a
transition between the projects. The segment from Rio Road, north to the
River should be complete by May, 1997. The side streets, the accelerated
piece of Rio Road and some minor utility punchlist items will be going on
between now and August.
Ms. Tucker discussed the effect the proposed Western Route 29 Bypass
will have on Old Ivy Road and the options VDOT is considering. One consider-
ation is closing one or both of the northern- most set of on and off ramps.
Another consideration is providing two at-grade rail crossings onto 250
Business where the loop ramps meet. The design consultants are currently
preparing cost estimates and feasibility studies. This information is
supposed to be presented at VDOT's informational meeting.
Ms. Humphris mentioned an original plan involving the whole interchange
to the south. However, she recalled that in an attempt to save money and make
it less complicated, the project was moved farther north. She stated that at
the time it was noted there would be weaving problems given the configuration
that is there now, but it was thought they could be worked out. She then
indicated her dissatisfaction as to the changes in the plan which would close
some ramps in an effort to make this less expensive interchange effective.
Mr. Cilimberg referred to a map showing the existing bypass of Route 250
West, as well as the point where the new Bypass will begin. He noted that the
exit ramp off of Old Ivy Road onto the Route 250 West Bypass, as well as the
exit ramp from the Route 250 West Bypass, come into Route 601 and ultimately
Route 250 near Bellair. These are the two ramps being considered for closing
under the current plan.
Ms. Humphris stated that the ramp coming off of the Route 250 West
Bypass is the one everybody uses to go to Belfield School or the doctors
office complexes if a person is traveling south or west. The ramp going onto
the Bypass is the one that would have to be used if a person is going west on
Old Ivy Road and needed to get back to the Bypass. Ms. Tucker remarked that
this interchange will involve straight ramps. Mr. Cilimberg commented that
000259
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
both of these straight ramps are on the north side of the interchange which is
closest to the new Bypass interchange.
Ms. Tucker explained that the reason behind the dual set of ramps at
this interchange is to allow large truck access on and off of Old Ivy Road
that would be restricted by the railroad underpass at either end of Old Ivy
Road. There will still remain a need to get the larger vehicles not only to
the Route 250 Business Route, but also to the Route 250 Bypass from Old Ivy
Road. The current on and off patterns to the straight ramps conflict with
standards for entering and exiting the proposed on and off ramps to the Route
29 Bypass. The distance is less than standard, and by closing these ramps,
the minimum standards are met for traffic needing to merge into the exit
lanes. She added that it would also require an additional lane in each
direction to Route 250 Bypass which would require lengthening the bridges on
the Route 250 Business Route. She is speaking of both the Route 250 bridge
and the railroad bridge. Mr. Cilimberg explained that these two bridges are
almost next to each other.
Ms. Tucker commented that this plan will also mean lengthening the
bridge on Old Ivy Road which crosses the Route 250 Bypass. She said one of
the loop ramps is currently signalized, and the other one is beside the UVa
Police Department. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Ms. Tucker is suggesting a
possibility of a connection from Old Ivy Road to the intersection with the
signal light.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the railroad track is actually going to be
crossed. Ms. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Ms. Humphris remarked that in approaching the year 2000 she cannot
imagine modern transportation design planning a major at grade railroad
crossing for an area as busy as this one. She asked if there is an alterna-
tive to this plan. Ms. Tucker responded that an alternative would be to
improve the rail underpasses at either end, which is also being considered.
Ms. Thomas stated that this is an example of the entire community of the
Old Ivy Road being devastated for the sake of the Culpeper to Lynchburg
traffic. She does not know how many more such examples can be presented
relating to the effect of this Bypass. Ms. Tucker commented that the railroad
underpass improvements could potentially delete the secondary project which
includes the improvements to Old Ivy Road. She said if the widening of Old
Ivy Road is deleted then perhaps the structures themselves would be lengthened
under this scenario. She stated that the design consultants are preparing
cost estimates and feasibility studies on each project. She explained it may
be that the underpass is lengthened, or there could be at grade crossings, or
there could be a combination of the two. All of this is to be presented at
the July 30, 1996 information meeting regarding the entire Bypass design.
Mr. Marshall stated that there is already a problem with the underpass,
because when it rains, cars stall there. The underpass definitely needs to be
widened, and there needs to be drainage for the water. He does not think it
is a good idea, though, for cars to be crossing the railroad track at the
point indicated. Ms. Tucker replied that VDoT officials are aware of the
concerns about at grade crossings. She said it is definitely not a step
forward, and although she will not say it is a step backward, it could be
perceived that way. VDoT officials try to remove at grade crossings whenever
possible.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the railroad company might be able to contrib-
ute money to help with the improvements. Mr. Perkins said this is not the
railroad company's problem. Ms. Tucker mentioned that because the railroad
bridge, as well as the Route 250 business bridge would have to be lengthened,
consideration is being given to any grade adjustment which would allow VDoT to
do away with the at grade crossing or give some ability in getting the
underpasses improved as far as handling the grades. The grades are steep, but
because the railroad structure has to be lengthened over the Route 250 Bypass,
consideration is being given as to whether or not this will allow a grade
change. It does not appear to be substantial, but these possibilities are
being examined.
Ms. Humphris referred to Ms. Tucker's statement that the improvement she
mentioned might preclude the widening of Old Ivy Road. She asked for an
explanation of this statement. Ms. Tucker explained that currently, on the
Secondary Six Year Plan Priority list there is a project to improve Old Ivy
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
000251
Road, and the general scope of this project runs the Route 250 Business
terminus under both railroad bridges. She stated that it is thought this
project would also require that the structures be lengthened, as well as
widening Old Ivy Road, with appropriate turn lanes, etc., but this is yet to
be decided.
Mr. Marshall wondered if Ms. Tucker is implying there might be primary
road funds available for this project, and it could be removed from the
Secondary Road Six Year Plan. Ms. Tucker answered that if this project is
found to enhance safety, as far as the issue of the southern Route 29 Bypass
terminus and can be done within this project, it is likely it would take
something away from the Secondary Six Year Road Plan.
Ms. Humphris wondered how the tremendous cost of improvements to the
railroad underpasses can be weighed versus the obviously much less alternative
of an at grade railroad crossing. She asked if the cost is the only thing
weighed, or is the need for safety in the community considered also. Ms.
Tucker stated that she would certainly like to think the need for safety in
the community is weighed, and it is quite likely the railroad representatives
are not going to be very receptive to the at grade crossing. These are issues
which have not been finalized, but should be available at the July 30, 1996
meeting.
Mr. Bowerman voiced his concern that this option could even be consid-
ered. He said it flies in the face of common sense and safety, and it seems
as though VDOT officials would automatically be directed to the other alterna-
tives as being the only viable ones.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that the public has been very frustrated at the
response VDOT representatives have given to input at these public information
meetings. To present an alternative such as this one, have the public
respond, and then find that it is done anyway to save money, is a process
which is not right for this community. She referred to Ms. Thomas' statement
that this points out one more time the absolute folly of building what is
called a Bypass through a developed urban area. It is not a Bypass but,
instead, it is an infringement on everybody's property.
Mr. Marshall asked if this Board could develop a resolution showing its
opposition to an at grade crossing of the railroad.
Ms. Thomas wondered if this is the Board's main concern. The traffic
and trucks have to have access on and off of Old Ivy Road, and this cannot be
done with the narrow railroad underpasses at either end.
Mr. Tucker inquired if there is another opportunity for this Board and
the public to have some input on these alternatives. He wondered if it is the
Design Committee's intent to offer several alternatives or will the Committee
try to decide, based on the consultant and VDOT's involvement, as to which
alternative might be best to take to the public and this Board for a reaction.
He is assuming this is fairly early in the process, or he wondered if the
process is moving so quickly that there will not be an opportunity for input.
Ms. Humphris stated that this is late in the process.
Ms. Tucker agreed with Ms. Humphris that it is relatively late in the
process. She said VDOT representatives are getting ready to go to a public
information meeting at the end of July, and from there the consultant will
need the remaining time to finalize plans for presentation at the design
public hearing in early December. She remarked that VDOT officials are
looking for comments as far as design guidance regarding the issue of closing
ramps. There are other options besides closing ramps, but they are not by
standard design. They are the same or more expensive in that they require
certain structures for passing roads over one another, and they are very
complicated alternatives. However, in closing these ramps, it has not yet
been concluded as to how traffic will be taken on and off of Old Ivy Road.
She stated that this Board's concerns about the railroad have yet to be
addressed, and it may require focusing entirely on upgrading the underpasses.
She said cost is not the only consideration, although it is a consideration.
She added that there are so many structures with all of the alternatives that
she would imagine they are all relatively close in cost. She commented that
she will be more than happy to share this Board's concerns about this issue
with or without a resolution, and she certainly thinks that after VDOT
representatives share with the Supervisors the comments from the public
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
000 52
information meeting, this Board can reinforce its opinion at that time. She
said it may be fully in support of the thinking of the rest of the public.
Mr. Tucker asked about the date of the public information meeting. Ms.
Tucker replied that this meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 30, 1996 from
2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. at the Sheraton.
Ms. Thomas wondered if it is this Board's consensus to urge that the
widening of the underpasses be done. Mr. Marshall stated that this is the
only alternative the Supervisors have, if they oppose the at grade railroad
crossing.
Mr. Perkins said it seems as though exceptions are made all the time
between interchanges. He mentioned, as an example, 1-81, 1-64 and Route 250
to the north. Ten years ago there was a new bridge and interchange built 1.1
miles south of the Interstate 64 and Interstate 81 interchange. He is unsure
of the distance involved with the proposed interchanges in Albemarle County,
but they will not be in sight of each other. He mentioned that in Augusta
County, traffic leaving Route 250 immediately has access to 1-64, probably
within less than two tenths of a mile. It seems as though exceptions can be
found to these many standards all the time, and they work.
Ms. Tucker concurred that exceptions can be made, but she wondered if
perhaps it is better to do without the exceptions first and see if there is a
plan that will work. She added that she is unsure of the distance standard,
but the other concern is the curve Route 250 currently makes in this location.
She also noted the sight distance limitation as traffic comes into both of
those patterns, which is less than ideal.
Ms. Humphris commented that the Supervisors would appreciate it if Ms.
Tucker would pass on to the Design Committee their discouragement to hear that
an at grade crossing is even being considered. She said, although they don't
know the best solution, it seems the at grade crossing is not even an accept-
able one.
Mr. Cilimberg recalled Ms. Tucker telling him that the relocation of
Route 743 which had been contemplated from one side of the Rock Store to the
other and which was considered to be part of the Bypass project, is not going
to be necessary without the interchange from Route 743 onto and off of the
Bypass. He said, according to Ms. Tucker, VDOT officials have decided not to
pursue the relocation of Hydraulic Road, which is Route 743, going toward the
Reservoir.
Ms. Humphris stated that this is interesting, because she did not know
until recently that anything about the relocation of Hydraulic Road was even
being considered. She was astonished, and she does not know how this Board
has been left out of the loop entirely on something as major as the relocation
of Hydraulic Road at this intersection. This proposed project would involve
Townwood, the trailer courts, the Rock Store, a church, etc. Now this is
being brought out during conversations with the Squirrel Ridge residents, as
far as information they received, but this Board knew nothing about any of
these proposals.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had just heard about the plan for
relocation of Hydraulic Road, and he emphasized that this is a secondary road.
Ms. Humphris asked how this Board got left out of the whole discussion.
Ms. Tucker responded that it is probably due to her lack of communication.
She went on to explain that she was not aware of the communication established
with the Design Committee, as far as how firm it was that the relocation was
actually going to be done.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the concept design was first presented at the
last Bypass Committee meeting, although he is unsure if there were drawings
available. Mr. David Benish attended for him, since he was out of town, but
he believes this was the first time the Bypass Committee had been presented
any of the concepts of possibly relocating Route 743. He recalled that this
meeting was held on either June 17 or 18, 1996.
Mr. Marshall asked if it is definite that the relocation of Route 743
will not take place. Mr. Cilimberg answered that Ms. Tucker has indicated
this plan is not going to be pursued.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Ms. Tucker stated that there was the desire for placing the structure
where the Bypass would go over Hydraulic Road in a location which would allow
an interchange in the future, if it is ever desired. She has been told
several times this will not happen, so the reasoning no longer supports the
need to relocate Hydraulic Road. She mentioned that there is also an advan-
tage to relocating Hydraulic Road because it allows the possibility of
building a structure in a better location as far as grades and earth are
concerned, but it is not that advantageous. She said when weighed against the
cost to relocate the secondary Greenbrier Road project cross-country through
developed right-of-way, the residency asked that Hydraulic Road not be
relocated at all, because the additional cost could not be absorbed.
Mr. Marshall asked if Ms. Tucker is saying that all plans for an
interchange at this point are being abandoned. Ms. Tucker answered affirma-
tively.
Mr. Marshall said this leads him to the Squirrel Ridge discussion. He
wondered if all of the interchange plans are abandoned, where will this leave
the Squirrel Ridge residents, as far as VDOT buying the property according to
their agreement.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that when the report concerning the interchanges
was given to this Board in March from the consultant, her notes indicate that
the southern terminus will work, even though it is tight with Ivy Road.
At this time, Ms. Humphris stated that the Board would move on from the
problem in the southern interchange of the Bypass to the Squirrel Ridge
interchange situation. She understands the latest thing is that VDOT has
withdrawn its plan for an interchange at Hydraulic Road, and will move the
Bypass back to the area in which hardship cases have already been purchased
for right-of-way. She noted that this will put the project on the southern-
most part of Squirrel Ridge in order to do the least damage to the neighbor-
hood.
Ms. Tucker informed Board members that without a schematic it is
difficult for her to say that this is right or wrong. However, she mentioned
the issue with Roslyn Ridge where it is hoped the Bypass can be kept to the
east of a large knoll to keep it out of this neighborhood, as well. She
recalled that the desire wasn't so much about plans to build the interchange,
as it was to acquire a right-of-way for the potential to have an interchange.
She stated that there is concern about all the technicalities involved with
having an interchange ready to go. Since this is the Board of Supervisors'
choice, it has been decided not to make any plans with the design of the
current bypass through this area for an interchange at this location.
Ms. Humphris stated that it has never been anything other than clear
with VDOT, the Commonwealth Transportation Board and this Board that there
were never to be any plans for an interchange in the Hydraulic Road area for
good reasons. She explained that it is very close to the water supply for the
entire population in the Urban Area, and it would bring forward plans for
commercial development in the area of the interchange. This always happens,
and the pressures become very great for a Board of Supervisors to stand up
against politically. She referred to the Land Use Plan which calls for a
Rural Area completely to the west of this area where it is undesirable to
encourage development to occur. She also mentioned that the County's densest
residential neighborhood is in the location of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road,
and it is undesirable to direct 30 percent more traffic through the neighbor-
hoods. Ms. Humphris remarked that the Supervisors have made this point so
clear throughout the years, and it is disturbing to find that somehow without
going through this Board at all, the Squirrel Ridge residents were encouraged
to come to this Board and plead that their whole neighborhood be taken. She
emphasized that this was the upside. The downside was that this area would
then be available for an interchange. She stated that this is not a good way
to do business or to be able to have trust from this Board. She added that the
Supervisors have the greatest sympathy for all of the people who live in
Squirrel Ridge, and she is sorry the idea has been put forth to them, if there
is no way VDOT can implement the taking of their neighborhood and at the same
time guarantee there will be no interchange built there. She said nothing has
come forward to make this possible, so it is disappointing and a very heart
rending time for the people in Squirrel Ridge. However, they are not alone in
their loss, because there are homes all along the way which are going to be
taken. Some of the people do not want their homes to be taken, and there will
be homes left where the owners would prefer not to be left on the edge of a
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
000254
Bypass. She added that it is a very difficult situation, and she is sorry it
has happened in this manner.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned a resolution that speaks to this issue which he
and Ms. Humphris developed with Mr. Davis, that is directed from this Board to
VDOT. He then referred to the fact that a number of people have said to him
that without an interchange at this point, the problem on Route 743 with
traffic coming into town will get worse. He let these people know that the
improvements planned for Hydraulic Road involving five lanes will deal with
this issue, and it should deal with it for a long time. He stated that there
will not be the back-up of traffic on Route 743 anymore. He pointed out that
the plan, as it was proposed for the interchange, really didn't help the
traffic on Route 743.
Ms. Thomas concurred that the interchange plan increased the traffic on
Hydraulic Road by 30 percent.
Mr. Bowerman stated that to dump all of this traffic from a Bypass into
the urban area doesn't make any sense. This is why Route 29 was improved, and
this is why the Meadow Creek Parkway was proposed, as well as the Bypass.
Board members were then given a copy of the resolution, to which Mr.
Bowerman referred.
Ms. Thomas mentioned one idea to which she would like to have some
design consideration given. She referred to the area north of Squirrel Ridge
where the Bypass is divided, as well as the lanes, and the median strip can
then become a storm water detention and accidental oil spill treatment area.
She said when the Bypass gets close to Hydraulic Road, it narrows down and no
longer has the potential of having the storm water and accidental oil spill
catchment basin between the lanes. She stated that if the Bypass is kept
wider, it would require a wider crossing of Hydraulic Road. She added that
although she is unsure how it would fit with Roslyn Ridge residents' needs,
because the road would have to narrow down again very soon, it would allow
more purchase of rights-of-way in Squirrel Ridge because it would be taking
more of Squirrel Ridge. She stated that it might be a horrible compromise
which would only devastate the neighborhood worse, and not take it all. She
is not an engineer and cannot visualize the situation, but this idea struck
her as something having very legitimate environmental reasons for being,
because it is closest to the reservoir all along the way until it gets across
Hydraulic Road. The possibility of being able to capture any run-off is
appealing. She mentioned that it doesn't have to be an oil spill, because it
could just be the usual things which accumulate on a road, and when a good
rain storm develops, they could be washed off of the road. She stated that
for these materials to be washed into the median strip and retained or treated
there might be very important for protecting the Reservoir. She added that
she does not think this plan will have the desired effect of taking enough of
Squirrel Ridge, as well as to protect the Reservoir, but she was quite excited
when this idea was first suggested. She said it might be a way of meeting the
needs because it would certainly rule out an interchange, and it would take
the Squirrel Ridge property, as well as afford better protection of the
Reservoir.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks this plan is a false hope, because a
detention basin downstream from the highway between it and the reservoir would
serve as an area to catch the run-off from normal times plus any additional
materials. He has not even considered the issue raised by Ms. Thomas.
Mr. Marshall inquired where this Board stands as far as the offer VDOT
representatives supposedly made to the Squirrel Ridge residents about purchas-
ing all of their property if the Supervisors would agree to an interchange in
this area. He asked if this offer is still on the table.
Ms. Humphris informed Mr. Marshall that the offer has been withdrawn.
She went on to say that this board has a letter stating that VDOT officials
were moving back to the original alignment. She then mentioned to Ms. Thomas
that she has information from the MPO about the possibility of a wider median,
and she referred to a map showing the original alignment where the hardship
cases have been purchased. She said when wider medians or broader rights-of-
way are discussed, she does not see how, given the location of the entire
northern and central part of Squirrel Ridge, this will do anything except
cause a worse problem. She stated that Squirrel Ridge residents need a
neighborhood left to support the maintenance of private roads, etc. She said
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
it seems to her the wider the road is, the more difficult the situation will
be for the remaining people.
Ms. Thomas stated that she had not heard about the plan to move the
Bypass farther south. She wondered if this plan fits in with the Roslyn Ridge
residents' need to have the road come farther south of the knoll. She said
even though this area was referred to as being to the east, she thinks they
are talking about the same direction. Ms. Humphris said she asked for some
help with these directions and finds that the area to which Ms. Thomas
referred is north.
Ms. Thomas indicated that the Roslyn Ridge residents' desire was to have
the Bypass as far south as possible. Mr. Bowerman said the Roslyn Ridge
residents have requested that the Bypass be placed closer to Hydraulic Road.
Ms. Thomas stated that the plan to which she referred would, therefore, fit in
with the Roslyn Ridge residents' need. She wondered how this plan would
affect the church located there. Ms. Tucker responded that the Bypass would
be very close to the church. Ms. Thomas said this plan would certainly help
Squirrel Ridge to have only the lots which have already been purchased
affected. Mr. Bowerman stated that the resolution reflects this.
Ms. Humphris said the Board is not in a position to deal with alterna-
tives today, but she thinks the Supervisors are in a position to move back to
where they believed they were before all of the behind the scenes meeting,
etc., took place. She said it is very sad that neither this Board nor a
representative of Squirrel Ridge was involved when this happened. She next
asked Mr. Bowerman to read the resolution.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to
adopt the resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereafter,
"County") opposes the construction of an interchange at Hydraulic
Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass (hereafter, "Bypass") because
of (1) the imminent risks the interchange would create for the South
Fork Rivanna Reservoir; (2) the undesirable pressure for residential
development it would cause in the watershed; (3) the undesirable
pressure for commercial development it would cause in locations
which conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; and (4) the negative
traffic consequences it would cause for local traffic; and
WHEREAS, the County recognizes the significant impact
construction of the Bypass will impose on the Squirrel Ridge
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to minimize the impact on the
Squirrel Ridge Subdivision to the greatest extent possible consis-
tent with the protection of the drinking water reservoir and the
greater public interests; and
WHEREAS, the County believes that the best alternative
identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation to minimize
the impact on the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision is the alignment for
the Bypass which incudes only the southern portion of the subdivi-
sion and for which, under an advance right of way plan, five lots in
the subdivision have already been purchased.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby requests that the Virginia Department of
Transportation finalize and confirm an alignment for the Route 29
Bypass which incudes right of way which impacts only the most
southern portion of the Squirrel Ridge Subdivision so as to provide
the least possible impact on that subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors reconfirms its opposition to the construction of an
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
000256
interchange at Hydraulic Road on the proposed Route 29 Bypass and
steadfastly opposes the acquisition of any right of way for the
purpose of future construction of such an interchange.
Mrs. Humphris stated that there were a number of people at the meeting
this morning who were prepared to address this issue. She suggested that
written remarks be submitted to the clerk for the record. She then asked if
anyone in the audience would like to speak.
Mr. Don Nuechterlein commented that he moved to Charlottesville when he
built his house in Colthurst Farm in 1975. He heard, at that time, that there
was a plan for a Bypass to go through part of Colthurst Farm, and he thought
it was a strange idea at the time. He added that after he heard more about it
during the last 20 years, he considers it even more bizarre. He mentioned
that the Supervisors have already stated the reasons very well, with one
problem relating to the location of the Bypass near the Reservoir. He came to
this meeting prepared to try to make a strong case that there should be no
interchange, and the southern portion of this Bypass should be very carefully
thought through to minimize the impact on the neighborhoods concerned. He is
extremely pleased, after hearing the Board's discussion, that the Supervisors
have taken into account everything he has worried and thought about. He
complimented the Board of Supervisors on a superb job.
Mr. George Larie said he wanted to second Mr. Neptoline's comments.
also came to present a case against the Bypass, but the Supervisors have
handled the situation superbly.
He
No one else came forward to speak.
Ms. Thomas said she will be attending a meeting on July 17 with the
people concerned about the closing of Route 782. The meeting will be held at
UREF offices, at 4:00 p.m. UREF offices are located on Old Ivy Road near
University Village. The concern relates to illegal dumping of trash from
UREF's point of view, but the neighbors are worried about the road being
permanently closed, as far as their access and future planning implications
are concerned. She thought getting everybody in the same room might prove to
have a good outcome. She stated that initially closing the road had seemed a
fairly simple approach to a straightforward problem, but the situation turns
out to be not so simple nor straightforward.
Ms. Thomas said she read in some minutes recently that Routes 22/231
have been opened to the extra large tractor trailers through action taken by
the Commonwealth Transportation Board. She got Juan Wade, of the Planning
Department, to check this out and found it to not be true.
Mr. Tucker said he received notice from Don Askew of the Culpeper office
that VDOT is planning to do some short and long-range planning on the Route
250 east and west corridor. V/DOT staff will do the planning for the eastern
portion from the City limits to Fluvanna County, but a consulting firm will be
used for the western portion. Ms. Thomas asked if it is possible to get a
citizens advisory committee working with the consulting firm. Ms. Tucker said
the RFP has not gone out. VDOT does anticipate using a citizens advisory
committee, but they want to hire the consultant first. Ms. Thomas said the
consultants should be chosen with the idea that they will be working with a
committee.
Mr. Perkins thanked VDOT for fixing Park Road in Crozet and the repairs
to the railroad underpass.
Mr. Perkins mentioned that there are numerous locations around the
County where the heavy rains have washed gravel away from the black top, in
some places there is a six or eight inch drop off, which he thinks VDOT should
focus on getting repaired because it creates dangerous situations.
Mr. Marshall said he has received several phone calls from people
traveling on Route 53 and other roads in southern Albemarle where foliage is
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000257
growing over the roads and obstructing visibility, even hitting the sides of
cars as they travel down the road.
Mr. Marshall asked for an update on the four-laning of Route 20 South
from Route 53 to the entrance to the new high school. Ms. Tucker said that
project is currently not in any funding plans, however, she has been asked to
come up with a general estimate on the cost. She will be forwarding that
information to the Board soon. She reminded the Board that the project needs
to be included as a high priority for the preallocation hearing next spring.
Ms. Humphris said there is a drainage problem in front of Mr. Booth's
house located at the intersection of Georgetown Road and Barracks Road.
During a recent heav~; thunderstorm, the water was overflowing and not getting
into the storm drain.
Ms. Humphris asked if the Board had received a response to Mr. Tucker's
letter to Carter Myers about primary road funding for the Meadow Creek
Parkway. In response to Mr. Tucker's "no", Ms. Humphris asked that a follow
up be done.
Agenda Item No. 8. Route 250 West Scenic Highway, Presentation by
staff.
Mr. Keeler noted that the Board requested a study on May 17, 1996 of the
possible reinstitution of Scenic Highways zoning provisions on U.S. Route 250
West. The Board has received an Executive Summary and a report, together with
some design standards developed by the Design Planner, Ms. Marcia Joseph, for
consideration by the Architectural Review Board. He has posted a map showing
the effect of the scenic highways when the ordinance was in place, as well as
some of the implications if the Scenic Highway designation is reinstituted,
and he distributed a one page summary relating to the information on the map.
He pointed out that the Scenic Highways Ordinance was adopted in 1976, and
Route 250 West was the first road in the County to be designated. He referred
to other designated roads which were Routes 151, 6, and 20 South. He noted
that in 1987 or 1988 the County was approached about designating Route 601.
There were an equal number of people at the public hearing who wanted Route
601 designated, but there were an equal number of people who did not, so this
road was not designated.
The Scenic Highways provisions were repealed in 1992. However, in the
16 years they were in force, there were 22 building setback variances reviewed
by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), and the BZA granted 20 of those vari-
ances. He pointed out that there were also variances filed and never pursued,
or they were withdrawn. He remarked that the two variances denied by the BZA
were also denied by the County either by a rezoning request or a special use
permit request. He said one was a country store at the intersection of Route
151 and Route 6, and one was a rezoning request for a veterinary clinic at
Ivy. He noted that there were seven sign variances on Route 250, and the BZA
granted six of those. Two of these seven were variances from setback require-
ments. He stated that the majority of the setback variances were in proximity
to the urban area, but he does not believe this was any indication as to
whether or not people pursued these variances. He said it is more or less an
indication of where development patterns were taking place. Most of these
variances related to commercial or industrial setbacks and a couple were
residential variances. He mentioned a lot in Kearsage where there was a
variance from a rear setback, because the lot is served by an internal road.
He added that the others shown on the map, with a few exceptions, were
variances from industrial or commercial properties.
He reported that if the Scenic Highway Provisions, together with the 150
foot setback are reinstituted, in terms of undeveloped or underdeveloped
commercial land, there would be seven sites affected, and the total acreage of
these sites is approximately 19 ~ acres. He then described five of these
properties and discussed the effect of the 150 foot setback on each of them.
He mentioned that there are two currently active plans which could be affected
by the setback. He said one is the Cafe No Problem at the intersection of
Routes 250 and 240, and he pointed out the setback line and the building. He
stated that he is unsure, though, if this property would come under some type
of nonconformity because this is a reconstruction of the building. This will
000 58'
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
be a determination by the Zoning Administrator, and the applicant will have to
pursue this question. He explained that the other active commercial site plan
relates to Blue Ridge Highway Commercial where Building D would be entirely
encumbered in the setback, as well as most of Building A. He stated that if
the ordinance was re-adopted as it originally existed, these setbacks will
apply to all buildings, including residential and other noncommercial build-
ings. He mentioned two other developments that are pending. The Cory Farms
Subdivision on Route 250 in Crozet would lose 11 or 12 lots, and the developer
would probably have to redesign his plans, because it is not economical to
build a road to serve lots only on one side. He mentioned that the Planning
Commission, at its meeting last night, reviewed plans for an Emergency
Communications Center which is a joint City, County and University project on
Route 250. He pointed out the setback line, and noted that all of the
buildings would be encumbered within the setback area, if these provisions
with the 150 foot setback regulation are reinstituted.
Ms. Thomas asked if any of these buildings already exist. Mr. Keeler
answered affirmatively, and he pointed them out on the drawing. He then
referred to the report where it indicates that because of the number of
variances which were granted to the 150 foot setback, there really was not a
Scenic Highway setback. He said later in the life of the Scenic Highway
Provisions, some amendments were made to allow the Commission to reduce the
setback requirements, which was successful a couple of times. He noted that
he did not forward to this Board the number of variances received from the
Zoning Department. However, Zoning Department staff felt as though there were
a minimum number of variances obtained from that department. He would be
happy to go over the Executive Summary, and Ms. Joseph is present to answer
any questions regarding the ARB recommendation.
Ms. Thomas inquired as to the criteria used by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. She said when there are this many variances, it could imply a lack
of concern by the BZA members. She wondered whether the criteria used.leads
them to make these variances, and no matter who the members of the BZA are,
they would likely come up with the same waivers.
Mr. Davis stated that the basic finding the BZA has to make is whether
or not there is a hardship, and the definition of a legal hardship for a BZA
is difficult to meet in most situations. There has to be a finding that there
is a taking of the property, and there is no reasonable use left without
granting the variance, or that the property is so unreasonably restricted that
there is no practical use of the property left taking into account a lot of
factors. He noted that BZAs across the State have a difficult time applying
this standard, and they usually use a lot of discretion. However, variances
are sometimes granted which do not strictly meet the legal standard. This is
probably true of past BZAs in Albemarle County administering this ordinance.
He added that there appears to be some situations, based on the data Mr.
Keeler has provided, where there may have been a taking of the property where
if a 150 foot setback was applied, there would be no building site on the
property. This probably was a legitimate grounds for a variance. There may
have been others where the setback would have caused the parcel to be devel-
oped all the way to the back side of the property, and there may not have been
legal grounds if this had been challenged in court. He stated that it is not
an easy standard to interpret because people disagree as to whether or not a
reasonable use exists and whether a regulation is reasonable when it ap-
proaches confiscation of property. He said it is an area where common sense
is generally used and the financial hardships are weighed. He explained that
the peculiarities of the property and the regulation itself as to how it
relates to the other factors have to be examined, and then a decision is made.
He went on to say some BZAs are more careful about meeting the legal defini-
tion than others, and he is not familiar with how these particular decisions
were handled.
Mr. Keeler explained that one of the criteria the BZA has is an extreme
topographic difficulty. He mentioned that Route 250 is peculiar in regard to
variances because of the Runoff Control Ordinance. He mentioned the Cafe No
Problem where there is a 100 foot setback from Lickinghole Creek that is not
subject to variance so in this case it is not just a question of pushing the
building further back on the property. He stated that as far as the Emergency
Operations Center, there is a stream which does not go to the Reservoir, but
there are some physical features on the property that go against pushing the
building back. He noted a ravine on the property which would require thou-
sands of yards of fill, and he mentioned the County's concern for environmen-
tal considerations. To some degree, variances are a balancing act.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27 )
000259
There were no further questions from Board members, so Ms. Humphris
asked for comments from members of the public.
Mr. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood, inquired about a Route 250
West plan which was earlier referred to by Ms. Tucker. He asked what is the
focus of this plan. Mr. Tucker stated that his office received notice this
past Monday that some short range transportation plans were being done. He
explained that VDOT will be implementing some short range and long range plans
for the Route 250 corridor, both east and west. He said VDOT officials are
just beginning the process of examining these plans, but the section on the
west side will be done by a consultant. However, bids have not been taken
through the RFP process, yet. He stated that Ms. Thomas has suggested that a
Citizen Advisory Committee be involved in the planning, and the County
officials will encourage this. He said Ms. Tucker has indicated that this is
VDOT's intent.
Mr. Peyton inquired if Mr. Tucker has any understanding as to the focus
of the study. Mr. Tucker answered that the focus is strictly transportation.
He stated that years ago the potential need was examined for upgrading Route
250 East to Fluvanna, and widening it for some distance, almost to the
Fluvanna County line. This will be studied, as well as improvements which are
needed along the Route 250 West corridor.
Mr. Peyton commented that the daytime meetings held by the Board of
Supervisors are quite difficult for most working people to attend. He next
stated that there were some people present who would specifically gain the
benefit of staff's presentation on the Scenic Highway issues, and there are
others present in a representative capacity of a much larger group of resi-
dents who are unable to be here. There are members of the Albemarle Garden
Club present, which is the group that was instrumental in the initial institu-
tion of the Scenic Highway designation, as well as other citizens groups. He
stated that his reason for being at this meeting is out of a specific interest
for maintaining the integrity of the Route 250 western portion of the road,
but he would like to address his comments not just specifically to that, since
he has some observations and suggestions he would like to make which could be
applied Countywide.
He mentioned his concern and interest in protecting Route 250 and other
areas which might be considered for Scenic Highway designation, but he said
ultimately the protection for these areas is in fact undergirded by the
existing zoning. He commented that he is not unaware of this consideration,
but he feels there are other overriding issues which can support and expand on
what an underlying Zoning Ordinance may dictate. He noted that the first step
in preserving or conserving any resource is to recognize that it exists and
then to determine whether the resource has value which is worthy of protec-
tion. He said such issues as scenic or aesthetic qualities are difficult to
tangibly define, but Albemarle County certainly has a number of scenic and
aesthetic features that can be recognized. He stated that although it may not
be possible to enumerate them specifically, they are issues of value to the
County in many ways. The issue of tourism is certainly one to be considered.
He stated that when he and others plan their trips traveling by car they try
to focus on areas which have been designated as scenic whether it is by the
state or local municipalities. He added that the focus of the Scenic Highway
Provisions which seems to draw the most attention is the setback provisions,
and it was mentioned by staff report that there are a number of variances
which have been reviewed and a very disproportionate number which have been
approved. He wondered if this reflects a deficiency in the ordinance, or if
there should be some concern about the variance review process.
He then mentioned that a great deal of thought was given a number of
years ago about the institution of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
There are some very dedicated people serving on that Board, as well as some
very dedicated professionals on the County staff. He next suggested that the
Overlay Corridor Ordinance substantially be kept as it is and, in addition,
that the Scenic Highway designation be reinstituted as an independent Overlay
District on specific highways where County officials in their discretion can
identify with appropriate Scenic Highway criteria.. He also suggested that
the setback requirements be reinstituted as part of this overlay. There are
many roads in the County that could meet scenic highway standards today, and
everybody is well aware that there are roads within the County which may have
met these standards 20 or 30 years ago, but cannot now. His interest is to
look well into the future for the scenic and aesthetic resources in the
County. He reiterated his desire that the Board would give strong consider-
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
0002'G0
ation to maintaining the existing Entrance Corridor Overlay, and specifically
to reinstitute Scenic Highway designation as an independent Overlay District
on those roads which meet a well established and objective criteria. These
would be predominantly rural areas in nature. He stated that the language
will need to be worked out, but the original basis for the Scenic Highway
designation is something that can still be accessed and used as a resource on
which to build. He mentioned that he reviewed a staff summary which indicated
that in no case did the Scenic Highway designation provide an expanded
protection beyond the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. He would take issue
with this statement. He stated that he is very sensitive to personal property
rights, and he is a long standing property owner in the County, as are his
family members. He is sensitive and aware of the delicate balance involved,
and if a setback in and of itself precludes a reasonable use the property
owner has of the property, then there are some significant problems with that.
He suggested that in cases of the Scenic Highway Overlay, and particularly on
Route 250 West, there have been cases where the setback requirements did not
eliminate a reasonable use the property owner had, but it moderated the scope,
scale and density to make it more appropriate and compatible to the surround-
lng area.
Mr. Peyton remarked that he would very much like to have the opportunity
to continue to be involved in the process. He hopes County officials do not
feel as though they have to come to some definitive decision and dispense with
this issue prematurely.
Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, agreed with Mr. Peyton. He is
present at this meeting on more of a parochial reason which is the effect of
commercial development on Route 250 with regard to its effect on the downtown
area of Crozet. He stated that this is a growth area issue, and he thinks the
growth areas need to be examined. He heard Mr. Perkins on WINA saying the
growth areas need to be made attractive, Mr. Loach thinks one of the things
that will accomplish this is to have a good downtown area. He said work has
been fairly diligent on the downtown area of Crozet as far as putting in the
Crozet Community Plan, as well as recently the presentation of Crozet 2000 to
this Board. He stated that Crozet's downtown provides not only a commercial
purpose, but a very important social purpose in the life of the community. He
stated that the growth area zoning was developed to protect the rural areas in
the County, but he wondered what zoning should be considered to protect the
growth areas. He added that growth areas should be protected because this is
where the population is located. The loss of the downtown area, especially in
Crozet, would cause a downward spiral on the overall value of the quality of
life in the community. He suggested that the Board members also need to look
forward, because in the future if they have to consider new growth areas in
the County, it would be good to have a model which could be pointed to with
success. He said it was noted that the Blue Ridge Highway Commercial may
have taken on a complexion more appropriate to the area such as an Ivy Commons
type of development which might have had a minimal effect on the Crozet
downtown area, but it still would have allowed commercial development in those
grandfathered areas. He asked the Board members to look at not only the
scenic designation of Route 250 West, but also the impact of commercial
development on the designated growth area of Crozet.
Mr. John Marston stated that he and his family have been long time
residents of Albemarle County, and he commended the Board and Commission for
establishing the ARB. He thinks the ARB has done a very good job especially
in areas where there was no control. He stated that he thinks the ARB is good
for Scenic Highway areas also. He added that perhaps not the same setbacks
for Scenic Highways should be used as were established in the beginning, but
maybe a compromise could be developed. He stated that the Scenic Highway
designation has done a very good job of protecting Route 250 West, Route 20,
Route 6 and Route 151, and he called attention to the things which have been
happening to a lot of highways such as Route 29 North and Route 250 East. He
agreed with Mr. Peyton's statement about the commercial uses on Route 250
West, and he pointed out that the setback regulations maintained these
commercial uses as they were set up originally. He added that some of the
indications on the map represent particular places where a developer was
interested in additional uses. He mentioned the nonconforming use at Mechum's
River, but the developer can probably use this property as it is. He stated
that he thinks there has to be a compromise by using the Scenic Highway
regulations, along with those of the ARB, with the goOd points of both being
taken into consideration.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
000 6l
Mr. Richard Cooper, owner of the Cafe No Problem, stated that he would
be remiss if he didn't mention the importance of existing use, existing
capacity and existing structure. He hopes his business can withstand any
changes that are made. He told Board members that he is very mindful of
protecting this beautiful area, and in no way does he want to compromise the
integrity of the County's beauty. He loves it here.
No one else wished to speak.
Ms. Thomas inquired about the two sites with active plans, and asked if
they would be affected by anything this Board would do. Mr. Davis answered
that generally unless specific provisions are made for certain properties, any
new zoning regulation would apply, unless there is an approval from the County
at the time the Zoning Ordinance amendment is adopted. He said if there is
site plan approval or a building permit, the properties would not be affected.
He stated that they would become nonconforming, though, unless they are
specifically addressed and grandfathered in the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas asked at what level of County approval are the two sites with
active plans. Mr. Keeler replied that there is a preliminary plan approval
for the Blue Ridge Highway Commercial, and the Cafe No Problem is in the
process of obtaining approval. Ms. Thomas then wondered about the Police
Department building. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the EOC has gotten its
waivers from the Planning Commission and is subject to preliminary approval
almost immediately. The.Cafe No Problem applicant is going to the Planning
Commission week after next for site plan waiver approval and that will be
equivalent to having a site plan approval. He stated, though, that a building
permit will not be available, yet. Mr. Davis stated that it is very likely
the request will be approved before any action is taken on it.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it appears five sites could be affected by a
change in setback along Route 250. Mr. Keeler said this is true if the
setback is restricted to commercially zoned property. He explained that this
does not include Industrial Areas or Rural Areas.
Ms. Thomas commented that when she talked earlier with Scott Peyton, he
used some words that really seemed important to her when he said that setback
is a way of reducing scope and scale of what can take place on properties.
This seems desirable in the nondesignated growth areas on certain highways.
She stated that this is the value of having the setback regulation, because it
not only pushes things farther away from the highway, but it affects the type
of scope and size of things taking place on any of those properties. She
said, though, the setback regulation certainly isn't a cure-all for maintain-
ing the highway in itself. However, she noted that the County also has the
ARB to help along these lines.
Mr. Peyton stated that when the Blue Ridge Shopping Center was first
proposed, the highway designation was in force, so the plans could very well
have been modified when it was appealed. He added that in this particular
case, it is interesting to note that the ordinance was in place. However, it
has since been repealed, but he hopes it will be reinstituted.
Mr. Marshall inquired if Mr. Peyton is describing the area where the old
Tid Bit Restaurant and motel were located. Mr. Peyton answered that the
property he is talking about is next to where the Blue Ridge Building Supply
building is currently located. Mr. Marshall pointed out that the people
involved with this property were grandfathered with certain rights. He said
if their application had not been approved, they could have sued the County,
and they would have won.
Mr. Davis stated that the zoning was in place, but he believes Mr.
Marshall is recalling a waiver for a steep slopes modification that had been
appealed from the Planning Commission to this Board. He went on to say the
criteria was met by the applicant during the site plan process, so it was an
administrative decision. Mr. Marshall pointed out that this Board had no
choice but to approve the application. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Peyton stated that at one time the applicant tendered a site plan
incorporating the setback. He said it didn't preclude the use of the property
for commercial use, but it incorporated the 150 foot building setback. He
explained that it reduced the scale and density of the use, but it did not
eliminate it.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
O00; G2
Mr. Bowerman asked if the action by the BZA happens before the matter is
brought to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cilimberg responded that typically
the action by the BZA precedes the site plan process. The site plans don't
come to the Board, but instead, they go to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Bowerman then inquired if the Planning Commission sees the site plan after the
BZA ruling. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is true in most cases.
Mr. Davis said that typically this is true because in order for the
building to be shown located where it is on the site plan, the setback
requirements have to be met. He stated that without going to the BZA, the
site plan cannot meet those requirements, so it can't be approved. He added
that this is backward to how the BZA is supposed to work, because self imposed
hardships are not supposed to be created for granting a variance. He ex-
plained that in order to make this argument to the BZA, the applicant has to
say there is no other reasonable use of the property except for the building
the applicant is proposing to build. This is a difficult standard to meet,
but the BZA is often convinced it is necessary.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is trying to figure out what real effect
will be accomplished, if the scenic setback is reimposed. Mr. Davis said
historically developers will go to the BZA to make their case that the
setbacks should be reduced. He stated that when the application gets to the
Planning Commission, the Commission does not have the authority to impose
greater setbacks as a Zoning Ordinance standard.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that the ARB members' consideration also comes
into place. He explained that a variance is going to tie their hands as to
how they might be able to deal with some of the setback regulations.
Mr. Bowerman referred to Mr. Keeler's remark that at some point the
Planning Commission is given discretion to grant these waivers. He asked how
this works. Mr. Davis answered that there is a Zoning Ordinance provision
allowing for a setback to be modified so there isn't a fixed setback provi-
sion. He said it is a flexible setback provision that is administered by the
Planning Commission. He stated that the advantage with the ARB system is that
the ARB is considered a site plan approval agency just like the Planning
Commission, and the appeals on the site plan conditions do not go to the BZA.
They either go to the Board of Supervisors or the courts. He reiterated that
the BZA does not play a part in determining what the setback is if it is a
condition imposed by the ARB. He stated that there is no fixed setback
provision, but the ARB, under certain circumstances, negotiates setbacks to
locate buildings in spots which are more appropriate on the sites.
Mr. Bowerman referred to the speakers who have shown interest in having
the Scenic Highway Provisions reinstated. He said it seems to work to their
disadvantage. Mr. Davis responded that it can be a disadvantage to some
property owners.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Peyton if he still thinks the Scenic Highway
setback should be reimposed, since it does not seem to accomplish what Mr.
Peyton had hoped to accomplish. Mr. Peyton answered that he had requested
that the Entrance Corridor Overlay with the ARB review be kept in place. This
would be an overlay over the entrance corridor for specific highways which
meet the Scenic Highway criteria by County standards. He stated that, at the
least, the setback requirements would be in place. The ARB does not have any
authority to impose a setback, although it may be able to negotiate it. He
added that, in his opinion, a Scenic Highway designation would speak volumes
about how the County views a particular highway. To identify and recognize it
and label it as a Scenic Highway speaks to how the character of the road is
viewed today and how it should be viewed and treated in the future.
Mr. Bowerman next asked staff members if they have considered the
Entrance Corridor Overlay and ARB review side by side with the Scenic Highway
designation. Mr. Davis stated that, from a legal standpoint, there could be a
situation when there is a setback requirement and the landowner goes to the
Board of Zoning Appeals and argues that the setback needs to be reduced in
order for him to have a reasonable use of his property. He said if the BZA
makes this finding and reduces this setback, it will be very difficult for the
Plan~ing Commission or the ARB to require a setback greater than what the BZA
has found to be a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Davis said the practi-
cal problem is that the County, or some other affected property owner, will
have to appeal any decision of the BZA they feel is inappropriate in order to
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
assure later that there will be flexibility to have a setback greater than
that for which the BZA has granted a variance.
Ms. Thomas inquired if, when the BZA grants a variance, does this mean
that attention does not have to be paid to the setback or would the BZA grant
a specific setback allowance. Mr. Davis responded that the BZA usually grants
a specific deviation from the amount of setback. He said if there is a 75
foot setback, the BZA may reduce it to a 50 foot setback with certain condi-
tions on the granting of the variance. He stated that the setback may have to
apply to a certain set of building plans, etc.
Ms. Thomas desCribed a scenario of someone arguing successfully before
the BZA that the 150 foot setback creates an exorbitant legal hardship, so
the BZA gives this person a variance for a 50 foot setback. She said then the
plans are taken to the ARB, and the ARB thinks the plans are hideous unless
the building is put back 75 feet. However, the applicant can argue that
because the BZA realized that without a 50 foot setback the applicant was
under the definition of having an impossible legal hardship imposed on him.
Mr. Davis stated that unless the County appeals the decision, this finding
will hold.
Ms. Thomas then described another situation where there is a 50 foot
required setback, and the ARB indicates that the building needs to be set back
75 feet. She said one of her concerns is that the ARB might not have enough
power to make the applicant comply. She asked if this is true. Mr. Davis
replied that the ARB has this power, if its guidelines are such that the 75
foot requirement can be justified as a condition of the certificate. The
determination of whether or not the requirement is reasonable is either
appealed to the Board of Supervisors or the Circuit Court. He stated that the
applicant can then argue if the requirement poses an unreasonable restriction
on the development, or if it takes the property unreasonably.
Ms. Thomas next inquired if this is a harder burden of proof for the
applicants than they face in front of the BZA. Mr. Davis answered that from a
practical standpoint, he would have to answer affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman agreed. He noted that if this Board does not agree with
the applicants, then they will not get approval. Mr. Keeler explained that
the language for the ordinance relative to the ARB indicates the ARB may
specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as but not limited to
motif and style, color, texture and materials together with configuration
orientation and other limitations as to mass, shape, height and location of
buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent that those practices are
authorized under the adopted design guidelines, without regard to the regula-
tions of the underlying zoning district or regulations of site plan ordinance.
The ARB really has more authority as to where buildings go and their appear-
ance on site than the Planning Commission in site plan review. He stated that
the ARB has extensive authority.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.)
Mr. Davis said the ARB's guidelines are very effective, at this point.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that, as with any other ordinance when it is
first adopted, there is a period of time when adjustments are made to the
ordinance. He recalled that one of the early amendments to the Entrance
Corridor Ordinance was to have the 150 foot setback where the Entrance
Corridor District overlaid the Scenic Highways Provisions. He referred to the
1983 Comprehensive Plan, where one of the items on the Action Agenda was to
analyze the Scenic Highway Provisions, because it had already been recognized
that they were not very effective. They did absolutely nothing for the
aesthetic appearance of buildings, so when the Entrance Corridor Provisions
were being formulated, this was mentioned in the first staff report. He
stated that this was done approximately two years after the Entrance Corridor
Provisions had been adopted, and basically it was concluded that the Entrance
Corridor Provisions were superior to the Scenic Highway Provisions which
really offered nothing the ARB could not require. He emphasized that if the
ARB required a 150 foot setback, the requirement would have to be justified
based on design guidelines. The only thing lost was the mandatory 150 foot
setback for single family dwellings, which is not subject to ARB review.
(Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:02 a.m.)
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
0002 '
64
Ms. Thomas inquired about the setback regulation for Rural Areas as far
as residential areas are concerned. Mr. Keeler answered that the regulation
relating to residential areas in a Rural Area designation is 75 feet. He
stated that this is 75 feet from the right-of-way, but it is 100 or 125 feet
from the pavement and what is actually seen from the road. He said it varies
throughout the rural areas, and since Route 250 is a federal highway, many
areas have an 80 foot right-of-way. He added that in the beginning, it was
problematic trying to figure out the rights-of-way in different locations. He
said, though, buildings are generally more than 75 feet from the pavement.
Ms. Humphris said she thinks everybody understands that the BZA is not
appointed by this Board. She noted that it is entirely separate, and it is
appointed by the Circuit Court. Mr. Davis agreed. He said it is a quasi-
judicial body appointed by the Circuit Court, and it is responsible only to
the Circuit Court.
Ms. Humphris asked if someone is aggrieved by a BZA decision, who can
appeal, and to whom is the appeal directed. Mr. Davis answered that the only
people who can appeal are County officials, or an affected governmental entity
or staff person, or an aggrieved property owner. He explained that aggrieved
means someone who has a direct interest in the decision, and it cannot be a
concerned citizens committee. He stated that generally it is a next door
neigb_bor or an adjoining property owner who would be adversely affected by the
BZA's decision. He emphasized, though, that County officials could appeal any
decision of the BZA to the Circuit Court.
Mr. Peyton said he is not suggesting that the ARB purview be reduced.
He stated that it sounds, from a practical standpoint, as though it is more
problematic for the ARB to impose a 150 foot setback, if it is not required by
the Scenic Highways Provisions. He again suggested that the Scenic Highways
Provisions be established with an overlay beyond ARB review. Ms. Humphris
said the problem is that if the Scenic Highways are established with an
overlay, and the property owner takes this to the BZA, then the County is left
powerless. However, if the decision was left with the ARB, the County has
some authority as to what happens.
Mr. Peyton stated that he understands the conversation and what is being
said. He asked, though, if a petitioner goes to the BZA and is granted a
variance to the setback requirement under those conditions, wouldn't the ARB
be likely to have imposed a setback requirement, anyway. He stated that this
seems to be an unanswerable question.
Ms. Humphris concurred that this is the problem. She next stated that
the Board members are going to have to move on to other thin~s. She said a
short public hearing was scheduled for 11:00 a.m., and there are two major
items still left on the agenda. She also noted that the Board has not had a
break.
Mr. Bowerman stated that prior to this discussion, he was favorably
inclined to go with a more restrictive interpretation which would have meant
consideration of reinstituting the Scenic Highways overlay. He said, though,
after this discussion, he thinks the County has the best of both possible
worlds. He stated that the original decision was the most restrictive because
it gives the ARB considerable latitude to discuss the specific effects an
applicant has and reach some mutually acceptable agreement, rather than to
have the applicant prove a hardship and then be forced to live with whatever
the BZA requires, with no recourse to this Board. He stated that now, at
least, there is recourse to this Board first, and then it goes to the courts.
Ms. Thomas commented that this is partly brought about by everybody's
frustration about the decision concerning steep slopes which has nothing to do
with the issue currently in front of this Board. The Board members were
frustrated by having been forced to make a decision. She stated that this
matter also has to do with symbolism because the community felt as though a
symbolic designation for Route 250, particularly, was worth something. She
added that now it seems as though it really wasn't worth anything, and this is
a hard thing to tell a community. She said community members discovered they
lost something symbolic about the same time the Supervisors got trapped in a
decision they didn't like which led to more commercial development in an area
that is harmful to Crozet. She stated that a combination of all of these
things has led to this frustration. She remarked that she thinks everybody
has done a good job having a rational discussion. She agreed with Mr.
Bowerman that the County probably does have the best situation, but something
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
000; 65
symbolic has been lost. She does not know how to weigh symbolism against what
the Supervisors are trying to effect.
Mr. Bowerman stated that there is no doubt in his mind that the Supervi-
sors could have been faced with a BZA ruling on the very site plan to which
Ms. Thomas referred. He said a hardship could reasonably have been argued by
the applicant in this particular case. He concurred with Ms. Thomas' comments
about symbolism. However, if symbolism had no effect, he wondered where it
will leave the County.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it becomes a very empty situation if a sign is
installed indicating Route 250 West is a scenic highway, but it doesn't have
any value whatsoever. This would be fooling people, and it would be damaging
as opposed to something that is valuable. She stated that this is her
dilemma, because she values the symbolism. She commented that the assumption
in all of the hypothetical is that the BZA would make a ruling indicating
approval of a smaller setback, and then the County is stuck with it. She
noted, though, that she also values the fact that if there are any sites where
the BZA would not make such a ruling, then the setback would be effective in
reducing the scope and size of the project. She referred to the five sites
mentioned earlier and noted that the site with four acres is probably the only
one where this would be the case.
Mr. Bowerman said the arguments can be made very logically, and he
thinks the BZA is often persuaded that a hardship exists. He stated that he
knows the ARB has considerable influence, though, because of its recommenda-
tions and how this Board reacts to them. He has heard these types of things
from developers and applicants.
Mr. Perkins asked if ARB decisions can only be appealed to the Board of
Supervisors. Mr. Bowerman answered affirmatively. The ARB decisions can then
be appealed to the courts.
Ms. Humphris said the Supervisors did not intend on taking action on
this issue today, but she pointed out that the Supervisors are not even
finished discussing it. She then suggested that the matter be brought back to
the Board of Supervisors another time.
Mr. Peyton inquired if it would be possible for the ARB to start with
the 150 foot setback consideration for those highways meeting the Scenic
Highways Designation. Mr. Davis stated that it would have to be incorporated
into the guidelines of the ARB as its starting standard. Mr. Marshall
wondered if this scenario would indicate a taking of the property. Mr. Davis
responded that it would depend because there would have to be a case by case
analysis as to whether a 150 foot setback would allow the property owner a
reasonable use of the property. He went on to say, for example, if this
regulation was imposed on the Cafe No Problem, there would be no land left
there for the landowner to develop.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ARB members have taken a lot of time
working with their guidelines, and if the guidelines were amended, they would
need to take this action. He said, though, it would also come to this Board
for approval.
Ms. Joseph referred to a report distributed to the Supervisors with the
Executive Summary which refers to different aspects she has discussed with the
ARB members relating to whether or not they would like to impose some of these
things just on scenic highways. The ARB members indicated that they would not
like to do this. She stated that she asked them pointedly whether or not they
would support a 150 foot setback, and she got a negative response. She
reiterated that imposing a 150 foot setback regulation as a requirement by the
ARB has been addressed and discussed with the ARB members, and they indicated
they cannot support it.
Ms. Thomas asked why the ARB members feel this way. Ms. Joseph said
they felt it would be something that would be addressed by the BZA, and their
hands would be tied in some other design aspects.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned Mr. Peyton's comments about incorporating the 150
foot setback into the ARB guidelines, but he pointed out that it could still
be overcome by the BZA Board. The BZA ruling would be held over the ARB, as
well as this Board's action, unless it is appealed to the courts and over-
turned. He stated that this puts everything back where it started. Mr.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
Tucker disagreed. He said it would be a guideline, and it is not part of the
Zoning Ordinance. He indicated that he does not think it could be appealed.
Mr. Davis stated that if it is not an ordinance requirement, it wouldn't
be appealed to the BZA. He said if it is a condition of the site plan
approval or the Certificate of Appropriateness then the appeal would be to the
Circuit Court. He stated that the important thing is that it not be an
ordinance provision which is subject to a variance before the site plan
process. Mr. Bowerman commented that he would like to talk about it some
more.
Ms. Humphris read what she considered a key point from the report to
which Ms. Joseph referred, that neither the Scenic Highways regulations nor
the Entrance Corridor regulations were intended to disallow development
otherwise created by right. The paragraph continued by indicating that both
regulations were intended to ensure development consistent with aesthetic
matters, so in that regard, the Entrance Corridor Provisions were judged to be
superior to the Scenic Highway Provisions. She thinks this was, in essence,
the decision by the ARB. She concurred that this matter needs further
discussion by the Supervisors and the discussion and public input they have
had today needs to be pulled together. She noted that the options were not
completely discussed, but they need to be discussed at another time. She
inquired as to when would be a good time for this meeting.
Mr. Tucker answered that this matter could be taken up again on July 10,
1996, if the Board members would like to have this discussion at an evening
meeting. However, it could be done at a work session during the day meeting
on August 7, if the Supervisors so choose.
Ms. Thomas recalled some people indicating they would be more interested
in an evening meeting when more citizens could be present.
Ms. Humphris inquired if it meets with staff's and Board members'
approval to have this meeting next week on July 10, 1996.
Mr. Tucker and Board members agreed to this date. Mr. Tucker asked the
Supervisors to let the staff know if there are other options they have thought
about which could be considered in addition to those the staff has suggested.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned the option raised by Mr. Peyton about inc0rporat-
ing the 150 foot setback as a guideline for the ARB rather than an ordinance
provision. There would be nothing appealable about this option. Mr. Tucker
said this is something the ARB will need to address, but he noted Ms. Joseph's
remarks that the ARB members are not very receptive to this option.
Ms. Thomas suggested that it might be helpful if the ARB members give a
formal explanation of why they are not receptive to it. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that he is unsure when the ARB members meet again, but there may not be
further feedback from them by July 10.
Ms. Humphris said the Supervisors will do the best they can based on Ms.
Joseph's report.
(The Board recessed at 11:19 a.m., and reconvened at 11:29 a.m.)
(At this time, the Board went to Agenda Item No. 11.)
Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: Agreement between County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., for
property to be used by East Rivanna for parking purposes. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on June 24, 1996.)
Mr. Tucker stated that the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company is
requesting use of some adjoining property owned by Albemarle County for
parking purposes. He said any time there is a request for this type of use
for another entity, a public hearing is now required, and that is the purpose
of this public hearing. He informed Board members that, if they concur with
this request, they will need to authorize the County Attorney to execute an
agreement between East Rivanna and the County of Albemarle to this effect.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
000267
At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing and asked if there
was anyone present who wished to speak.
Mr. Pete Craddock, President of the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company
Board, asked if the supervisors had any questions about the request. He had
worked with Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney, on this matter. He explained
that the agreement relates to extra parking for bingo purposes and the rental
of the hall, so excess cars are not in the emergency lanes, etc. of the Fire
Company.
No one else wished to speak, so Ms. Humphris closed the public hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to autho-
rize the County Executive to sign the agreement. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated the day of , 1996,
between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter the
"County") and the EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., INCORPORATED
(hereinafter "East Rivanna"), a not-for-profit volunteer fire
company organized pursuant to Virginia Code § 27-8, provides as
follows:
WHEREAS, the County is the owner in fee simple of a certain
parcel of land containing 2.036 acres, being a portion of that
property described as Albemarle County Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 4 (the
"Property"), and further designated as Parcel "Z" on plat of Key
Incorporated Land Surveyors and Land Planners, revised April 20,
1995, a copy of which is attached hereto as "Exhibit A", by deed
dated , 1995, recorded in the Clerk's Office for the
Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book , page
;
WHEREAS, the County has agreed to lease the Property to East
Rivanna for parking purposes, and East Rivanna has submitted a
site plan amendment for the purpose of constructing certain
parking improvements at its sole cost and expense to the Property
in consideration for the County agreeing to enter into this
Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms, conditions,
and covenant~ hereinafter set forth, the parties agree as follow".
1. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the date
written above, and shall continue in effect until terminated by
either party in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
herein. In addition, the County may cancel this Agreement for any
reason, with or without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written
notice of such cancellation to East Rivanna.
2. Ownership and Use. The County agrees to allow the
Property to be used as a parking facility for East Rivanna vehi-
cles at no cost to East Rivanna in consideration for East Rivanna
constructing, at its sole cost and expense, certain improvements
to the Property as set forth in the site plan amendment currently
on file with the Albemarle County Department of Planning and
Community Development. All improvements to the Property shall be
and remain the property of the County. Said improvements shall
also be completed prior to the commencement of any parking activi-
ties or other related use of the Property by East Rivanna No
further improvements to the Property will be constructed without
the County's prior knowledge and consent. East Rivanna further
agrees that it will not utilize the Property to store or possess
any hazardous substances or materials of any kind.
The parties also agree that the County and East Rivanna
shall each be permitted to use the Property, as well as the
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
000268
existing parking area that currently serves East Rivanna, on a
shared basis for parking and recreational purposes, as well as for
emergency purposes as set forth in Section Three of this Agree-
ment.
3. Operation and Maintenance. East Rivanna agrees that it
will utilize the Property only for the purpose of parking its
vehicles and the vehicles belonging to its personnel, its invitees
and licensees. East Rivanna shall be responsible for all mainte-
nance associated with the improvements to the Property. East
Rivanna further agrees that it will obtain the prior written
consent of the County and obtain all necessary County approvals
before undertaking any alterations, further improvements or other
changes to the Property.
East Rivanna agrees that the Property, as well as the
existing fire facility, including all buildings and existing
parking lot, may be utilized by the County on an emergency basis
as well as for routine parking and recreational purposes as set
forth in Section Two. Once utilized by the County on an emergency
basis, or if used for recreational purposes, the Property, or
portion thereof being utilized by the County, will be managed by
County personnel. East Rivanna agrees to make the Property avail-
able to the County for use on an emergency basis within one (1)
hour of notification by the County. In the event the County
utilizes the Property on an emergency basis, this Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect unless the County terminates the
Agreement as provided hereunder.
4. Indemnification. East Rivanna hereby agrees to indem-
nify, protect and save the County harmless from all liability,
obligations, losses, claims, damages, actions, suits, proceedings,
costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of,
connected with, or resulting directly or indirectly from the use
of the Property by East Rivanna and its agents, representatives,
invitees or licensees during the term of this Agreement. East
Rivanna agrees to maintain general liability and property damage
insurance coverage in amounts acceptable to the County, and
further agrees to add the County as an additional named insured to
its liability and property damage insurance policies. East Rivanna
will, at the commencement of this Agreement, provide the County
with a certificate of insurance evidencing this addition.
5. Termination. At the termination of this Agreement, all
improvements erected upon the Property shall revert and belong to
the County and shall be free from any encumbrance at the time of
such reversion. In addition, at the termination of the original
term (if any) of this Agreement, it shall not be renewed if the
Property is required for any of the purposes enumerated in Vir-
ginia Code § 15.1-258. In the event of a breach of this Agreement
by East Rivanna that is not remedied within ten (10) days after
delivery of written notice of such breach, the County may termi-
nate this Agreement by written notice to East Rivanna.
6. Public Hearing. This Agreement is subject to and contin-
gent upon the approval of the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle at a public hearing to be held in accordance with
Virginia Code § 15.1-261.1.
7. Remedies. In the event of a dispute under this Agreement,
the parties agree that the County is entitled to obtain an immedi-
ate injunction to obtain specific performance of the terms of this
Agreement, and is entitled to all other remedies available under
law and equity.
WITNESS the following signatures.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
County Executive
East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Co.,
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
Incorporated
By Its:
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
000269
Agenda Item No. 9. Child Care Report Presentation by Charles Gleason.
Dr. Gleason presented a report from the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Children and Youth Commission on child care. He mentioned that other members
of the committee responsible for this report are: Malcolm Cole, the Director
of the University of Virginia Child Care Center; John Nafziger, Program
Coordinator for the United Way Child Care Scholarships; Helen Reynolds,
Consultant in Early Childhood Education; and Etta Legner, Director of St.
Anne's-Belfield Preschool and Kindergarten. He said since the Board members
have already received copies of the report, he will only make some introduc-
tory remarks and respond to any questions.
The report is a result of a CACY Commission initiative which began in
1993, and he described the objectives of the report. He noted that the major
dilemma in child care is affordability, and current methods of financing child
care are clearly inadequate and rely primarily on fees parents can afford to
pay, community contributions, local and state subsidies and tax credit. The
sum total produced is far below the true cost of providing the quality of care
children deserve. He stated that it is also clear significant barriers stand
in the way of child care providers who are trying to make their own way. He
mentioned that some of the barriers involve not having enough operating income
to secure long term finances. He said increasingly bankers are willing to
make long term commitments of capital for child care facilities, but providers
must have a reliable stream of income to repay the debt, and child care
providers have learned to piece together operating income and diverse sources
such as parent fees, foundation and individual contributions, government
grants and employer contributions. He explained that while often substantial,
these funding sources are rarely enough to entice bankers into lending money
for capital construction and improvement of programs.
The second barrier is inflexible underwriting standards. He noted that
traditional standards for both public and private lending programs necessarily
must focus on business expertise, credit history and personal and business
assets. He said bankers have developed underwriting standards which are
designed to reduce their risk of default. He commented that, for example, the
standards developed for commercial real estate developers may screen out
otherwise viable child care providers. He mentioned that a traditional bank
loan would require a child care provider to contribute at least 40 percent of
the value of the property, but the child care provider would have to struggle
to put up as much as 20 percent. He said some banks are now making child care
loans that are based on more flexible standards and finding that they can do
so without increasing the risk of default.
He pointed out that the third barrier is the bank's aversion to small or
complex loans. He said some financial institutions, particularly those which
are affiliated with holding companies, are committed to upscale corporate
markets and view transaction costs of small loans too high to justify the
loans. He stated that even small banks specializing in small loans report
losing money on business loans below a certain amount. He added that provider
inexperience in management and financial matters is another barrier. He said
many providers have little or no business or financial management experience,
and they cannot offer a funding agency a track record or cash flow history in
order to support a loan application.
He mentioned another barrier involving the lack of staff to compete for~
public resources and for keeping up with the complexities of governmental
programs. He stated that since available sources of funds are insufficient to
produce quality child care, new financial strategies should be examined. He
referred to an innovative approach which has proven successful and is some-
times termed a third sector approach which is a partnership among the public
sector, the private sector and the community. He said it would create a
coalition strong enough to overcome the barriers presently precluding the cost
sharing and flexibility necessary for the government, child care providers,
lawyers and business leaders to work together in financing the quality and
type of child care the area's economy and families both need. He stated that
0002'7O
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
the idea of the third sector approach is suggested in the first recommendation
of the report.
He said a known successful example of this initiative is the Corporate
Champions Initiative in Charlotte, North Carolina, where in 1987 the Chief
Executive of the power company there encouraged representatives from some of
Charlotte's largest employers to explore what could be done to address the
child care issues of the expanding county work force. He added that partici-
pating businesses committed approximately $330,000 over a three year period to
a Corporate Champions Fund. He stated that the Corporate Champions Task Force
of business leaders and child care advocates was created to develop a
countywide strategy to facilitate the expansion of quality child care and make
the funding decisions necessary to do this. He said in the first five years
the Corporate Champion Initiative helped distribute nearly $200,000 to centers
and family day care providers for the creation of over 700 child care spaces,
and it also contributed $100,000 to improve the quality of child care in the
area.
He went on to say, in addition, the initiative played a key role in
facilitating the leasing of public lands to child care facilities at a nominal
cost by the City and County governments. He commented that the Corporate
Champions also served as the catalyst for an anonymous contribution of
$1,300,000 for the construction of a new YMCA center which created 148 more
spaces in the community. He stated that when this report was completed, the
Committee members were not thinking in terms of welfare reform. However, in
discussing this report with Roxanne White, as part of the CACY Commission
routine, she reminded the Committee members of the immediacy of planning for
welfare reform and of the vital importance of child care in assisting welfare
families who are seeking employment. He said it was a very timely reminder
because the data in the report makes it clear that good child care will
increase the likelihood of welfare families in the transition into the work
force whereas bad child care does the opposite.
He then requested acceptance of the concept of a new vision in child
care planning, as well as incorporating the recommendations of this report
into the long term plans for welfare reform. He next asked Malcolm Cole to
speak briefly on his experience as far as dealing with families who benefit
from employer supported child care.
(Mr. Bowerman left at 11:39 a.m. and returned at 11:40 a.m.)
Mr. Cole informed Board members that he is not present at this meeting
to represent his employer, which is the University of Virginia Health Sciences
Child Care Center, although he is supported greatly in his efforts around the
community in working with groups such as this particular Task Force. He
mentioned that he has had experiences over the years which convinced him that
any community has both a mosaic of needs and a mosaic of responses to chil-
dren's needs, and he is blessed in working in a child care center which an
employer supports very substantially. He noted that the center is supported
because of its value. There are other employers in the community who do
similar things, such as Martha Jefferson Hospital. He explained that the
academic side of the University also gives support, but each of these kinds of
arrangements are different, because each business' arrangements and needs are
different. He mentioned Nationsbank and GE which support the concept of child
care needs through support of Resource Center referral information. He stated
that a mosaic of approaches are already going on in this community in support
of child care, and he suggested that this is strongly what the Committee wants
to encourage. He does not believe any one sector of the community has the
total responsibility nor the total means of providing all of the different
sets of needs. He said, as an individual, he has worked in a lot of different
situations. He has owned and operated a child care center, so he knows what
it means to be in a proprietary business. He has also worked for nonprofit
agencies which have provided care under state and federal funding, and now he
works in an employer supported center. He noted that this area has a mosaic
of needs from all of the different families, and there is a mosaic of re-
sponses available as a community. He emphasized that the Committee members
were supportive of this process in doing this report. The parents of these
different sectors have similar interests for their children, and it doesn't
matter about the parents' income level nor their ability to pay. He stated
that they are all interested in the children's general safety, as well as
their health, ~appiness and getting a good fair start for their children. He
emphasized that this is what the Committee members want the support from this
Board to provide.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
Ms. Humphris stated that the Supervisors appreciate very much the work
this Committee has done, and she thanked Dr. Gleason and Mr. Cole. She was
present at the first couple of organizational meetings and saw the quality of
people who were on the committee, and heard their concerns. She added that it
is something with which this Board will deal most particularly as the provi-
sions of welfare reform are implemented now. She pointed out that County
officials are not waiting until July 1, 1997 to start this process.
Ms. Thomas inquired when the Board will address this issue. Ms.
Humphris responded that recommendations will be coming to the supervisors as
they are dealing with welfare reform. Ms. Thomas remarked that Ms. Humphris
is on the Welfare Planning Committee, which seems to her to be a natural place
for it to get more emphasis. Ms. Humphris stated that she believes a request
for action on these recommendations will probably come from this group.
Ms. Thomas noted that this report is actually a request for action. Ms.
Humphris replied that the report has to go somewhere, and she feels as though
the Welfare Planning Committee is a good place for it to begin.
Ms. White stated that when consideration was given to working with
welfare reform, the major emphasis and link was the business community. She
pointed out that the emphasis in this report relates not just to child care
providers for families. She said work needs to be done on the whole commu-
nity, as well as the business sector. She added that hopefully the Welfare
Planning Committee will support the business sector's involvement with the
idea that this is a good place to begin making the contacts to start building
the type of coalition found in Charlotte, North Carolina. She said it would
involve community leaders and business groups who would focus on welfare
reform, and as part of this issue, would focus on child care as a key element
of the welfare reform.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the Welfare Planning Committee is represented on
this committee. Ms. Humphris answered, ~no." She explained that this
Committee was formed long before the welfare reform issue.
Ms. Thomas then asked if the Welfare Planning group could be represented
on the committee to make sure the needs for good quality child care are not
forgotten. Ms. White responded that the Welfare Reform Committee is in its
initial stages in deciding what will be emphasized, although she assumes one
of the key elements in one of the working groups within this Committee will
represent child care. She stated that it seems as though it would be an
important area for this group's input.
Ms. Thomas requested a report back to this Board to make sure the child
care report gets the proper attention. She said it seems to her that periodi-
cally there are these types of reports on child care informing County offi-
cials of things not being done, but they continue to go undone. She stated
that the Welfare Reform Planning Group is a good place for this report to get
a short term focus, but she wants to make sure it truly gets this attention,
rather than just having everybody at this meeting agree that this group is a
good place to start.
Mr. Tucker suggested that a presentation by Dr. Gleason and/or others to
the Welfare Reform group would certainly be a start in ensuring that these
types of concerns are brought to the Group's attention. The recommendations
coming ultimately from the Welfare Reform Group could include these types of
suggestions and comments. He stated that he is unsure if there will be an
opportunity to include members from the steering team on the Child Care
Committee, but the report as well as a presentation, would be a good start.
Mr. Marshall stated that a lot of businesses are getting involved in
child care, the Health Department is examining the situation, and Medicaid is
making recommendations on the State level. Ms. Thomas commented that it would
be good for this report to be heard on the State level. Mr. Marshall re-
sponded that the report can be heard on the State level, but Health Depart-
ment representatives need to hear from the Child Care Report Steering Commit-
tee also. He then suggested that someone from the Steering Committee contact
Dr. McLeod.
Ms. White remarked that linking this issue with welfare reform puts it
in the immediate problem solving category. Ms. Thomas said it also puts the
issue with a group that is trying to get together with the business community
and social services in examining broader concerns.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
000272
Ms. White mentioned that this matter can go farther than that, once
welfare reform comes into being. She said then the coalition might continue
addressing child care beyond welfare reform.
Ms. Humphris informed Dr. Gleason that she would make sure the Chairman
of the Welfare Reform Planning Group invites him to come and make a presenta-
tion of this report at a future meeting.
Mr. Nafziger mentioned his involvement with the United Way Child Care
Scholarships. 'He reported that within the last month, based on United Way
report representatives around the State from areas that have already imple-
mented the work requirements or are close to implementing welfare reform, all
the representatives have reported that they had a subcommittee of the Welfare
Reform Planning Group looking specifically at child care. He said from his
experience and awareness of the limitations of child care for working families
in the community, child care really is going to be one of the key elements, if
not the key obstacle to getting people to work. He stated that he thinks this
is the case, even more so than finding work. He then urged the Planning
Group to consider a subcommittee to begin focusing attention on child care.
Mr. Marshall agreed that child care is one of the obstacles of getting
people to work, as well as transportation.
Ms. Thomas remarked that this report emphasizes quality of child care,
and not just the problem of finding enough child care, or being able to pay
for it, or getting enough convenient providers who tie in with the transporta-
tion problem. There is a real concern for quality which is not easy to
define, but part of it should be the amount of money paid to the care givers
which leads to the corporate comments. She stated that she is taking a lot of
time on this, because she thinks it is worth the supervisors paying full
attention.
Dr. Gleason reiterated that the CACY Commission initiative began in
1993, but actually it goes back probably ten years earlier for some of the
people involved. He stated that he and others have been talking with busi-
nesses and certain agencies throughout all of this time and have tried to get
something started. He noted that the important thing lacking is clout, and
they have looked for an opening to put something such as the coalition
together. He said several people have suggested that it would be a good
avenue, and he thinks this is true. He noted that it is not only good for the
welfare issue, but it is also good for all of the other things involved with
this matter. He stated he would appreciate the opportunity to talk to the
Welfare Reform Group.
Ms. Humphris stated that another aspect of the report was the need for
more training and education opportunities for the care givers to establish
quality child care. This will be another aspect to be examined, because there
are obvious missing links there, also.
Dr. Gleason commented that this is a key part of the whole idea, and it
is also why it is important to bring in the corporate sector and to have such
a coalition. He noted that obviously the community cannot afford to do all of
the things that should be done, and it is being shown throughout the country,
as was shown in Charlotte, North Carolina, that a coalition can pull all of
this together.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Barking Dogs.
Mr. Tucker reminded Board members that they had requested staff to
examine the issue of barking dogs after several complaints were received from
the Hessian Hills area. He pointed out how these issues are handled in
various jurisdictions and noted that they are handled very differently. He
referred to the City of Charlottesville where the enforcement of the ordinance
is basically the responsibility of the landowner who is annoyed by the noise
from the dog. He explained that the complainant must obtain a warrant and
testify in the General District Court as to the problem, and the third
conviction within one year of any offense involving the same dog puts the
judge in the position to order the owner or custodian of the dog to remove it
permanently from the City within two weeks.
The County's animal control officers have discussed the success or
problems this particular ordinance has had in the City, and they have learned
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
000273
that it works very well. He stated that they support this and highly recom-
mend it. He mentioned the Spotsylvania County area where it is unlawful for
any person to allow prolonged or intense barking or other harsh or excessive
noises to be made by any animal at any time to disturb members of the commu-
nity. He remarked that this ordinance is modeled after Prince William and
Stafford Counties and requires that the owner of the dog be put on notice by
the County Sheriff's Department or the animal warden upon the complaint of two
persons who are not members of the same household, or one person if there are
not two households within a defined distance of the property line of the noise
source. This approach puts the enforcement entirely on the County.
He next discussed James City County's ordinance which deals with animals
under the Noise Ordinance, where such violation is treated in the same fashion
as loud exhausts, amplified loud speakers, hawkers and musical instruments and
is punishable as a misdemeanor. He stated that the County Attorney's Office
has cautioned that any attempt to restrict the application of a barking dog
ordinance to particular geographic areas in the County needs to be supported
by a very rational basis. Mr. Tucker said enforcement of a barking dog
ordinance in a county this large is a concern, and the staff is unable to
project the number of calls which might be generated or the enforcement load
which might be placed on animal control officers and law enforcement person-
nel. He stated that whether the same rules and enforcement are reasonable in
both suburban and rural neighborhoods is obviously an issue that has to be
considered.
The staff recommends that the Board discuss options and consider whether
or not a separate work session might be necessary before moving forward on
this matter. He indicated that the items the staff has identified to be
considered are whether or not to put the entire enforcement responsibility on
the offended party as the City does and leave the County staff out of the
enforcement arena except for the role of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office
and the courts, or whether due process dictates that the owner of an offending
dog receives a notice before charges are brought. He said other items relate
to whether such an ordinance should be countywide, and whether the civil
remedy under a nuisance action is sufficient if the County chooses not to
adopt a barking dog ordinance. He reiterated that the City's ordinance seems
to be working very well, and it relieves staff responsibility. However, it
offers an ordinance for people to follow when they know what they need to do
to correct a situation.
Mr. Bowerman inquired about a jurisdiction with an ordinance which
relied on the individuals in the public sector to actually go to court and
make the actual complaint. He wondered if this sort of ordinance allows for a
police officer to be involved by checking out the complaint, issuing a warrant
and making a report. Then this would become part of the process the citizen
has to follow. Mr. Tucker responded that it has been done this way in the
City of Charlottesville. He stated that there have been situations where a
property owner was unable to go through the process, so the officer will issue
the warrant. He cannot say the ordinance specifically permits this, but he
knows it has been done.
Mr. Bowerman stated that enabling the public to have some standing in
the community may be an important concept, and it can be a shared responsibil-
ity. He said most of the responsibility rests with the complainant, but now
there is no standing for the public in the community, under the ordinance.
Ms. Thomas said the public has the nuisance. Mr. Tucker agreed that the
public has the nuisance and a civil remedy, which has always been the case.
He said an ordinance would give further enforcement that the County has a
provision which allows the public to do something about the nuisance, and it
would give a procedure to follow.
Ms. Thomas commented that when a person contacts a neighbor about a
barking dog, he can say he is taking the person to civil court because the dog
is a nuisance. She noted that he will have to testify against the neighbor,
and both people will need a lawyer. She said, though, if an ordinance is
adopted, the very same encounter will take place, but she wondered if the
complainant would have to take the person to the Civil Court or a different
court. Mr. Davis replied that it would be the same court but it would be a
different docket of that court.
Ms. Thomas remarked that it is a criminal proceeding so the evidence of
proof for the complainant is greater. She said, though, with the ordinance
the complainant could probably make the owner remove the dog from the County.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 42)
000274
She added that without the ordinance, the complainant could never have the dog
removed from the County, although he or she could keep bringing the same
person to court, and the owner could keep getting fines. Mr. Davis responded
that the judge can fashion a remedy that could lead to the dog being removed
from the County, if this is what is needed to abate the nuisance.
Ms. Thomas commented that she had thought one of the distinctions
between jurisdictions with ordinances and jurisdictions without ordinances was
that the dog could never be removed from the County or City without an
ordinance. She thought the owner could only be fined because of the nuisance.
Mr. Davis stated that a judge in a civil case can award damages to the
property owner.
Ms. Thomas asked if the word, "damages," should be used instead of
"fines." Mr. Davis concurred that the word, "damages," should be used in this
situation. The word, ~fines" would be used in the criminal court, and the
fine would go to the County. He stated in a civil matter, the money goes to
the complainant for damages, if he or she can prove damages in some fashion
have occurred.
Ms. Thomas wondered if this is what happened with the recent case in the
newspaper. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. He then referred to Mr.
Bowerman's question about who can issue a summons. The police officer can
only issue a summons if the offense is committed in his presence. He ex-
plained if there is an ordinance such as Charlottesville has, the ordinance
gives the police officer the discretion to issue a summons if the police
officer observes the violation happening. However, he said the ordinance is
set up so the complainant would have to go to a magistrate and swear out a
summons which would then be served by a police officer upon the offender.
Mr. Marshall stated that he thinks the public has a misconception of
what the ordinance will do, and he referred to a discussion he had in Esmont
recently. He said citizens perceive the ordinance to be such that they can
call the Police Department, and that is the end of it for them. He added that
this is not true because somebody has to testify, etc. There is a lot more
involved, so he does not think the ordinance will serve any purpose. Mr.
Davis commented that people need to understand if they call the police, and
the police find there is a crime, there has to be a witness. He said when
there is a summons, the police officer will ask for a subpoena list, and a
subpoena will be sent to the complainant to testify in court on a specific
date. He stated that the complainant's testimony will be critical to getting
a conviction.
Mr. Marshall remarked that the same thing can be done through the civil
courts now.
Ms. Thomas commented that the complainant wouldn't necessarily have to
hire a lawyer in the case of an ordinance, as likely as they would in a civil
case. Mr. Davis stated that with an ordinance, the complainant would be
represented by the Commonwealth's Attorney. Ms. Thomas said this makes a
significant difference.
Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the responsibility is still on the individ-
ual who is offended because he is the one the courts will look to as the
offended party. However, now the citiZens have no standing except through the
civil process. He noted that he is not suggesting an overburdening ordinance
be adopted where the police arrest people, etc. He stated, though, he thinks
some standing for the citizens needs to be considered, so when they call the
police, they are told the procedure, and they have some recourse. He said a
lot of the frustration presently is coming from people not knowing what to do,
and they have a problem, because dogs won't let them sleep at night.
Ms. Humphris stated that based on the telephone calls and the letters
coming to her, she had no idea how major this problem is. The problem is not
just in one subdivision, it is Countywide. She added that it is very surpris-
ing how widespread this problem is and, now since this item has gotten
headlines and is in the media, people are indicating that this problem has
been going on for long periods of time in certain neighborhoods with particu-
lar dogs. She said it has been amazing as far as the amount of frustration
and problem existing, because people feel helpless to deal with the issue.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 43)
0002'75
Mr. Marshall asked if another ordinance will be put on the books that
cannot be enforced. Ms. Humphris answered that this is what everybody is
trying to figure out.
Mr. Bowerman referred again to the issue of standing. He wondered what
would happen if the police officer did not witness or hear the noise. He
asked if a prosecutor could still handle the citizen's complaint against
another citizen. Mr. Davis responded that if there is a criminal ordinance,
and the complainant goes to the magistrate and swears out a warrant, the
Commonwealth's Attorney office in most cases will prosecute misdemeanors on
behalf of the complaining witness. He said it would be the same if a person
is assaulted. He stated that if the person swears out a complaint, the
Commonwealth's Attorney will prosecute the assault charge for the person. He
reiterated that this would be handled in the same manner.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the person would still have to swear out a
warrant. Mr. Davis answered affirmatively. He added that the person would
still have to swear out a warrant, and he would still have to testify.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it is a shared responsibility, but it puts
the burden on the citizen. However, once he does something, he has help.
Ms. Thomas said she thinks this is significant. She then explained the
difference, as she understands it. She said citizens will either have to hire
a lawyer and go through a civil court, or they will have to go to a magis-
trate, and the Commonwealth's Attorney will prosecute the case. She remarked
that there is just as much effort on the citizen's part either way, but
without an ordinance, the citizen has to hire his or her own lawyer, and with
an ordinance the Commonwealth's Attorney will prosecute the case. She
inquired if she is oversimplifying the issue. Mr. Davis replied that this is
not really oversimplification, although the Commonwealth's Attorney will need
to have some input as to how he views his role in prosecuting misdemeanors,
because he has some discretion as far as the cases he prosecutes. He added
that typically the Commonwealth's Attorney office in this area assists in
prosecuting misdemeanors of significance. However, this item needs to be
discussed with the Commonwealth's Attorney as to how he will view his role in
this ordinance.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would also like to hear from the Police
Chief to see how he would go about enforcing such an ordinance. Mr. Tucker
explained that if the complainant is the primary individual, County police
will not have a major role. He said a complaint might come in from
Boonesville, and by the time the police officer or animal control officer gets
to the scene, there may not be a barking dog. He stated that he does not
think, in this case, the police officer can do a thing about it other than to
tell the person about the complaint.
Mr. Bowerman stated that if there is an ordinance, the complainant could
be told the procedure to follow. Mr. Tucker concurred. He explained that if
the ordinance indicates the primary responsibility is on the complainant, then
he or she can move forward. This is what Mr. Bowerman is talking about when
he mentioned that the citizens needed standing.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that these things should be resolved between
neighbors, but sometimes they are not. He said if the person who is aggrieved
has some recourse and some standing, and the other person who is contributing
to the problem knows that, it carries more power than if the complainant has
to get a lawyer and sue the person causing the problem. He stated that from
the comments he has heard over the last five or six years, this is the type of
remedy that makes them feel less than helpless, and they feel they can have
more control over an intolerable situation.
Mr. Tucker noted that most people do not understand what constitutes a
civil process, even though it is always available. He said most people would
have to hire an attorney to find out the process. He stated, though, it will
be spelled out in an ordinance, and people will understand specifically what
they have to do.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis to draft a suggested ordinance, as well as
some communication with the CommonwealthSs Attorney'office so consideration of
this issue will not happen without his input. Mr. Davis answered that this
could be done. He clarified Ms. Humphris' direction by asking if the Board is
suggesting a Countywide ordinance similar to the Charlottesville ordinance
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 44)
000276
which would clearly place responsibility on the complainant to swear out a
summons in most instances. Ms. Humphris replied affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas referred to Bullet Number #2 relating to whether due process
dictates that the owner of an offending dog receive a notice before charges
are brought. This has not been discussed at all, and she doesn't understand
the importance of it. She suggested that this should be part of the discus-
sion of the ordinance. Mr. Davis pointed out that the problem with Bullet
Number Two is that it doesn't work with the Charlottesville ordinance, and
there is no control over record keeping if it is just initiated by a citizen
complaint. Ms. Thomas agreed.
Ms. Humphris noted that if somebody is irritated to the point of going
through the process, it probably means the notice would have been long overdue
anyway. Mr. Tucker stated that Bullet Number #2 is relative only if the
County is involved in enforcement.
Ms. Thomas asked if guinea hens could be included under this ordinance.
She mentioned that another jurisdiction's ordinance refers to animals.
Mr. Davis said the ordinances of James City County and Spotsylvania
County both deal with animals, in general. He stated that now there is no
limitation that it applies to just dogs. He said, though, Charlottesville's
ordinance just refers to dogs.
Ms. Thomas remarked that she thinks this is worth discussing when the
matter is brought back to this Board.
Mr. Marshall mentioned a recent complaint about cows. Ms. Humphris
recalled a conversation with a gentleman on the phone who said he wanted to
make sure consideration was given to cats, because he finds noisy cats to be a
problem. Ms. Thomas said she was willing to discuss including cats in the
ordinance, although she is not sure that is the route to take. Mr. Marshall
stated that he is willing to look at a dog ordinance, but if other animals are
being considered, he will not be supportive. Ms. Humphris commented that it
is her duty to cover everything the public has mentioned to her. She also
said she thinks Mr. Davis is clear on what this Board needs. Mr. Davis
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas inquired if the process is that Mr. Davis will bring some-
thing back to the Supervisors, they will discuss it, and then set a public
hearing. Ms. Humphris replied that this is the process. She asked how long
it will take before Mr. Davis will have the information for the Board members.
Mr. Davis responded that he can easily have the information ready by the next
day meeting, which is August 7, 1996.
Ms. Humphris stated that this matter will be handled in a work session,
and there will be consideration of whether there is something in hand to
advertise for public hearing. Mr. Tucker said the draft ordinance will
probably be ready before the Board meeting if any of the public or media are
interested in seeing it.
Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:16 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go
into went into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) .of the Code of
Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters concerning appoint-
ments to Boards and Commissions and the reassignment of an employee; and under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific
legal matters relating to reversion and specific legal matters relating to a
public safety agreement. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 45)
000277
Agenda Item No. 14. Certify Executive Session.
At 3:04 p.m., the Board reconvened in open session. Motion was immedi-
ately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify
by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only
public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements
of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion
authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the
executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None. ~ ~ ~
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments.
Mr. Marshall recommended the appointment of Dwight Colley to the
Community Services Board with term to expire on June 30, 1999; the reappoint-
ment of Jacquelyn Perry to the Community Services Board with term to expire on
June 30, 1999; the appointment of Sherry Buttrick to the Public Recreational
Facilities Authority with term to expire on December 13, 1998; and the
appointment of Richard Piccolo to the Public Recreational Facilities Author-
ity, to fill out the unexpired term of Ricardo Preve, with term to expire on
December 13, 1997.
Ms. Thomas recommended the reappointment of Cathy Bodkin to the Commu-
nity Policy Management Team (CPMT) with term to expire on June 30, 1997.
Mr. Bowerman recommended the reappointment of Mitchell Neuman to the
Jail Authority with term to expire on May 22, 1999.
Mr. Marshall so moved the appointments/reappointments, seconded by Mr.
Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board
members. '
Mr. Tucker noted that the staff learned just before 5:00 p.m., yesterday
afternoon from City officials that on July 15 the City Council will be taking
up an issue regarding the use of McIntire Park for the Dogwood Festival and
other activities. The issue relates to whether or not the Festival can stay
at McIntire Park or whether it will have to move to Towe Park. He stated that
another issue relates to having additional Little League fields at Towe Park.
He had discussed this matter earlier with Mr. Mullaney and had understood a
proposal would be made to County officials for them to consider. He said
nothing official has been received, but City officials would like to have some
reaction from this Board on the issue.
Dogwood Festival representatives would like to stay at McIntire Park.
He noted that the one problem staff sees of the Dogwood Festival moving to
Towe Park is the long standing requirement that no lighting be provided there,
but more importantlY, parking could not be handled for such a major activity.
He said for this reason alone, he does not think it is appropriate to move the
Dogwood Festival to Towe Park. With regard to the Little League fields, such
an activity could be accommodated, although it is not shown on the master
plan. This is something which could be amended, although the City officials
would have to concur. He pointed out, though, that City officials would like
to have lighting. The staff would support the activity without lighting,
which is another issue, and he does not think there would be any objection to
having additional Little League fields at Towe Park. However, with regard to
the Dogwood Festival and those types of activities, not only would it be in
direct opposition to the County's standing of having no lighting there, but
more importantly the parking could not be accommodated for such a large number
of people. He noted that there is parking at McIntire Park for such activi-
ties, but most of the parking takes place at Charlottesville High School, and
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 46)
000278
people walk across a foot bridge to get to the Park. He noted the fact of not
having a formal proposal in front of the Supervisors. However, his suggestion
would be, if the City officials need an answer by July 15, that the Supervi-
sors would not be able to support the Dogwood Festival at Towe Park, but would
certainly consider having additional Little League fields there. He believes
Mr. Mullaney will concur with his comments, and he noted that Mr. Knott and
Mr. Shisler, from the Dogwood Festival Board, are present to answer questions.
Mr. Mullaney agreed that the big issue at Towe Park is parking. He
mentioned that there are 310 parking spaces at Towe before parking takes place
on the grassy areas. The Dogwood Festival is a two week activity, and during
this period there is soccer and adult softball occurring. He stated that on a
week night, at least half of these spaces are already taken up, so this leaves
150 to 155 spaces for the Dogwood Festival. He added that he talked with Boyd
Knott today, and he reported a figure of 1,000 to 2,000 people for the Dogwood
Festival on a week night. He went on to say on a weekend when there are
soccer games and softball tournaments, total capacity is reached at the Park,
and sometimes overflow parking takes place. He pointed out that these are
also big days for the Dogwood Festival. He does not know where all of the
cars would park, and certainly some of them would have to park on the grass.
He stated that particularly if there is rain, he thinks it would be a total
disaster.
Ms. Humphris remarked that the way this matter has come to County
officials is very puzzling. She mentioned a phone call she received from a
person involved with baseball more than six months ago informing her of the
possibility of this proposition and asking her feelings on the matter. The
person was very open and honest with her as far as the problems were con-
cerned. She then referred to a problem the staff members have not mentioned
which is that the Carnival does a huge amount of tearing up of the ground, and
it requires a long time to heal after the Carnival is over. She stated that
given the County's agreement of no lighting at Towe Park, she was very open
and honest with this person as to her position. She asked this person if the
baseball field could be put at Towe Park because it is not that much of a trip
for anybody to get there. She also had a conversation with Kaye Slaughter
when she met with her a couple of weeks ago. Ms. Humphris said she again
mentioned the problems of lighting, parking and tearing up of the ground. She
stated that because of this conversation, Ms. Slaughter knows of at least one
Board member's feeling about the matter. She added that she feels a kinship
with the information in the excellent ad the directors of the Dogwood Festival
put in the newspaper. She said one of her fondest memories is taking part in
the first Apple Harvest Festival in 1950 before it was a Dogwood Festival.
She noted that everything the Dogwood Festival does is geared around the
income and activity taking place at the very traditional place. She cannot
understand the fact that the Supervisors are just hearing about the situation
today, and it has not even been told to them officially.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that at the last joint City/County meeting on Towe
Park, the issue was raised. He said Mr. Bowerman suggested that if there is a
proposal, it should be brought to County officials, and they would be happy to
consider it. Mr. Tucker stated that he thinks everybody was anticipating that
some sort of proposal would be made. He said if Board members would rather
not take any action, that is fine, but he thinks the staff's recommendation
will not change. He commented that if the Supervisors would like for staff
members to look into the matter further, they will attempt to do so, but he is
unsure whether or not the decision can be given to City Council by July 15.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he thinks the Joint Committee needs to make a
recommendation to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors, first. He
noted that this is the way things have been set up in the past. Ms. Humphris
commented that this is not happening now.
Mr. Mullaney remarked that he was expecting a formal request to come to
the Board of Supervisors because the City Council was going to make some sort
of decision as to where it stands on this issue. He said, at that point, he
understood the request would then be taken back to the Committee with a
recommendation.
Ms. Thomas wondered if the City could build fields at Towe Park, since
there is the requirement of no lights. Mr. Mullaney answered that City
officials could build unlighted fields.
000279
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 47)
Ms. Thomas mentioned a telephone call she received, and the suggestion
that Darden Towe Park would be the place for the Little League fields. Mr.
Mullaney recalled the City and County agreement which states that there will
be no lighting for competitive sport activities during the first three phases.
However, this agreement doesn't necessarily throw out the Dogwood Festival as
an event. He stated that if he thought there was any way possible to accommo-
date the Dogwood Festival and not do undue damage to the Park, he would be the
first person to argue for temporary lighting for two weeks, because he wants
the Dogwood Festival to have a home. He said, though, he does not think the
Dogwood Festival can be accommodated at Towe Park because of the issue of the
parking. The cars will be tearing up the ground which is the same problem
relating to the Carnival activities. He next referred to the one time the
fireworks demonstration was held at Towe Park, The fireworks can draw 4,000
to 5,000 people, and he does not know what can be done with that many people
there. He noted that when people left the Park after the fireworks demonstra-
tion, they went everywhere, even across the soccer fields. He said if the
Dogwood Festival moves from McIntire Park to another site, there will be a 50
percent reduction in revenue, because there will be the expense of lights and
trying to control the traffic. He emphasized that he does not think it would
be a wise move.
Mr. Marshall inquired if City officials are aware of all of these
problems. He also wondered why are they making such a request, if they know
about all of these things. Mr. Tucker answered that one of the proposals may
be because they have a donor for the Little League fields. He said City
officials are probably torn between not getting the fields versus trying to
shift the Dogwood Festival somewhere else. Mr. Marshall stated that the
County can provide land for the fields. Mr. Tucker agreed that this is the
point. He said, though, City officials want lighting for the fields, which
could be another issue the Supervisors may want to discuss. He stated that,
at this point, the agreement basically indicates there will be no lights
provided until Phase Three is completed.
Mr. Marshall said he thinks the City Council members are reasonable
people. Ms. Humphris asked if Mr. Knott or Mr. Shisler would like to speak to
this issue.
Mr. Jim Shisler informed the Supervisors that he is a current Board
member and Past President of the Dogwood Festival and has been associated with
the Festival for 36 years. He stated that he wants to report to this Board
that a lax conversation has been going on with City officials for four or five
months, and the Dogwood Festival representatives feel as though they have not
been kept apprised of activities taking place with Little League plans and the
City. He emphasized that they are currently in a "fight for your life"
situation. He said Festival members have been told over and over again by
City officials and through the media that Dixie Little League representatives
are saying the Dogwood Festival activities can go to Darden Towe Park.
However, he stated that Festival Board members are aware that Towe Park is not
available to them.
He then recalled Dogwood Festival representatives coming to the County
Board of Supervisors, when McIntire Park was being reconstructed, for the
right to use the Park for one two week period. They were flatly refused based
on the agreement with the neighborhood, but they certainly understood that
this agreement needs to be respected. He added that if the Dogwood Festival
moves to Towe Park, it will be out of view from the Bypass, which is very
important to the Festival's existence, as far as furnishing amusement rides.
He stated that the Festival is not advertised a great deal, and although
posters are distributed, visual sighting of the rides makes them successful.
He then mentioned a petition the Festival Board has in support of staying at
McIntire Park. He noted that the Festival has not been treated fairly by the
City officials, as far as what has been taking place, and everything is moving
very quickly. He commented that Festival representatives are coming to the
Supervisors to get their input, and when they meet with the City's Director of
Parks and Recreation and the people from Dixie Little League, they will be
able to represent to the City what they know to be facts as they receive them
from the Supervisors. This is their primary purpose for being at this
meeting. He appreciates the Supervisors' understanding, and he thinks Little
League can be accepted as part of Towe Park. He mentioned that representa-
tives from the Dogwood Festival have been supportive of Towe Park, and he
referred to donations, etc., the Festival has made to Towe Park. He thanked
the Supervisors for their understanding, time and whatever support they can
give to the Festival Board.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 48)
O00ZSO
Ms. Humphris thanked Mr. Shisler for his comments and asked Mr. Tucker
and Mr. Mullaney to do whatever is necessary at this time, to indicate the
Board's reluctance to move the Dogwood Festival to the Darden Towe Park.
Mr. Tucker referred to his response to a letter from Don Sours, of R. E.
Lee and Sons, who requested that a sewer line construction be tied into the
improvements to Hydraulic Road from Lambs Road to the Rock Store. He has sent
the Board members copies of his response to Mr. Sours. He informed him that
it is not the Board's intention to support jurisdictional areas for sewer
service in the South Fork Rivanna watershed, but Mr. Sours requested that this
be brought to the Supervisors attention for their consideration. Mr. Tucker
noted that he has asked Mr. Cilimberg to give a brief description of some of
the issues for this Board's consideration, and if a work session is necessary,
it can also be held.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that properties to the west of Hydraulic Road are
in the Rural Area. There are two properties which actually have jurisdic-
tional area for sewer service, and one is a church at the Hydraulic Road and
Lamb's Road intersection, and the other is a church across from the Rock
Store. He stated that these two properties were given sewer service due to
extenuating circumstances. He pointed out that County officials have not
supported public water nor sewer service in the Rural Areas, unless it is for
the purpose of meeting a health or safety danger, and they have tried to keep
the capacity of water and sewer available to the designated development areas.
The request also seems to be for the County to fund this kind of installation.
He noted that he is not aware of the County ever funding a sewer line, at
least in the recent past, because this has been the responsibility of the
Service Authority. However, from the staff members' standpoint, if they were
going to make recommendations for public funding of utility lines, the utility
lines would be supported for the development areas and infill development
needs before support would be given to bringing a sewer line out Hydraulic
Road to serve areas not in the County's Comprehensive Plan as being appropri-
ate for public water and sewer. He mentioned that engineering has not been
done as to this type of installation, and neither is he sure about the degree
the Service Authority has been consulted as far as how such a sewer line would
even be installed or whether it is more than one sewer line. He is not sure
how the engineering will work because of the location of Properties on the
west side of Hydraulic Road.
Ms. Thomas referred to the May minutes of the Albemarle County Service
Authority where contract negotiations were being done with VDoT to relocate
the Authority's facilities on Route 743 from Albemarle High School to the Rock
Store at VDoT's expense. She noted, though, that these lines run down the
other side of the road. Mr. Tucker answered that this contract refers to the
relocation of water and sewer lines.
Ms. Thomas next mentioned a statement in Mr. Sour's letter indicating
that everybody knows that the previous population growth control action was a
judgment error which needs correction now. She knows of no such thing,
because it kept the area from being more densely developed, which was the
whole point. She commented that although it is inflammatory to say there are
septic tanks draining into the reservoir watershed, a well maintained septic
field is not a threat to the watershed nearly as much as dense development
from parking, roof tops and fertilized lawns.
Ms. Humphris also noticed the statement in Mr. Sour's communication to
which Ms. Thomas referred. Ms. Humphris said it was quite a comment, since
there has been more than 15 years of adherence to the strategy of protecting
the watershed. She thinks everything with this situation has turned out fine.
~Mr. Tucker responded that the reason there has been sewer line connec-
tions at both churches has been addressed. There has been evidence shown
relative to soil and percolation problems at these two locations.
Ms. Humphris wondered if Mr. Tucker needs a letter from this Board to
follow up on his response to Mr. Sours.
Mr. Tucker said he will send the Board's message back to Mr. Sours. He
stated that he only brought this matter to the Supervisors' attention in case
they had different thoughts or wanted to address it in a different way.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 49)
0002 .
Next, Mr. Tucker mentioned an item which came up recently with the
Service Authority relative to a piece of property adjacent to Colthurst Farms
which is requesting a jurisdictional area amendment to allow water only to
this property. He said Mr. Cilimberg will point out the property to the
Supervisors and give a background on it. He informed Board members that all
they need to do at this meeting is send this matter to public hearing for
consideration of a jurisdictional area amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out Parcel Three which is the property just to the
north of Colthurst. He said one parcel to the west of the urban area has a
water line which was installed in the early 1970s. He noted that actually in
this installation the easement that was given for the water line included
language with the deed making a commitment to future water service for
properties along the line. He emphasized that there is similar language in
deeds along some other properties. The property owner of Parcel Three has
requested water service, but he has been advised that the only way for this to
happen is to actually take the property into the jurisdictional area, which is
a decision the Board of Supervisors will need to make. He noted that the
parcel is outside of the Urban Area. He remarked that it is a Rural Area
property, and there is water service to some of the surrounding properties.
There is also the somewhat unique condition of the deed and commitments in the
deed for future service. He pointed out that Mr. Davis feels these commit-
ments are not obligations to the County but are obligations to the Service
Authority, so this decision is fully within this Board's discretion. The
staff suggests moving to public hearing to consider the request which actually
went to the Service Authority and then was made to the County by the Service
Authority. He stated that the staff will put together information and have it
at the public hearing which can probably be targeted for the August day
meeting.
Mr. Davis added that the contract purchaser of this property wishes to
build a house, and this issue is holding up the closing of the property. He
has been advised that the property owner may want more than one connection for
this property because there are five development rights available. He stated
that the deed the Service Authority has with the property owner for the water
easement entitles the owner to connections, so the Service Authority's
obligation under the acquisition of the easement was to provide connections
upon demand. He said ultimately this property may want as many as five water
connections. He went on to say the owner may be satisfied to be granted one
connection for the time being, but he may well be back for more.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff was able to find one example of
somewhat similar circumstances occurring back in 1989 for a property named
Milburn, which also asked for service. He reported that the action of the
Board of Supervisors was to grant only one connection to the property,
although there was a resolution which would have granted jurisdictional area
to all properties under similar situations. The Board decided it did not want
to do that, and wanted to judge these on a case by case basis. He stated that
if this Board decides to make a jurisdictional change, the staff will recom-
mend that it only be for this particular connection, and anything else would
be new business for a later point in time.
Ms. Thomas asked if the request is to go to public hearing for one water
connection only, and if it is legal to hold the property to one connection.
Mr. Davis replied that in the Service Authority's jurisdictional determina-
tion, the Supervisors have placed conditions and limitations and can limit
this decision to one connection. The problem the Service Authority has is that
its contract with the property owner is for more than one connection.
Ms. Thomas then inquired as to how the Service Authority was involved
with a contract when the Supervisors have not yet designated a service area.
Mr. Davis responded that at the time these deeds and easements were acquired
in 1971, they were within a jurisdictional area.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that he believes the jurisdictional area was moved
in the early 1980s. Ms. Humphris explained that the easement was granted in
return for the right to connect during the 1980 change.
Mr. Marshall stated that the owners of such properties could sue the
County. Mr. Davis said the property owners could sue the Service Authority.
He stated that they have threatened to sue the County, but he does not think
the County has any liability from a legal standpoint. Mr. Marshall mentioned
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 50)
that there could be a liability, since the County owns the Service Authority.
Mr. Tucker said the County created the Service Authority.
Ms. Humphris commented that she believes the Board of Supervisors has to
go to public hearing, but the only questions she will be asking will relate to
precedent and where this will leave County officials in protecting the
watershed.
At this time, Mr. Marshall offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
set a public hearing for August 7, 1996, to amend the service area boundaries
of the Albemarle County Service Authority for a connection of water service
only to TM60-3, located adjacent to Colthurst Farms.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she keeps hearing how everybody has to prepare
for the year 2000 as far as computers are concerned. She asked if the County
staff is taking this into consideration. Mr. Tucker answered affirmatively.
Ms. Thomas then announced a meeting of the Finance Steering Committee of
VACo taking place on July 11, 1996 in the County Office Building at 10:00 a.m.
The Supervisors do not have to attend this meeting, but she wanted them to be
aware of it. Ms. Thomas informed Board members that at 11:00 a.m. at this
same meeting Mitch Van Yahres is going to discuss his proposal to have a piggy
back income tax in place of some portion of the real estate tax. However, she
said the Steering Committee members seem to be more interested in having it
replace property tax, if it replaces anything.
Ms. Humphris referred to communications from Ken Pederson requesting
that the E-911 address assigned to the residents of Timber Point be changed.
She asked if this matter was being handled automatically. Mr. Tucker answered
affirmatively.
Next, Ms. Humphris reported to the Board on the meeting of the Thomas
Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. She noted that she was sent
from this Board at the invitation of Ms. DiCroce, who is the Chairman of this
Partnership. She attended the meeting, and the discussion revolved around
marketing the area, as well as creating new investments, etc. She said it was
announced that interest had been shown from 20 companies, and there have been
seven site visits. She added that the Partnership's financial statement was
also presented as of June 15, as well as its budget, which were interesting.
The Partnership members discussed their vision statement.
Ms. Thomas asked why the Partnership's budget was interesting. Ms.
Humphris responded that one of her problems with this Partnership originally
was the amounts of money to be spent in different categories. There were
things she found interesting in different costs of copying as well as automo-
bile and travel costs. She commented that these things were interesting to
her, but maybe not to anybody else.
Ms. Humphris then thanked Mr. Tucker for the resolution the Board
requested, at its June 5 meeting, relating to the Route 29 Corridor Study.
Mr. Tucker informed Ms. Humphris that the Clerk's Office and the Planning
Office worked on this resolution. Ms. Humphris commented that it was well
done.
Ms. Humphris next mentioned the luncheon meeting of the Transportation
Subcommittee of the Senate Finance Committee when the Committee was traveling
through Charlottesville by train. She found out about this meeting the day
before, and she had to be in Richmond. She asked who represented the County
at this luncheon. Mr. Tucker answered that Ms. Roxanne White and Juan Wade
were able to attend the luncheon meeting.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 51)
000283
Ms. Humphris asked if there was anything this Board needed to know about
what took place at this meeting, and she got a negative response.
Ms. Humphris mentioned that she is happy to tell this Board that Money
Magazine ranked Charlottesville as one of the best places to live in America.
She said when she read the article, she found out that the City of Charlottes-
ville was not just being ranked, but it was the entire metropolitan statisti-
cal area where the City of Charlottesville resides. She noted that Albemarle
County is a large part of this metropolitan area, and she was sorry that when
it was announced, nobody seemed to recognize this fact. She remarked that
there were a lot of qualities on which the ratings were done such as weather,
crime, arts, economy, education, health, housing, leisure and transportation,
but mountains, vistas, open spaces and rural areas were not included. She
said, though, Albemarle provides all of this, and she is sure these things
were also considered. She stated that she regrets, when the kudos were taken,
that nobody acknowledged Albemarle County as a part of this whole ranking.
Ms. Humphris said she appreciated the opportunity to represent this
Board at the Torch Ceremony. She stated that Ms. Thomas and Mr. Tucker were
present there, and they all had a good time. Ms. Thomas wondered where the
torch would be placed. Mr. Tucker answered that it is currently in the
County's vault.
Ms. Humphris said she asked Mr. Tucker what she should do with the
torch, and he told her she could take it with her. She stated that she let
everybody she met on the way to her car hold it up and look at it. She said
people loved the opportunity to look at the torch and hold it.
Mr. Bowerman asked of what is the torch made. Ms. Humphris replied that
the part of the torch that is held in a person's hand is made of beautiful
Georgian pecan wood, and the rest of it is metal. The other areas are gold
plated such as the symbol of the 1996 Olympics, the olive branch, the quilt of
unity and the names of all the places where the games have been held. She
stated that it really is gorgeous. She took it to dinner that night, and the
next day she took it to the Albemarle Amateur Radio Club which was having its
field day operation at the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department, and every-
body had their picture taken with it. She added that she took it to her
Sunday activities, and finally she brought it to the County Office Building
and gave it to Mr. Tucker on Monday morning. She also recalled a wonderful
idea somebody gave her that it might be made available to the schools to be
used for various programs, as long as it is safeguarded. She said it seems to
her that when it is not in use, it should be kept in a case in the County
Office Building where it is visible, but safe.
Mr. Tucker responded that the staff is trying to determine the best way
to display the torch safely, but the idea of taking it to the schools when
fitness activities, field days and competitive events are taking place is also
being examined.
Ms. Thomas suggested taking the torch to the children who are in summer
school. Ms. Humphris agreed. The Torch Ceremony was a wonderful experience,
and a thrill.
Ms. Humphris informed Board members about the praise coming to Roxanne
White for her activities on the Virginia Local Government Management Associa-
tion. The Deputy City Manager of the City of Lynchburg, who is President of
this organization, wrote to Mr. Tucker and told him what an asset Ms. White
has been while serving as a member of the Young Professionals Task Force.
Mr. Tucker thanked Ms. Humphris for her comments. However, he mentioned
that when he went to congratulate Ms. White, she was shocked, because a
meeting of this group was never called.
Ms. Thomas stated that Amelia McCulley is President of a National
Association of Zoning Administrators, and she has just returned from such a
meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said Ms. McCulley is Treasurer of a State association,
but he didn't know she was involved nationally with anything.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 52)
000254
Ms. Humphris mentioned that she found part of the International Dark Sky
News Association's recent newsletter excellent for planning and zoning. She
said it was suggested that outdoor lighting be improved by certain methods and
a philosophy was suggested that the increasing of pink glow in the night sky
is evidence of energy being wasted needlessly. She stated that it was
suggested that light producing glare in the line of sight is blinding and a
safety hazard, and security lighting should be kept within the intended
property area. She added that the article indicated that if these policies
were in force, it would go a long way in protecting the night sky. The
suggestion was also made to phase out all existing public lighting fixtures
which shine light upward into the sky where it serves no useful purpose, and
where it creates a glare in the line of sight and intrudes into private
properties and households. These are simple things, but if they could be
achieved, it would do a lot for neighborhoods and the dark sky.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the staff is working on gathering some
options in response to this Board's request of a couple of months ago. He
said Mr. Davis has done some research relating to enabling legislation, etc.,
and he has been helpful in providing the staff members a position from which
they can develop some regulations. He stated that it may take the next step
from the General Assembly to do a lot more, but all of this information will
be brought back to this Board within the next month and a half.
Ms. Humphris then mentioned a letter from Gordon Walker relating to a
~Tax Work Off" idea for retired citizens 60 years old or older who own
property. She said Mr. Walker referred to a plan in effect in Union County,
North Carolina where retired citizens can earn credit toward real estate
taxes. She recalled the time about four years ago when she had requested the
Board to spend some time working with her on some ideas for volunteer and
senior citizens programs. She understands this is not volunteer, but there
are some roadblocks about this program being possible. She couldn't figure
out how this would be any different from somebody applying for and getting a
job, because it seemed to her that the County has salary paying jobs that are
available and could be used in this way. She added that she was baffled even
reading Union County's brochure as to how this could operate.
Mr. Davis remarked that it appears Union County hires people as employ-
ees, and somehow their wages are applied to their taxes. He said Virginia has
no enabling legislation for this. He stated that Albemarle County could
certainly create jobs for which senior citizens could apply~ but he does not
think the job market could be exclusively limited to senior citizens. They
would have to compete with anyone else who is qualified for the job. He
pointed out that the senior citizens could then pay their taxes with the money
they earned, but he does not think they could be required to pay their taxes
with this money. He added that this does not easily fit within Albemarle
County's scheme of enabling authority.
Mr. Tucker noted that even if there was enabling authority, it seems
Union County could run into the problem of being discriminatory in terms of
hiring.
Ms. Humphris referred to the brochure from Union County which mentioned
things such as stuffing envelopes, alphabetizing and answering the telephone
etc., which young people would like to do, before they develop job skills.
She could not figure out how Albemarle County could make a niche for this type
of proposition.
Mr. Tucker stated that this information should not have been sent to
this Board first but, instead, it should be sent to the legislators because
there is 'no enabling legislation. The legislators can then examine the issue,
decide if it is a good idea, and figure out how it can be done. He pointed
out that there must be enabling legislation already in North Carolina.
Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker to respond to Mr. Walker at JABA to this
effect.
Ms. Thomas inquired if anybody else is going to the Housing Conference
on July 8 in Farmville.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 53)
Mr. Tucker answered that the Housing Coordinator, Ms. McDonald, probably
is going to go. He suggested to Ms. Thomas that she send Ms. McDonald an E-
mail message relative to this matter.
Ms. Humphris then mentioned a telephone message from Ron Keeney,
President of the Squirrel Ridge Neighborhood Association, which came in while
the Supervisors were in executive session. This message indicates that the
residents of Squirrel Ridge are outraged that the Board of Supervisors would
pass a planned resolution about Squirrel Ridge without it having been on the
agenda and without consulting and advising the residents of their intention or
giving them an opportunity to speak to the Board regarding such resolution.
She stated that she can understand people being upset, but this was not new
business. She said it was a continuous restatement of the Supervisors' past
position which they felt they needed to reiterate because VDOT officials
didn't seem to be listening to them. She added that she is sure all of the
Board members read very carefully the letters coming from the Squirrel Ridge
residents. She noted that she and Mr. Bowerman have met with some of them,
and she has had a long conversation with Hannah Twaddell, an MPO staff person
who has been dealing with the situation through the MPO and with VDOT repre-
sentatives. Ms. Humphris said she feels this was not a situation in which the
Supervisors had any intention of having a public hearing or anything like
that. She said it was simply to try to get VDOT's attention.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that this was a bankrupt concept being brought
back up by VDOT representatives through the back door with the Neighborhood
Association, and it did not involve him or anybody else. He noted that it
proposed a concept to put 30 percent more traffic on Hydraulic and Rio Roads,
which was against the best interest of the community. There is no way he is
going to change his position on his feelings about an interchange at this
location, because it is counter to the general interests of this community.
Ms. Humphris stated that this concept was not before the Supervisors for
any decision making at all, because they had no decision to make. She pointed
out that the only thing the Supervisors can do is reiterate their very
strongly felt position, which is what they did.
Mr. Tucker referred to Ms. Thomas' earlier comments as far as some other
way rights-of-way could be obtained for run-off control or anything else which
might help Squirrel Ridge. He noted that he did not think this Board would be
opposed to anything such as this. However, he emphasized that the Supervisors
are not in favor of an interchange, and this is the issue.
Ms. Thomas remarked that the earlier discussion mentioned that VDOT
officials were very firmly talking about taking only those houses which had
already been taken. However, she noted that VDOT representatives walked into
the Squirrel Ridge meeting indicating they were not going to take those
houses, but they were going to take houses out of the middle of the subdivi-
sion where it would be the most damaging to the community. She said residents
were told that if they didn't like this concept, they could get upset with
their Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bowerman commented that the problems with this situation were caused
by VDOT and not this Board. Ms. Thomas agreed. She said now VDOT representa-
tives have gone back to the concept of taking just those certain houses, which
is what the residents thought was going to be done all along. She stated that
she thinks there has been an improvement in Squirrel Ridge's situation, and
she understands the residents are able to live with this concept.
Mr. Bowerman stated that Chief Engineer Broder sent a letter to Ms.
Humphris indicating they were going back to the original concept and the
original alignment on which the hardship houses had been bought, and this was
the end of it. This other issue should never have been brought up, because
nobody asked the VDOT representatives to do so. He added that this Board did
not ask them to bring up the other issue, nor to talk to Squirrel Ridge
residents, and it was totally their doing. To try to put this Board in the
middle of the situation is wrong and corrupt.
Ms. Thomas pointed out that Mr. Bowerman should feel good that he was
being responsive with a planned resolution. Mr. Bowerman stated that he does
not believe the criticism directed to this Board from Squirrel Ridge is
warranted. Ms. Thomas agreed that it is not.
July 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 54)
0002 6
Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. With no further business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
~proved
by Board
Date ~1~;9~
Initials
Chairman ~ --