1986-04-094 8'2
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 9, 1986, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room ~7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that Mrs. Cooke would not be present at the meeting. He
also announced that Mr. Agnor would not be at the meeting due to the death of his father
early this morning.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the items on
the Consent Agenda as information. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item 4.1. Letter dated March 18, 1.986, from Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation accepting Bobwhite Court into the State Secondary System; received as information.
"As requested in your resolution dated December 18, 1985, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective March 17, 1986.
ADDITION LENGTH
WHIPPOORWILL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION
Route 1617 (Bobwhite Court) - From Route 1616 to
West cul-de-sac
0.10 Mi."
Item 4.2. Letter dated March 7, 1986, from Mr. W. L. Bower, Culpeper District Engineer,
enclosing copy of Recreational Access law, policy and procedure; received as information.
Item 4.3. Copies of Superintendent's memorandums, State Department of Education, dated
March 12, 1986, as follows (received for information and on file in the Clerk's office):
No. 4. Aid to Localities Appropriation 1985-86;
Report on General Assembly Actions affecting 1985-86 budgets.
No. 5. Aid to Localities Appropriation 1986-87.
No.76.? Aid to Localities Appropriation 1987-88.
No Guidelines for Receipt of State 1987-88 Transitional Personnel
Payments by Local School Division.
Item 4.4.
Apartments.
Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for February, 1986, for Arbor Crest
Item 4.5.
Insurance.
Memorandum dated March 28, 1986, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, on Liability
"Up until March 15, 1986, the state insured all sheriffs, deputies, correc-
tional officers, etc. funded under the State. Compensation Board through a
single policy with Markel Insurance Service. When the state requested bids
on the renewal of the coverage, they received no bids, and the policy with
Markel expired .on March 15, 1986.
There were several bills passed by the General Assembly on 'Self-Insurance
Pool' One of these bills, Senate Bill 337, allowed the State Division of
Risk Management to create a self-insurance pool through the creation of a
trust fund. Since the General Assembly was still in session when the state
got notice of the expiration date, the bill was made effective immediately.
On March 13, I attended a meeting sponsored by the Virginia Association of
Counties (VACO), in which the director of the State Risk Management Division
explained the problem, and the proposed self-insurance pool being created to
provide coverage to localities retroactive to March 15, 1986. The plan was
signed by the Governor last week. Some of the provisions of the self-
insurance plan are as follows:
1)
2)
The limits of policy are $50.0,000 coverage.
There is no deductible.
April 9, 1986 (RegUlar Day Meeting)
483
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
The plan has to stand alone - does not have the full faith and
credit of the state behind it.
The State Compensation Board paid $750,000 into the trust fund to
get it started.
'Moonlighting' by officers is not covered unless the services are
contracted to the locality and payments for services made directly
to the locality.
Police Departments are not covered under the plan at this time.
Coverages are expected to expand from $500,000 limit to $1 million
in July, 1986.
The overhead costs which are approximately 30 percent with a
private insurance company will be provided initially by the state.
The State Division of Risk Management expects to expand its
manpower and extend its self-insurance pool coverage to other
forms of liability in the future.
All legal defense will be provided by the plan.
Staff will keep you posted on further developments in the future regarding
self-insurance."
Mr. Bowie asked if a self-insurance pool would impact on the County's budget favorably.
Mr. Jones responded that it would not impact favorably at this time, but ultimately there
should be additional coverage to the localities. When this happens, there should be some
savings. He said the target date for setting up an insurance company is July 1.
Item 4.6.
information.
A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for March 25, 1986, was received as
Item 4.7. Letter from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Council of Garden Clubs enclosing
certificate recognizing landscaping at County Office Building - Award. Received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.8. A copy of the Columbia Gas System Annual Report 1985, received and on file in
the Clerk's office.
Agenda~Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:
September 18 and October 2 (Night), 1985.
October 10, 1984; April 10, September 11,
Mr. Bowie indicated that he had read the first 15 pages of the April 10 meeting. He
mentioned that on the first page, Item 24.4, he had asked a question about the Consent Agenda
concerning building permits. He then added the following sentence: "Mr. Agnor said that was
the basis of the budget preparation." On Page Three, Mr. Bowie pointed out a very minor
typographical error. Other than these corrections, Mr. Bowie finds the minutes satisfactory..
Mr. Fisher said he had read pages 18 through 38 of September 11, 1985, that were as-
signed to him, and other than a few typographical errors, they were correct.
Mr. Henley said that he had read the minutes of September 18 and October 2, 1985, that
were assigned to him, and they seemed to be in order, except for the last paragraph. On
page 6 of October 2, the third sentence should read: "Mr. Fisher asked how the Board can
insure that there .... "
Mr. Bowie made a motion to approve the portions of the minutes that have been read and
reported, and Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Not Docketed: Mr. Horne introduced a new member of his staff to the Board. He said
that Mr. Wayne Cilimberg is the new Chief of Community Development. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Cilimberg where he is from, and Mr. Cilimberg responded that he came to Charlottesville from
Culpeper, but he is originally from Richmond. Mr. Fisher Welcomed Mr. Cilimberg to the
staff.
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters:
Six-Year Primary Road Plan.
Planning Commission Recommendations on the
The following memorandum dated March 31, 1986, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development, was received for the record:
"The Planning Commission reviewed the Six Year Primary Road Improvement Plan
on March 25, 1986, and would like to submit the following recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors (with wording appropriate for a statement to the
Highway Commission) should the Board take a poisition at the April 11
Preallocation Hearing:
Route 29 North. The Board of Supervisors endorses the concept of
accelerated funding on Route 29 North. The Board believes that the
evaluation and/or endorsement of a specific design for Route 29 North
should be coordinated with, and supported by, the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) and the Board of Supervisors.
484
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 3)
e
Free Bridge. The Board of Supervisors requests that funding be includ-
ed in the current Six Year Plan to begin designs for the Free Bridge
project. (Note: The Planning Commission does feel that the Board may
wish to weigh the relative merits of this project versus additional
expansion on Route 29 North.)
Fontaine Avenue. The Commission recommends that the Board not request
any funding on this project at this time due to the uncertainty as to
the actual development which will take place on this property."
Mr. Horne told the Board members that they are in receipt of the memorandum from him
giving the Planning Commission's recommendations on the Six Year Primary Road Improvement
Plan. The Board was also provided with the staff report provided to the Commission. (Mr.
St. John left at 9:22 A.M.) Mr. Horne said the staff has received a set of preliminary plans
from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation on the Route 29 North project and
has been able to do a very brief review of some of the details. The staff did not, however,
change the recommendation because it feels that there has not been adequate time provided to
review the actual cost and benefits of the newest proposal. The staff does not feel that
either the Commission or Board has the information necessary to endorse a specific design.
Mr. Horne said improvements on Route 29 North include the bridge and approaches on the
southbound lane and a widening to six lanes of not only the area between Rio and Hydraulic
Roads, but also a project for the widening to six lanes from that point to the South Fork
Rivanna River bridge. There are no other projects in the current Six Year Primary Road plan
for Albemarle County. Mr. Horne said that included with the information sent to the Board is
a copy of the adopted CATS plan which shows improvements to Route 29 for the six lanes
between Hydraulic and the River as a Phase One project and the current proposal for the
interchange at Rio Road is shown as a Phase Three project.
Mr. Lindstrom said the materials furnished the Board this date continue to show a
Western Bypass and the connector road through Key West. Both of these ideas have been
eliminated from the plan. Mr. Horne explained that when the CATS Plan is printed later this
year those projects will be eliminated from the list. Mr. Tucker assured Board members that
the things that have been eliminated from the Six Year Primary Road Plan will not be on the
list when the CATS Plan is printed. He apologized for alarming the Board members unneces-
sarily.
Mr. Fisher told Board members that the Preallocation Hearing is scheduled for Friday in
Culpeper. Mr. Tucker prepared a draft statement for the Board to consider today. He asked
Mr. Tucker to tell the Board what is in the statement.
Mr. Tucker said the statement basically mirrors what was presented to the Commission a
year ago. Free Bridge (Route 250 East) is also mentioned, and the fact that it is a high
priority item for the County and should be considered as an addition to the Six Year Plan for
this area. Mr. Tucker pointed out that MPO coordination is new this year. One thing not
included, but that probably should be, he said, is the improvement of Route 250 East from the
bridge to its intersection with Route 20 North. Mr. Bowie said he would like to have im-
provement of Route 250 East added to the statement. He thought it might be wise to mention
widening Route 250 East beyond the intersection of Route 20 North. He thinks the Board
should recommend that ultimately Route 250 East be widened all the way to the 1-64 Inter-
change. He said he would like to go to the Culpeper hearing and believes that the presenta-
tion would be more forceful if there were two or three presentors. He suggested that each
presentor speak on a different recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department knows to what extent federal funding will
be used for improvements on Route 29 North. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer,
answered that it is the Highway Department's intent to use all federal funds that are avail-
able. He is not sure, however, what percentage will be federally funded. He said the Route
29 North improvements are eligible for urban funds as well as primary funds.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is correct, with respect to the improvements on Route 29 North
being coordinated through the MPO, that receipt of federal funds is contingent upon their
being spent consistent with a locally adopted plan, or is approval based upon a plan approved
by the MPO in metropolitan areas. Mr. Roosevelt said that is his understanding. However, he
believes lawyers will have to be involved in this decision, rather than engineers. He thinks
the work must be consistent with the ultimate plan adopted by the MPO, but he is not sure if
the requirement extends to the phasing of the plan.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that he was not aware that any eight-lane segment for Route 29
North was part of any plan. He thought the Route 29 North plan called for a six-lane cross
section all the way to the South Fork Rivanna. He knows that the Highway Department present-
ed the Board with some eight-lane scenarios, but they were not recommended by the Department,
and the Board never adopted any of them. Mr. Lindstrom went on to say that Mr. Jeffries had
mentioned at an MPO meeting that the eight-laning was part of the MPO adopted plan, but Mr.
Lindstrom believes that it is not. Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Lindstrom may be right, but
it would be wise to check with the MPO to see what has really been adopted.
Mr. Lindstrom said it may not be legally required, but it certainly is appropriate and
consistent with the Board's policy, that the eight-lane segment be reviewed and coordinated
through the MPO. Mr. Lindstrom does not believe that it is part of any adopted plan. He
personally does not have any objection to it. He knows there is strong sentiment that the
Board needs to be involved and since the Board has not formally looked at any eight-lane
plan, he thinks that the County, City and the MPO should have a chance to study it without
endorsing it.
Mr. Fisher said the first paragraph in the statement should be augmented. It seems as
though the section of Route 29 North in question should at least be identified. He said the
paragraph requests that there be assurance given that the Board have input into the planning
of the project, but he thinks the Board needs to be more positive. Mr. Lindstrom stated that
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
PJ~e 4)
485
the section of Route 29 North referred to is the section from the Route 250 Bypass in the
City to the South Fork Rivanna River bridge. That is where most of the concerns are concen-
trated.
Mr. Fisher then asked if it is the pleasure of the Board to have this statement pre-
sented to the Virginia Highway Department with these amendments. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion
to this effect, and Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher thanked the staff for having this statement ready for the Board to endorse.
He said it helped the Board a great deal. He then stated that Mr. Bowie had volunteered to
go to the hearing and present the statement, and he asked if anyone else could go with him.
Mr. Lindstrom volunteered to accompany Mr. Bowie to the hearing. (Mr. St. John returned at
9:32 A.M.)
Mr. Horne commented that the staff has several pages of detailed comments on the eight
lane proposal for Route 29 North. He asked if the Board is intending that these comments be
presented to the MPO as opposed to presenting them directly to the Board at some point. Mr.
Lindstrom suggested that the comments be presented to the Board, and then the Board will have
some basis on which to instruct its representatives serving on the MPO. Mr. Horne said that
he will prepare a memorandum for the Board with these detailed comments.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Work Session: Six-Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. Horne said that the Board is in receipt of a memorandum attached to a staff report,
as well as a number of other items, related to this agenda item. He explained that this is a
work session to establish the 1985-1991 Six Year Secondary Road Plan to be presented for
public hearing. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission has been involved in the preparation
of the Six Year Plan this year. The Commission conducted three work sessions. He said that
the Commissions's recommended priority list is somewhat different than the priority list
initially recommended by Mr. Roosevelt. The two lists follow. The abbreviations after some
of the items are defined as follows: Federal Aid Rural Secondary (FAS); Hazard Elimination
Secondary (HES); and Bridge Replacement Rural Secondary (BR-RS); Bridge Replacement Secondary
Off System (BR-SOS); and Railroad Highway Crossing (RR).
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
Recommended Priority List
Planning Commission
Recommendation
1. Hydraulic Rd from Rt 29 to Whitewood Rd (complete) (1)
2a. Meadow Creek Parkway - roadway (FAS) (22)**
2b. Meadow Creek Parkway - bridge (BR-RS) (22)*~
3. Route 671 unpaved road (complete) (11)
4. County-wide: pipes, signs, etc. (20) *
5. Hatton Ferry (21)
6. Route 618 unpaved road (12)
7. Route 640 unpaved road (13)
8. Route 664 unpaved road (14)
9. Route 622 unpaved road (15)
10. Route 643 unpaved road (16)
11. Route 686 unpaved road (17)
12. Route 727 unpaved road (18)
13. Route 652 unpaved road (19)
14. Route 729 bridge over Buck Island Creek (BR-SOS) (9)
15. Route 678 bridge over Mechum River (BR-SOS) (10)
16. Route 627 bridge over Ballinger Creek (BR-SOS) (-)
17. County-wide: new plant mix (20)*
18. Rio Road at SPCA Rd (HES) (2)
19. Rio Road at Agnese St (HES) (3)
20. Route 671 bridge over Moormans River (BR-SOS) (23)
21. Route 601 underpass at Rt 250 WeSt (RR) (-)
22. Rio Road at Greenbrier St (HES) (6)
23. Route 777 unpaved road (29)
24. Route 693 unpaved road (30)
25. Hydraulic Road 4-lane from Rio Rd to Rt 29 (FAS) (24)
26. Route 631 (Stagecoach Road) 4-lane to Rt. 780 (25)
(Old Lynchburg Road) (FAS)
27. Barracks Road at Georgetown Rd (HES)
28. Route 682 C&0 Railway Crossing (RR)
29. Route 603 bridge over Lynch River (BR-SOS)
30. Route 679 C&0 Railway Crossing (RR)
31. Route 743 bridge over North Fork Rivanna River
32. Georgetown Road various turn lanes (HES)
33. Rio Road at Pen Park Rd (HES)
34. Route 633 bridge over Jumping Creek (BR-SOS)
35. Route 625 C&0 Railway crossing (RR)
36. Barracks Road - West Park Dr to Georgetown Rd. (FAS)
37. Rio Road 4-lane from Rt 29 to Rt 650 (FAS)
38. Rio Road 4~lane from Rt 29 to Rt 1743 (FAS)
39. Airport Road 4-lane from Rt 29 to Rt 606 (FAS)
(4)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(7)
(5)
(-)
(-)
(-)
(26)
(27)
(-)
(8) 01d Lynchburg Road, to replace
two short, narrow bridges
(28) Route 60] bridge over Buck Mtn Creek
(31) Route 660 bridge over Rivanna River
486
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Horne brought to the attention of the Board that the Meadow Creek Parkway bridge and
road projects appear as Project Number 22 on the Commission's list. The Commission felt that
there were some smaller projects that could be accomplished during a short period of time
without significantly affecting the funding of the Meadow Creek Parkway project. He said
that Projects Two through Eight are a series of small hazard elimination projects which the
Commission felt could make a significant difference on those roadways. Mr. Horne pointed out
that a lot of the projects are concentrated on Rio Road at various intersections. These
projects will not have to go through a long period of planning or accumulation of funds and
can be done quickly.
Mr. Horne said that at the final Work session with the Planning Commission, Mr.
Roosevelt estimated that the funding on Meadow Creek Parkway could be delayed approximately
six months. The Plahning Commission also recommends that only the minimum amount required by
State law be spent on unpaved road projects with the addition of Projects 29 and 30. These
two projects come under existing County policy concerning donation of rights-of-way. The
Commission felt that if the rights-of-way are available, these two projects should receive
funding. In terms of Projects 20 and 21, it became apparent that for the efficient function-
ing of the Residency the two projects should be allowed to be funded at the discretion of the
Resident Highway Engineer. New plant mix involves pavement overlays on various projects at
the discretion of the Residency. The Commission did not take any action to change the
priority numbers, but Mr. Roosevelt has the authority to place these projects on the list so
that adequate funding is provided for these two categories. He said it is uncertain whether
funding will be available if the projects are left at Numbers 20 and 21.
Mr. Horne said the information given to the Board is a summary of the very extensive
information provided to the Commission at its work sessions. He pointed out that the Board
was provided a list of the funding categories and rough estimates of the amount of funding
available.
Mr. Fisher inquired as to why Route 250 West and Old Ivy Road are not on this list. Mr.
Horne explained that Route 250 is a primary road. He said there were some bridge improve-
ments on the initial list for Old Ivy Road in terms of the railroad underpass, but that
project is not on this list yet.
Starting with Number 11, Mr. Horne said, most of these unpaved road projects are in the
current plan. If these projects are completed, he said, it would expend the minimum amount
required to be spent for unpaved roads from secondary road monies. He said there is another
list of projects that could be funded, but the Commission looked at all of the priorities for
secondary funding and came to the conclusion that no more than the minimum amount should be
included because there are major projects around the urban areas of the County that need to
be funded.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to briefly identify the unpaved roads projects, especially in
the Scottsville District. Mr. Horne said Project Number 12 is a section of Route 618 between
Routes 729 and 620 and will involve paving of the existing unpaved portion of that roadway.
It is in the current plan, and the cost estimate is approximately $400,000. Project Number
15 is on Route 622 between Route 618 and the Fluvanna County line, and it is in the current
plan. Project Number 18 is on Route 727 between Routes 627 and 795. The cost estimate for
this project is approximately $1.1 million. Mr. Way inquired if this is the project that was
shown in a slide presentation to the Board, and Mr. Horne answered, "yes."
Mr. Henley asked if there were any unpaved road projects in his district, and Mr. Horne
responded that Project Number 11 on Route 671 is in Mr. Henley's district, and the cost
estimate for this project is $261,000.
Mr. Horne said the Hatton Ferry is Project Number 21. The Commission was not extremely
interested in this project, but felt that the Board wanted to keep this project in the plan.
Mr. Way questioned the amount of $60,000 for the Hatton Ferry, and Mr. Horne responded that
the operation of the Ferry amounts to $10,000 a year. Mr. Horne then asked Mr. Roosevelt if
$60,000 is the right amount of money for this project and wondered if this included the
rebuilding of the Ferry. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the rebuilding of the Hatton Ferry is
being done with flood relief funds.
Project Number 24 involves Hydraulic Road between Whitewood and Rio Roads, and runs from
the end of the existing project to the Rock Store. Mr. Horne stated that it is being con-
structed to the standard of the project on Rio Road. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Board
discussed Project Number 24 a few years ago and decided that because that portion of the road
is on the ridge line and partly in the South Fork Rivanna watershed that support of that
improvement had been withdrawn. He asked where Project Number 24 had come from. Mr. Horne
answered that the Hydraulic Road improvement came from a long list of items that was obtained
from the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought this project was discussed when
the Board was considering all of the improvements on Hydraulic Road. He believes the Board
took action several years ago to delete the project from consideration. Mr. Fisher said he
has some questions as to the priority of Project Number 24. He said it is a big project, and
it is questionable if it should be done so quickly behind the Meadow Creek Parkway project.
Mr. Lindstrom said part of the concern at that time was due to a Comprehensive Plan
amendment deleting land to the west of that road from the urban area. He said the necessity
for this upgrading related to increased, as well as existing, development in that area. Now
there is pressure because of development on Stagecoach Road/Old Lynchburg Road. Mr.
Lindstrom pointed out that the Board should reconsider its recommendation relating to the
watershed issue and how the change of plan is going to impact the need for the road, as well
as the changed emphasis to the southern part of the urban area.
Mr. Horne explained that Project Number 25 is a realignment of the upper portion of
Stagecoach Road. He said there are various ways that this project can be handled. The
Commission was looking at an initial project from the 1-64 interchange to near the intersec-
tion of Old Lynchburg Road as the first part. The project could, however, be extended
farther south.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
487
The next project that Mr. Horne discussed was Rio Road between Route 29 and the Meadow
Creek Parkway connection. Mr. Fisher inquired if Project Number 25 will really extend to
Route 29, or will it stop in the proximity of the Bonanza Restaurant. Mr. Horne said he is
not sure where the project will end, but at some point it will get into an already improved
area. He said it will depend on the design of the new project.
The next portion of Rio Road is between Route 29 and Hydraulic Road. He explained that
it is the area that leaves Route 29 North and goes past the SPCA Road to the Rock Store on
Hydraulic Road. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if this section of road is to be four-laned.
Mr. Roosevelt answered that it is a four-lane, undivided roadway after the Route 29 intersec-
tion.
Projects Numbered 29 and 30 are two unpaved road projects. Mr. Horne mentioned again
that the rights-of-way for these roads are available. He said that the Commission, in a
general sense, did not want to spend more than the minimum amount available for unpaved
roads, but the rights-of-way have been obtained for these two projects, and the Commission
felt that they should be included in the Six Year Plan.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he has any difference of opinion with the Planning
Commission's recommendations. Mr. Roosevelt answered that VDH&T is in the process of devel-
oping a list of priorities which will meet or exceed all anticipated funding over the next
six years. That list will include enough projects to qualify for the unpaved road funds that
were set aside by the State Legislature to qualify for anticipated federal aid over these six
years. He stated that this plan, as presented, does that, and from that point of view, he
has no problem.
Mr. Horne said that putting the Meadow Creek Parkway project down toward the end of the
plan will delay its financing for approximately six months. He does not believe that this
will affect the advertisement date for that project. He mentioned that the preliminary
engineering process will determine when this project will be ready for construction and not
the funding. As far as the unpaved roads are concerned, the road projects included in this
plan will use the $2.4 million that has to be used over the six-year period for unpaved
roads. Mr. Roosevelt has put together a financial plan based upon the priorities as set by
the Planning Commission, and it appears to him that this figure will be closer to $2.8
million. Since the major project on Route 727 will cost $1.1 million and is currently the
last priority of those nine unpaved road projects, Mr. Roosevelt feels that to reduce this
figure below $2.4 million would mean that this project would have to be eliminated, or some
other project dropped at the time of advertising this project. His recommendation is to
continue with the unpaved road projects as they are shown in the recommended plan.
Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Horne had emphasized that the County-wide item, which is
shown as Priority 20, included County-wide funds for paving with plant mix on roads that are
already surfaced. In Mr. Roosevelt's attempt to develop a financial plan and to keep other
projects on schedule, he has had to eliminate any funds from the County-wide item for plant
mix paving. He said, however, it is still an option that could be considered in the future,
but in order to get the other projects done, he thinks that any major use of plant mix to
improve the County's roads will have to be deleted.
Mr. Lindstrom said his concerns with the plan are with Items 24 and 27. He thought the
Board had deleted these items because both of these projects would potentially impact the
watershed area and could stimulate a pattern of development that is inconsistent with the
current plan. He pointed out that all of the land west of these roads lies in the Rural
Areas district. Even though the funding is purely theoretical after Item Number 23, he
thinks to adopt a plan that is inconsistent with current planning is a mistake. At the
least, he thinks these two items should be taken out of the plan and considered separately.
He believes that the Board should be investigating the improvement to the road systems in the
southern part of the urban area and possibly to the east where the County would like to
encourage more growth. He feels that there are critical road problems in the Crozet area,
and he is concerned about concentrating what is projected at this point to be more than a
$4.0 million expense in an area that the County's planning indicates should not have that
much additional growth.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board members if they wanted to advertise for a public hearing with
the recommended list, or if they wanted to drop Items 24 and 27. Mr. Lindstrom stated that
he would like to drop Items 24 and 27 before the public hearing. He pointed out that the
plan is reviewed every year, and eliminating the projects so that they can be studied further
will not make any difference to the funding. Mr. Fisher commented that if these projects are
dropped, it may make money available in future years for different road projects. Mr. Bowie
asked if the two projects could be deleted after the public hearing and after the Board has
received some background information.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned because he believes the Board has already deleted the
projects and that they are inconsistent with current planning. He said that when the
projects are included with the planned list, it is an endorsement by the Board of the con-
cept. He cannot endorse the concept. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adver-
tise for public hearing the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Six-Year Secondary
Road Plan, with the deletion of Item Numbers 24 and 27. He then commented that he was not
sure exactly how the funding should be rearranged since there is no funding at this~time for
the projects listed after Item Number 23. Mr. Fisher explained that Mr. Lindstrom's motion
will only change priorities beyond the six year period. Mr. Way then seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher, after checking with the Clerk and Mr. Roosevelt, suggested that the public
hearing be held on May 21, 1986. Mr. Way offered motion to set a public hearing for May 21,
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Me~eting)
(Page 7)
1986. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 6c.
Highway System.
Highway Matters:
1986 Road Study of Roads Never Taken into the
Mr. Tucker explained that this study was presented to the Supervisors several weeks ago
by the former County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod. Mr. Tucker said there are 20 roads on the
list that were originally intended to be public roads, but were never taken into the system.
This report deals with 14 roads were rights-of-way have been dedicated and roads which are
being used and serve existing homes or businesses. Mr. Tucker added that the roads are
eligible for state acceptance from a use standpoint, but they do not necessarily meet speci-
fications for construction standards. He also mentioned that bonds for the roads do not
exist.
Mr. Tucker said that more than half of these 14 roads were in existence in 1968 prior to
any formal requirements accepting bonds. The other roads were partially developed but did
not have adequate use to bring them into the State system, or a decision was made that they
would remain privately maintained. The report identifies four roads as Priority One items.
The total expenditure for those Priority One roads is $60,000.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Priority Two roads involve projects that may be more expen-
sive to bring up to state standards because there are not as many homes being served at
present and there may be some vacant lots still existing. There are $50,000 worth of needs
in Priority Two. There are six Priority Three roads. Mr. Tucker said that these roads are
in a state of disrepair or have not been actively pursued by the owners along the roadways
for state maintenance. To bring the six roads in Priority Three up to state standards would
cost $170,000.
The total cost estimate for all of the 14 roads is approximately $280,000. Mr. Tucker
suggested that the Board view these recommendations and consider making one of the following
decisions: (1) decide to allocate funds to improve the road for state maintenance or, (2)
decide to instruct staff to assist the lot owners to implement a maintenance agreement and
then vacate the existing right-of-way to public use. Mr. Tucker said this would settle the
matter for some roads and would mean that they would either be in the state system or main-
tained privately.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks a mistake was made when there was a bonding procedure, and
for some reason the bond released without the road being taken into the state system. He
would like to learn more about the situation. He then asked Mr. Tucker to discuss the
Priority One roads.
Mr. Tucker said Dunromin Road is in Clearview Meadows Subdivision and there are seven
lots served by the road. Only four homes have been constructed thus far and approximately
$6,000 is the County Engineer's estimate for construction and engineering costs to bring the
road into the system.
North Berkshire Road is in the Oak Terrace Subdivision, and Mr. Tucker stated that it
will cost approximately $2,000 to bring this road into the state system. Mr. Fisher asked
how many lots are involved. Mr. Tucker answered that basically North Berkshire Road is a
connector road. He said it appears that there are only four lots that would have access to
this particular road. The other lots have access on other roads that are already in the
system.
Mr. Tucker then discussed Peyton Drive and said that it is a connector road between
Greenbrier Drive and Commonwealth Drive. This road existed prior to 1968. Mr. Tucker
indicated that there have been discussions with property owners who may wish to develop
property that is contiguous to Peyton Drive, and it is possible that at some time in the
future the road could be taken into the system or at least some funding contributed as
development occurs on that property. The cost is estimated at $32,000 for that particular
road.
The last road in Priority One is Milton Drive in Milton Heights Subdivision. Mr. Tucker
informed the Board that there are 13 lots served by this road, with 11 homes existing. The
estimate is $20,000 to bring Milton Drive into the state system.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are some people in the audience this morning who are concerned
about Dunromin Road. He pointed out that this road was bonded, but the bond was released
before the road was brought into the system. These people have been promised by the Engi-
neering Office that this road is at the top of the list for improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said
if there are a number of roads in this same situation, he thinks the Board needs to look at
the dimensions of the problem. If the Board does anything about these roads, it should be
done fairly and in a way that does not set a precedent. Mr. Lindstrom feels strongly that
the County has a responsibility to the people who live on these roads and who depended on the
fact that the roads were bonded and would eventually be state-maintained. He thinks that the
County needs to help these people do whatever is necessary to get the roads into the system.
Mr. W. R. Del Prete said he has lived on Dunromin Road since 1979. When the road was
originally built, it was built to highway standards, and the property owners were told that
it was bonded, and it would be accepted into the state system. He and the other homeowners
understand that bureaucracy is a slow process, but they made numerous calls and were told by
various people that the matter would be looked into, and the homeowners would be advised.
The homeowners were not advised, but eventually Mr. Elrod was very helpful. Mr. Del Prete
stated that the road is constantly deteriorating, and heavy equipment is being parked on
April 9; 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
489
Dunromin Road by Centel and construction companies. He also mentioned that people park on
the road and throw garbage. He does not think that the homeowners should be penalized
because the bonding was released, and he suggested to the Board that the road be brought back
to the same condition that it was in when it was first built and that it be accepted into the
system. He does not believe that the homeowners should be assessed for this repair. He
indicated that the homeowners did everything to meet the state requirements, and he feels
that the County "dropped the ball" by releasing the bond. Therefore, he asked that the Board
consider taking the road into the system, repairing it to its original condition and making
the homeowners happy.
Mr. Fisher commented that the Board has, over a 'number of years, made some changes in
its policy and in some cases has accepted the responsibility for absorbing half of the costs
to bring a roadway into the state system. In this kind of situation, the homeowners would
pay half of the costs, and that amount would be matched by the County as an inducement to get
the people to work together and raise the funds. In a circumstance where a bond actually
existed, and the County let it go, if this is what really happened, he has a different
opinion about the public's responsibility to private property owners. He would like to find
out in which instances the bonds were actually released. He asked Mr. Tucker if the records
are clear enough for this to be established. Mr. Tucker answered that if bonds were released
for certain roads, that fact could be found in the records.
At this time, Mr. St. John pointed out that, under State law, once a road has been
certified as being completed according to approved plans, the County must give back at least
90 percent of the bond. The County cannot hold the bond any longer. He went on to say that
the fact that the road is completed according to plans does not mean that it will be taken
into the system. For example, he said, if three houses have not been built and occupied, the
road cannot get in the system, and in the process of building houses, construction trucks
drive over the road and ruin it. Sometimes the road must nearly be re-built almost over
again, but only ten percent of the original bond can be held by law. Releasing the bond does
not relieve the developer from the obligation to rebuild the road. An injunction can be
obtained against the developer, unless it was a corporation that was formed just for the
purpose of that development and went out of business when the development was finished. He
does not think the County should pay for these roads until all of these possibilities are
investigated.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he does not disagree with Mr. St. John. He understood,
however, that the possibilities, with respect to Dunromin Road, have been investigated. He
said that other people are having to accept the responsibility instead of the person who is
financially responsible. Mr. St. John responded that he does not know anything about the
individual roads, but he was just speaking about the law, in general.
Mr. Fisher suggested that before a decision is made, the situation with the bonds be
examined, and Mr. St. John's staff look at the circumstances involvend with the Priority One
roads. He thinks that the four Priority One roads are a reasonable number of roads to
explore to see what can be done. He understands that these roads have the most use and have
the minimum costs for getting them into the state system.
Mr. Bowie mentioned that one of the four roads in Priority One is Milton Drive. He was
under the impression that Milton Drive was constructed before there were any bonding require-
ments. Mr. Tucker agreed that Milton Drive is one that he, too, had assumed was built prior
to 1968. Mr. Bowie said he knows that there is now a maintenance agreement involving Milton
Drive, and the road has either been repaved at homeowners expense or will be repaved in the
near future. He said he would like for a decision to be made on this as quickly as possible.
Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. St. John, and Mr. Lindstrom thanked the staff, even though Mr.
Elrod was not at the meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Elrod tried to contact the developers
or property owners along all of the roads to find out where they were and to determine what
the situation was with each road. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes that Mr. Elrod's files will
have information in them regarding these roads.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Fisher reported to the Board that Mayor Frank Buck told him this morning that City
Council has appointed two members to the Joint Study Committee for the Eastern Bypass. He
said the two appointees are Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason and Dr. Mary Alice Gunter. The City
Planning Commission will appoint a member which it expects to be Mr. Lloyd Snook, and a staff
member will be appointed by the City Manager. The City staff member is expected to be Mr.
Huja. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the County's staff try to set up the first meeting for
this group next week, if possible. He asked Mr. Tucker to call the City Manager's office to
see if the meeting time can be arranged.
(Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 10:30 A.M., and returned at 10:35 A.M.).
Mr. Roosevelt stated that it is anticipated that the detour on Route 29 North at the
South Fork Rivanna River Bridge will be placed into effect on Friday, but he is hopeful that
he can convince the contractor to put the detour off until Monday. He said, however, that
certainly within the next three or four days the traffic on Route 29 North will be detoured,
and there will be one lane of traffic for all outbound and inbound traffic at the bridge. He
went on to say that this detour will be in effect until late October or November.
Mr. Roosevelt discussed the landslide on Interstate 64 in Nelson County. He said that
it affects the traffic at the Yancey's Mill interchange, but he is hopeful that the material
will be moved by the middle of next week.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
The last item that Mr. Roosevelt discussed involved Route 664, which is one of the
gravel road improvements that has already been mentioned at this meeting, and involves work
from Route 604 to Route 743. He said that the work would start in June, and he hopes to have
the work on the road completed by the end of this construction season. Mr. Fisher asked
where Route 664 is located, and Mr. Roosevelt responded that it is in the Earlysville
Heights area.
Mr. Henley commented that he has called Mr. Roosevelt's office to report that water
backs up and over Route 601 north of Free Union. He understands that someone has built a
pond there, and several people have told him that the water from that pond comes out over the
road. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the water on Route 601 is a hazard. He has talked with
the County Engineering Office to see if there are any requirements that could bring pressure
on the owner of the property to revise the dam and lower the water level. He said, however,
that it appears that the pond is not on a stream that is within the County's jurisdiction.
Mr. Roosevelt went on to say he will have to get with the property owner to see what can be
worked out, but if the property owner is not cooperative, legal action will probably have to
be taken. He added that he has not looked at the legal aspects thoroughly yet. Mr. St. John
pointed out that the backing up of water on Route 601 would be considered a public nuisance.
Mr. Roosevelt agreed with Mr. St. John, but said again that Mr. St. John's comment is relat-
ing to the legal aspects, which he has not investigated. Mr, Henley suggested that Mr.
Roosevelt try to work out the problem with the property owner before legal action is contem-
plated. Mr. Roosevelt agreed, and pointed out that the owner has a substantial investment in
the pond and dam.
Mr. Henley then reported that he has been getting calls about cars speeding on the
Albemarle Lake Road near Westover Hills. He asked Mr. Roosevelt to investigate this situa-
tion to see if a speed check needs to be done which might result in the speed limit being
reduced. Mr. Roosevelt answered that Westover Hills has a posted speed limit. Mr. Henley
stated again that the problem is on Albemarle Lake Road with the speeding occurring close to
Westover Hills.
Mr. Henley told Mr. Roosevelt that the day after the eastbound lane of Interstate 64 was
closed, he was driving from Staunton with a load of cattle on his truck, and almost had an
accident. He said he called Mr. Roosevelt's office to report the problem. Mr. Henley
suggested to Mr. Roosevelt that when a lane is closed on an interstate, that truckers and
everyone else be warned that there is a steep grade ahead with slow moving traffic. He
mentioned that when he was coming from Staunton, the truckers were approaching long lines of
traffic and were finding it difficult to stop. Mr. Henley thinks it should be made plain to
drivers what to expect ahead. Mr. Roosevelt answered that in the Staunton vicinity, on 1-64,
that condition with the traffic and truck drivers exists normally. Mr. Henley pointed out,
however, that the truckers driving on 1-64 are not expecting to have to gear down behind long
lines of slow moving traffic. Mr. Roosevelt told Mr. Henley that he is not saying that Mr.
Henley's suggestion does not have merit, but when the eastbound lane on 1-64 was closed, it
was not a planned closing.
Mr. Bowie, at this time, thanked the Highway Department and the Police Department, for
the help he is getting with the speed limit on Hollymead Drive.
Mr. Bowie asked if any progress has been made On the plan for Route 640 west from Route
20. Mr. Roosevelt replied that no one has been in contact with him recently regarding Route
640. He said that he had staked the right-of-way five years ago, and had also staked the
road out twice before that time. He said he had given the landowners the deed forms and the
information they needed. Mr. Bowie then asked Mr. Roosevelt if he has, in his files, a
letter that was sent to landowners five years ago. He said if he could have a copy of a
letter to this effect, it would help him when the matter is presented to him the next time.
Mr. Roosevelt agreed to give Mr. Bowie a copy of a letter relating to Route 640.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: J. Dewart Clark Final Plat. Proposal to create two lots of
6.067 acres (leaving no residue acreage). The total area of the site is 12.134 acres. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property is located on northwest side of Route 785, approximately two miles
north of Proffit Road. Tax Map 32, Parcel 29I. Rivanna District.
Mr. Fisher noted that this matter had been brought to the Board by the following letter
dated March 21, 1986, from Mr. J. Thomas Gale of Roudabush, Greene and Gale, Inc:
"On behalf of the Applicant, I hereby request an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on March 11, 1986, to deny the J. Dewart Clark final
plat on the grounds that no hardship was demonstrated for granting a waiver
of the minimum road frontage (250 feet required; 210 feet requested). The
specific reasons for requesting the appeal are as follows:
(1)
The Applicant and I, at the time of writing this letter, respectfully
disagree and fail to understand the basis for denying the plat for the
aforementioned reason. I feel that both the Zoning Ordinance and the
Subdivision Ordinance are not clear on the procedure necessary for
creating a lot with less than 250 feet of road frontage in an RA zone.
After the Board of Zoning Appeals variance was granted, my interpreta-
tion was that a waiver from the Planning Commission would be unneces-
sary. I cannot find where the Subdivision Ordinance specifically
requires lots to have 250 feet or more of road frontage. This seems to
be only a zoning requirement.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pag~e_ 10 )
4'91
(2)
Assuming that a waiver of road frontage is necessary, it is my under-
standing from the Subdivision Ordinance in Section 18-3 (Compliance
with Chapter) Paragraph b, Variations and Exceptions, that waivers do
not need to be accompanied by the demonstration of hardship if the
developer can achieve results which substantially satisfy the overall
purposes of this chapter in a manner equal to or exceeding in the
desired effect of the standards required herein. Then, the Commission,
with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, or its agent, may
approve such substitution of technique, design, or materials.
The desired condition the Applicant is asking for will have no negative
impact on the County. The proposed entrance location for Parcel A (frontage
of 210 feet) will remain the same regardless of the waiver. The Highway
Department has reviewed the proposed entrance location and is willing to
issue an entrance permit if the plat is approved.
On behalf of the Applicant, your consideration is greatly appreciated."
Mr. Horne gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The surrounding area consists primarily of rural
residential development. The property is primarily wooded with a rolling
topography. One dwelling unit exists on the site.
Summary and Recommendations: This plat is before the Commission because one
of the two proposed parcels has less than the required amount of road
frontage. Lot A has 210 feet'of frontage; 250 feet is required in the Rural
Areas district. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a Variance (on
December 12, 1985) allowing 210 feet of frontage. The Commission is still
required to review this proposal due to the inadequacy of the road frontage.
The Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.4) requires either 250 feet of road front-
age on an existing public road or 150 feet on an internal public or private
road. Two alternatives are available to the applicant that would make this
proposal consistent with the County Ordinance. First, the existing frontage
could be divided between the two parcels providing adequate frontage for
each lot. Second, a joint access could be provided to serve both lots,
thus negating the reqUirement for 250 feet of road frontage on a public
road.
This subdivision request is being made by the contract purchasers. The
owner of the property is unwilling to sell any more frontage to the appli-
cant, nor is he willing to provide, or use, a joint access for both proper-
ties.
Although there is no parcel history pertinent to this proposal, there have
been two other subdivision proposals along Route 785 which have been denied
by the Commission (1979). The Pineridge and Riverside subdivisions (con-
taining 21 and 23 lots respectively) were both denied because of the inade-
quate condition of Route 785. The Commission, in its action on the
Pineridge proposal, moved to ~deny the plan until such time that Route 785
be improved to handle the existing traffic and traffic generated by this
subdivision.' To date no significant improvements have been made to the
road to upgrade its condition since that denial.
Although recognizing the difficulty that the applicant has incurred, staff
feels unable to recommend approval since there are no physical hardships
which limit this proposal from complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Alter-
natives are available to the applicant to make this proposal compliant.
Further, since the Commission has denied two subdivision proposals on Route
785 on the grounds that the road was substandard -- and since no improve-
ments have been made to the road since these subdivision proposals were
denied -- staff cannot recommend approval of this application.
However, should the Commission choose to approve this subdivision proposal,
staff recommends the following conditions:
1)
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a)
Virginza Department of Highways & Trans')ortation approval of
entrance;
b)
Add note: 'Lot A and Lot B to be served by a joint access onto
Route 785'."
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 11, 1986, unanimously
denied the final plat on the grounds that no hardship was demonstrated for granting a waiver
of the minimum road frontage requirement and that alternatives are available to the applicant
to make this proposal comply with the County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Horne explained to the Board that the J. Dewart Clark final plat appeal is a propos-
al to create two lots of 6.067 acres each, and leaving no residue acreage, from a total
acreage of 12.134 acres. He said it was presented to the Planning Commission as a request
for a waiver of the road frontage requirements. He then went over the staff report and
discussed the road frontage requirements with the Board. Mr. Horne said the applicant did
appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals and received a zoning variance on the road
492
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
frontage. The request had to go to the Planning Commission, however, for a waiver under the
Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Horne went on to say that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that
the lots conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne for information relating to the road. Mr. Horne replied that
the road is Route 785. It lies off of Proffit Road and goes north towards the North Fork of
the Rivanna River and then ends. He pointed out the road on the map.
Mr. Fisher asked if the road has a number of small lots on it. Mr. Horne answered,
"yes." He said the road is a very poor road, narrow, and with limited sight distance. He
repeated that the condition of the road was not a major factor in the Planning Commission's
recommendation; the Planning Commission denied the request because members believed the lots
could be subdivided differently to acquire the 250 feet of road frontage or a joint access
driveway could be provided. He said the staff recommended that a joint driveway be put in
that would allow the access to Lot A to immediately leave the joint driveway and continue
into Lot A. He stated that the applicant disagrees with the staff's recommendation, and that
is the reason for the appeal.
Mr. Bowie said it seems to him that the Highway Department has approved a separate
entrance and there is adequate sight distance in both directions. Mr. Horne agreed with Mr.
Bowie and said that the separate entrance would be approximately 50 feet off of the property
line. He added that there is an existing entrance approximately 30 feet off of the property
line. The staff does not see any physical reason why the driveway could not branch off
shortly after entering the property, and the existing driveway closed.
Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant refused to negotiate ways to get the 50 more feet of
road frontage. Mr. Horne responded that the applicant refused to accept the staff's recom-
mendations at the Planning Commission's meeting.
There were no more questions for Mr. Horne from the Board, so Mr. Fisher said that the
applicant would be allowed to make a brief statement as to why he feels that this appeal
should be granted. Mr. Fisher said it seems to him as though it would be so much simpler
just to cooperate.
Mr. Gale spoke to the Board at this time and said he was speaking on behalf of Mr. Clark
who is ill and could not be present. He stated that the Paces, who are contracting to buy
Lot A, are present at this meeting. He mentioned that Mr. Clark is 85 years old, and he-said
that Mr. Clark admits, himself, that he is stubborn. He agreed that the staff is correct in
that another 40 feet of road frontage would have eliminated this lengthy process. Mr. Gale
went on to say that Mr. Clark has lived on his land for a long time, and is interested in
having the Paces live next to him. Mr. Gale said Mr. Clark obviously has strong feelings
about the way he wants the property divided. As a result of this, Mr. Clark does not mind
going to a lot of trouble to have his request approved. Mr. Gale added that Mr. Clark wants
a straight property line without a kink or break from Lot A to Lot B. Mr. Gale said it
bothers some people to have a break in a property line.
Mr. Gale said that Mr. Clark was successful in getting a waiver of the road frontage
requirement. Mr. Alan Kindrick, who is also present at this meeting, represented Mr. Clark
at the meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals and was successful in getting the waiver. In
this particular case, Mr. Gale pointed out that there is enough road frontage to provide two
separate entrances to the lot if Mr. Clark provided an additional 40 feet for Lot A. Mr.
Gale said that he has shown on the map that he gave to the Board where the Highway Department
has approved a second entrance on Lot A, and he also has shown Mr. Clark's existing driveway
and a well on Lot B. Mr. Gale said one of the reasons Mr. Clark wanted to keep 210 feet of
road frontage was to keep the dividing line off of his driveway and well and to afford him
privacy; Mr. Gail said Mr. Clark felt very strongly that the separate entrance was in a
logical place.
Mr. Gale said there was some question with the planning staff as to whether, once the
variance was granted, the request could be approved administratively, but they felt the
request needed to go to the Commission. Mr. Gale said the reason given was that the Subdivi-
sion Ordinance requires 250 feet of road frontage for a lot, and that this request would
require approval from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission. Mr. Gale
mentioned that he could not find anywhere in the Subdivision Ordinance where it specifically
required 250 feet of road frontage, but did find that the lots had to conform to the Zoning
Ordinance. He has had similar situations on setbacks, when variances had to be acquired
because lots had to conform to the Zoning Ordinance relative to setbacks. The staff has
approved the requests for the setback variances administratively, once the variances are
granted, and Mr. Gale felt that this issue fell into the same category.
Mr. Gale said the BZA refused the waiver because Mr. Clark could not prove hardship.
Mr. Gale said he interpreted Section 18-3 in the Ordinance dealing with variances and waiv-
ers. It is not necessary to prove hardship if the waiver leads to a situation either meeting
or bettering the rules of the ordinance. Mr. Gale feels that Mr. Clark's recommendation is
at least as good, if not better, than what the Ordinance would require. He said that Mr.
Clark has adequate road frontage to have two entrances, and the other entrance has already
been approved by the BZA.
Mr. Gale explained that if this request is denied, the location of the dividing line
will be changed, but the entrance situation will remain the same and there will be two
entrances. Mr. Gale stated that it looks as though this situation has the two sides at odds
with each other, and he knows that Mr. Clark has strong feelings about it. He went on to say
that if Mr. Clark was more modernistic, he might have a different idea. He said, though,
that Mr. Clark is stubbOrn, feels as though he has a good argument, and that is why he has
pursued the matter this far. Mr. Gale also said that he would be glad to answer questions.
Mr. Fisher said he had not heard Mr. Gale say one thing about a real hardship, only this
is the way that Mr. Clark wants the situation handled. Mr. Gale answered that he was glad
that Mr. Fisher had brought up this matter, because it would give him a chance to address it.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
L~_aqe 12)
Mr. Gale said his argument is that the Ordinance backs him up: he does not need to show a
hardship unless a worse situation is being created than what the ordinance would require. He
thinks that his interpretation is reasonable and pointed out that the hardship was granted by
the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Gale then asked how the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals can be reversed.
Mr. Fisher replied that it is not the duty of the Supervisors to reverse the BZA deci-
sion. He said this is a separate issue in the Subdivision Ordinance that the Board is
dealing with. Mr. Gale responded that he agrees with Mr. Fisher, but he went on to say that
once this variance had been approved, the question was whether the Commission had to address
the same issue again. He said that this is what he is trying to point out to the Board. Mr.
Fisher said the Board would get a ruling on the question from Mr. St. John.
Mr. Kindrick said he would like to make a brief statement, but that he is not the prime
representative of either the seller or the purchaser. He added that he did help the contract
purchaser obtain a routing for his appeal and went with him to the Planning Commission to ask
for the best way to approach this issue. Mr. Kindrick was advised by two members of the
planning staff to take the issue to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said that he did so but
did not know he would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Kindrick said Mr. Clark is very
old, has his mind made up, and Mr. Kindrick thinks this matter will be handled Mr. Clark's
way or not at all. He pointed out that Mr. Clark says that putting that driveway in front of
his front window, and having to see every piece of traffic coming off the road into both lots
is a hardship.
Mr. Fisher said the issue is not whether there is one or two driveways. The issue
involves the amount of road frontage that is required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr.
Kindrick responded that he understands what Mr. Fisher is saying, but Mr. Clark is not
willing to change the line, and he wants his driveway shielded. He then added that he would
appreciate the Board's favorable action.
Mr. Fisher stated the 250 foot frontage requirement was set for a reason. When the
requirement was just for a minimum lot size, it was discovered that people were creating lots
that had 20 feet of road frontage with a long, narrow "pipestem" feeding traffic to the lots.
Mr. Fisher said that everybody wanted private driveways, and it developed into a real prob-
lem. Developing the minimum road frontage was a way to try to control how people accessed
their lots. Mr. Fisher said he is not going to argue that he thinks it is a bad way of
dividing the property. He thinks the burden on the Board is to ask if there is a good reason
why the law cannot be followed. Mr. Fisher said his understanding of the law makes it
difficult for him to say that just because someone has a stubborn old man for a client the
County laws need to be waived. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John's advice.
Mr. St. John said he cannot find any place in the Subdivision Ordinance where 250 feet
of road frontage is required. He said that a new road is not being created because the lot
has a road, and each lot has more than five acres. He does not see any prohibition because
one lot has less than 250 feet of road frontage. What he sees is that the division triggers
the definition of a subdivision, and a person has to go through the subdivision process to
get approval, and he does not see any reason for not approving this subdivision. The Ordi-
nance merely says that this division is defined as a subdivision because one lot has less
than 250 feet of road frontage.
At this point, Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board take a recess and that this item be
taken up later on the agenda. He said that the staff and Mr. St. John could study the
Ordinance while the Board proceeds with the balance of the agenda. He said the matter would
be continued on today's agenda pending a report back to the Board by the staff.
Agenda Item No. 8. Scottsville Precinct'Polling Place. Mr. Fisher stated that the
Board had a request from the Electoral Board to relocate the Scottsville Precinct polling
place.
Mr. John Wright, Chairman of the Albemarle County Electoral Board, said the Supervisors
are in receipt of a letter from the Electoral Board's Secretary, Ms. Louise Pelton, dated
April 1, requesting a move of the Scottsville Precinct polling place. Mr. Wright mentioned
that the flood created a traumatic experience during the last election. He added that there
was no loss or mechanical damage to the equipment, but it had to be moved to the new
Scottsville Elementary School on Route 20. For some time, citizens in Scottsville have
considered moving the polling place, but the flood made the move actually happen for the last
election. He stated that the present polling place is located in the center of Scottsville
in the Rescue Squad's meeting room on main street. The building lies in the flood plain, but
that is not the total reason for the Electoral Board's request. Mr. Wright said that if the
polling place is moved to the Scottsville Elementary School, there will be ample parking,
accommodations for handicapped individuals, and it is considerably more accessible to the
voters in the precinct. He went on to say that the school is a more central location, and
the voters would not have to go into the Town of Scottsville to vote. Mr. Wright pointed out
that of the 771 registered voters in the Scottsville precinct, 99 are residents of
Scottsville. This means that less than 13 percent of the registered voters in the precinct
live in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Wright commented that the Electoral Board received
verbal requests from many of the people voting at the school during the last election that
they would like to vote at the school all of the time. He asked for the Board's approval of
this request.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Wright where Scottsville Town Council elections will be held. Mr.
Wright answered that they must be held either within the Town limits or within 300 yards of
the Town limits. He said the Town Council can have its election anywhere in the Town that it
chooses. He said that is neither the Board of Supervisors' nor the Electoral Board's respon-
sibility. 'He also said that Scottsville Town Council elections will not be affected by
moving the Scottsville Precinct polling place.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Ray Jones showed a map indicating the Scottsville precinct. He said that moving
this polling place does not require a public hearing. He added that all of the 771 voters
will have to be notified by the Registrar if the polling place is changed.
Mr. Fisher asked if this change will have to be approved by the Justice Department. Mr.
Wright answered "yes", approving it now will allow time to obtain that approval. He pointed
out that the change in the polling place will not become effective until the Fall elections.
Mr. Way stated that in the latest issue of the Central Virginia News Leader, there is an
article about elections in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Way is sure that from a historical
point of view changing this polling place will affect certain people living within the Town,
and will make voting more impersonal. He agrees, however, with the comments made at this
meeting and feels that the elementary school is more accessible to the handicapped , safer
and more accessible to a majority of the citizen of the district. He feels that the polling
place should be moved, and he will make a motion to that effect.
Mr. Fisher inquired if Mr. Way meant to approve this move of the polling place without a
public hearing, and Mr. Way said "yes". Motion was then offered by Mr. Way and seconded by
Mr. Bowie to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle County Electoral Board that
the polling place for the Scottsville Precinct be changed from the Rescue
Squad Building in the town of Scottsville, to the new Scottsville Elementary
School located on Route 20 north of the town of Scottsville.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: J. Dewart Clark Final Plat. (At this time the Board
returned to discussion of this item.) Mr. Fisher asked if the staff is now prepared to
report on Mr. Clark's appeal, and Mr. St. John answered that he is ready to give an opinion.
Mr. St. John said the Subdivision Ordinance requires that the subdivision process be
followed if a lot has less than 250 feet of road frontage, and there is just the one refer-
ence to road frontage in the Ordinance. He said the problem is that Section 18-23 of the
Ordinance requires that "all lots comply with the Zoning Ordinance." He said there is no
mention of 250 feet. It is Mr. St. John's opinion that when the applicant got a variance
from the BZA for the 250 foot requirement, which is in the Zoning Ordinance, that variance,
while not appearing as a part of the Zoning Ordinance, becomes a part of the zoning law
applicable to this lot. Mr. St. John said this language compliance with the Zoning Ordinance
has to mean compliance with whatever zoning law is applicable to this lot because otherwise
there would never be compliance with the Zoning Ordinance by virtue of a variance. He added
that the Zoning Ordinance itself says that the request must comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
If a variance does not bring a lot into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, then a person
could get a variance and go back to get a builder's permit. The County could say that the
person is still not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance even though he has the variance
which the Zoning Ordinance requires. He pointed out that this would mean that the variance
would not amount to anything. Mr. St. John thinks this appeal is not properly before the
Board, and the applicant has acquired his right to this division. He said it is not an issue
of whether this is a good case for a variance or a good case for a waiver. He said the BZA
exists to make the kind of decision it made in this situation, and he thinks this is a dead
issue.
Mr. Fisher asked if the fact that the lot does not have 250 feet of frontage would still
trigger the Subdivision Ordinance and would require action by the Planning Commission. Mr.
St. John answered, "yes", but said he understands that the applicant has already been through
this procedure.
Mr. Fisher then pointed out that the request was denied by the Planning Commission. Mr.
St. John agreed, but said the request was denied on the grounds that it was not in confor-
mance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John thinks the request is in compliance with the
Ordinance, and he questions whether there are any other grounds upon which it could be
denied.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Commission must review the request for other consider-
ations to make sure that, other than the 250 foot question, it does comply. Mr. St. John
answered that he thinks the Planning Commission has already reviewed the request for other
things according to the staff report. Mr. Fisher said the staff report is not clear and
indicated a unanimous denial by the Planning Commission. Mr. Horne explained that the
Commission heard this item as a waiver request because the property did not have 250 feet of
frontage. If the Planning Commission does not have to grant a waiver, which Mr. Horne
understands from Mr. St. John that it does not, then the request will not have to go back to
the Planning Commission and can be administratively approved by the staff. Mr. Horne said
that the request meets all of the other requirements for administrative approval.
Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. St. John concurs with Mr. Horne's statement. Mr. St. John
answered, "no." He said, again, that the definition of a subdivision is any lot that does
not have 250 feet of frontage. Mr. Horne asked Mr. St. John if his statement is true even if
the applicant has a variance waiving this 250 feet of road frontage. Mr. St. John replied
that the Subdivision Ordinance specifically states that a subdivision occurs when there is
not 250 feet of frontage. Mr. Horne stated that he understood from the Planning Commission
that the request was denied only because of the frontage issue.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said that for the applicant's title, this request deserves the proper pro-
cessing, whether it is at staff level or Planning Commission level, to make sure that there
is approval of the other aspects of the subdivision such as the buildings and drainfields.
He went on to say that Mr. St. John had mentioned that the matter was not properly before
this Board, so this Board will be able to dismiss it. He thinks that consideration needs to
be given to how the applicant can get an approved plat. Mr. St. John explained that the
Planning Commission can approve or disapprove the plat. The applicant could also appeal to
the Board of Supervisors again, but Mr. St. John feels that the applicant is in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher pointed out that there is still not an approved plat, because the request was
denied by the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John answered that it seems to him that when an
applicant is before the Planning Commission with reference to a subdivision plat, and the
Commission reviews the request and makes a decision, the applicant should not have to go back
to the Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that if this matter is not properly before this Board, then he
feels there is no point in the Board discussing it further. He thinks the applicant will
have to do whatever is necessary to get a recordable plat.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Gale if he would like to request that this appeal be withdrawn from
the Board's agenda. Mr. Gale said he thinks the Commission reviewed the request as it would
have any other subdivision. He said the Commission looked at Health Department and Highway
Department approvals, and the reason the request was not approved was because of the hardship
issue. Mr. St. John agreed that this was also his understanding, and the applicant had
already followed the proper procedure.
Mr. Fisher reiterated that the applicant still does not have an approved plat. He asked
Mr. Gale again if he wished for the request to be withdrawn. At this time, Mr. Gale asked
that the request be approved administratively.
Mr. Bowie asked if he understands correctly that the request should not have come to the
Board at all. He asked if it is true that the BZA variance took care of the problem, and if
this matter is withdrawn from the Board's agenda, it will not be sent back to the Board at a
later time. Mr. St. John said he believes he was in error by saying earlier that the matter
was not properly before the Board. He said that the request is an appeal from a denial, so
it is accepted procedure to go to the Board with the request. He said that the denial was
based on something that has now been determined was not a valid basis for denial. Mr. St.
John believes now that the matter is properly before the Board and the appeal should be
granted.
At this point, Mr. Bowie offered motion to grant the appeal.
motion.
Mr. Henley seconded the
Mr. Fisher commented that this places him in a position of voting for something that he
would never vote for if he was a member of the BZA. He does not agree with the issue, and
will not support it. He is not certain, from all of the things that have been said here,
whether or not the other planning aspects of this subdivision have ever been addressed by any
public body. He is uncomfortable about overturning a unanimous denial by the Planning
Commission without any evidence that these other issues have been addressed. He also thinks
that this is the worse appeal case that has been handled by the staff in quite a long time,
and believes that there has been some bad communication. Mr. St. John told Mr. Fisher that
his office is responsible for the communication problems associated with this request and not
the Planning staff. He thinks that because the request has been to the Planning Commission,
the applicant has been through the process, and the question in Mr. St. John's mind is
whether the apPlicant can be made to go back to the same public body that he has already
appeared before. Mr. St. John said this matter could go to court. He thinks the applicant
can get the request appealed and approved. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed, saying that Mr. Bowie's
motion does not specify the request has to go anywhere. The motion simply states that the
Board is going to approve the request. Mr. St. John agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, but he said
he was speaking to Mr. Fisher's concerns.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Gale, at this time, that despite his question to Mr. Gale and Mr.
Gale's statement asking for withdrawal of the request, it is apparent that it is the wish of
the Board to consider this appeal. He asked if Mr. Gale objected. Mr. Gale replied that the
Board's action is fine with him.
Mr. Fisher stated that he vigorously disagrees with the BZA's action, the process being
followed, and the Board being asked to approve the appeal at this meeting. He will not
support it, because he thinks it is one of the worst planning processes he has ever seen.
Mr. Henley mentioned that he can understand Mr. Clark's reasoning for wanting to keep
the property line away from his well and not wanting to have a joint driveway. He does not
have a problem with the BZA's ruling on the matter.
Mr. Fisher answered that it appears to him that the line can be redrawn and will be just
as far from the well, Zoning Ordinance requirements would be met, and the driveways could
still be separate. Mr. Fisher can see no evidence why this could not be done. Mr. St. John
stated that a decision has been made by the governing body with that charge. He said that
this is his point that the questions relating to Mr. Fisher's concerns are not properly
before the Board.
At this point Mr. Lindstrom asked that the roll be called and the matter dismissed. He
said he had never heard more ridiculous comments from everyone. Roll was immediately called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Henley and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
496
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
ABSTAINING:
Mr. Lindstrom (Mr. Lindstrom said he disagrees with what is being done, but he
thinks that legally there are no grounds to have the appeal before the Board).
Mr. Lindstrom asked what specific criteria must be considered by the BZA in order for
them to consider a request for a variance. Mr. St. John replied that the exact wording of
the statute is important, so he will give Mr. Lindstrom his answer at another time.
Agenda Item No. 9.
vision.
Request to set hearing date to amend Dog Leash Law - Camelot Subdi-
Mr. Jones told the Board members that a letter and petition had been received from Mrs.
Beverly King to increase the leash law to include Sections Two and Three of Camelot, thus
making it all inclusive. He said that Sections Two and Three had not been constructed when
the original leash law went into effect in 1974. From the standpoint of the Dog Warden, this
would make the law easier to administer in this subdivision.
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present to express support of this request. Mrs. King
spoke to the Board and said the reasons are obvious for requesting the extension of the leash
law. She went on to say that at least two dogs have been involved in dog fights recently.
One was being walked on a leash, and the other dog was tied in his yard, and stray dogs
attacked them. She said at least one child has been bitten while playing in his own yard.
She also mentioned the problem of garbage being strewn, and landscaping damaged, etc.
Mr. Bowie commented that he is aware of the problem in Camelot, and he has discussed it
with the Dog Warden. He said dog bites and damages are unfortunate, but he generally opposes
leash laws. The overriding factor, however, is what the residents want, and they want this
matter brought before the Board. He did say that there is no indication that the people
signing the petition even live in Camelot. Mr. Bowie said that he will support a public
hearing.
Mr. Henley commented that he used to own approximately 100 sheep and he lives approxi-
mately a mile from Crozet. He finally had to get rid of them because of the dogs in Crozet.
He said the dogs causing the problem were not the ones that lived close to him. Even people
who do not live in the subdivision can be affected by dogs roaming out of the subdivision.
Mr. Bowie stated that he agrees with Mr. Henley, but when a law or ordinance is being
imposed on the residents of that subdivision only, then they should have the right to say
whether or not they want it approved. Mr. Bowie then offered motion to set a public hearing
for May 21, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 10. Petition for Zoning Text Amendment - Ms. Margie Ankrom.
Mr. Tucker informed the Board that this request for a Zoning Text amendment is the
result of a problem that occurred at Hall's Body Shop. He said the problem occurred when
Jarman's Sportscycle moved to the Northside Industrial Park as a renter of property belonging
to Hall's Body Shop, Inc. It was the understanding of the owner of the property that the
sale of motorcycles and certain recreational vehicles was permitted in the heavy industrial
district under current zoning laws. When the owner started to obtain a business license, and
applied for a zoning clearance, the Zoning Administrator ruled that the sale of these types
of vehicles was not a permitted use in the heavy industrial district.
Mr. Fisher commented that the problem may have been that Jarman's was selling motor
vehicles instead of recreational vehicles. Mr. Tucker answered that this was part of the
problem, but there was no provision for that type of use in the heavy industrial district.
Mr. Tucker said the applicant then appealed the opinion of the Zoning Administrator to the
Board of Zoning Appeals. At its hearing, the BZA did not take action, but deferred action
for six mOnths to allow the applicant an opportunity to solve the problem either through a
zoning text amendment, a change in the zoning of the property, or something of that nature.
Mr. Tucker went on to say that an additional complication occurred with the license from
the Division of Motor Vehicles, which the business must acquire to remain open. He said that
because the BZA did not rule on the Zoning Administrator's opinion to evict or fine the
applicant in violation, and instead gave the applicant six months to work things out, the
license through DMV expired. Mr. Tucker added that DMV has indicated to the County's zoning
staff that it will not reissue that license unless the zoning is proper. He said that the
Zoning Administrator, after the BZA made its decision of deferral, did notify DMV and indi-
cated what had occurred. Now, DMV had indicated to Mr. Andy Evans, Acting Zoning Administra-
tor, that the zoning must be proper, and there must be a letter to that effect before that
particular use can be licensed.
Mr. Fisher asked if the zoning must indicate that motor vehicles can be sold. Mr.
Tucker answered, "yes." He explained that what is being requested of the Board of Supervi-
sors today is some relief so that the business can be opened and continue to operate until
some solution is found for the zoning problem. He said the applicant also requests that this
Board adopt a resolution of intent to amend the HI, heavy industrial district to permit this
type of use. He said Mr. St. John may have to speak to the question of temporary relief. He
said if the Board does not adopt the necessary resolution of intent, the applicant will have
to wait until July to make application, because the County accepts requests for zoning text
amendments only twice a year.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
P_~16)
497
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the BZA has given the Board a "grace period" to amend the ordi-
nance so that a variance will not have to be granted. Mr. Tucker responded that the BZA did
not grant a variance. He said, in his opinion, the Zoning Administrator's ruling is still
valid, because no decision has yet been reached.
Mr. Bowie asked if recreational vehicles are permitted in heavy industrial zones. Mr.
Tucker replied that the manufacturing, processing and distribution of recreational vehicles
is permitted in the heavy industrial zone. Mr. Fisher added that recreational vehicles are
permitted in heavy industrial zoning as a wholesale or a warehousing operation, but not for
sale. Mr. Horne mentioned that he was consulted by the Zoning Administrator before the
Administrator reached his decision. Mr. Horne has also studied the Ordinance, and in his
mind, it is very clear that the use of recreational vehicles for sale is not permitted in a
heavy industrial zone.
Mr. Fisher stated that the County has a relatively small amount of land zoned heavy
industrial. Any change in the text that would affect that district would not affect vast
quantities of land as some other changes might. But, Mr. Fisher pointed out, there is some
nuisance factor in persons trying out some of these vehicles that might make it a nuisance in
many other districts. He asked if there is anything that might lead the staff to think that
it is a bad idea to amend the ordinance to incorporate the sale of these motor vehicles in a
heavy industrial zone. Mr. Horne answered that the nuisance factor is a good point. He
informed the Board that in 1980 there was a lot of discussion at the Planning Commission
level, and he believes at the Board level also, that revising the zoning text would "clean
up" those districts that had mixed uses in them. He wants the Board to be mindful of this
when making its decision today.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the first paragraph of the heavy industrial section of the
Ordinance says it is designed to permit industries and commercial uses which have a public
nuisance potential in other districts.
Mr. Horne then told the Board that he does not support at all this type of use in a
heavy industrial zone. He said it is a retail use and does not belong in a heavy industrial
zone. He added that a mixture of this kind of traffic and use is not good for the zone and
not good for the retailer.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that Mr. Fisher had indicated that there is a small amount of
heavy industrially zoned land in Albemarle County, and that there is not a lot of land in the
County that is suitable for this type of zoning. Mr. Lindstrom's concern is that if this
category is opened up to things that are not strictly heavy industrial, there may be a demand
for the use of those districts that would use up available heavy industrial land. He asked
if this is true or is this a unique situation. Mr. Horne responded that he does not inter-
pret this use as unique. It is a retail use, and he would not feel comfortable explaining to
another applicant why this retail use was permitted in a heavy industrial zone and other
retail uses are not allowed.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if his perception is right that the Board should be careful as
to how this zone is used because there is not a lot of land in the County suitable for HI
zoning. He went on to say that if this request is allowed, he thinks it should be limited to
those kinds of retail sales involving uses that have nuisance attributes.
At this time, Mr. Fisher said that the applicant would be given time to speak. He
pointed out that the Board is not deciding whether to change the Zoning Ordinance. He said
the application will be put through the process so that the staff and Commission can study
it. He also said that he has advised Ms. Ankrom of this process.
Ms. Marge Ankrom addressed the Board and said the letter sent to the Board summarizes
what happened prior to this request. She said the main purpose of requesting to be on
today's agenda was to give Mr. Jarman some immediate help so that he can stay in business.
Because of the DMV situation, he is currently out of business. She pointed out that Mr.
Jarman has been in business for 27 years and had a motorcycle sale scheduled for this after-
noon, but it cannot be transacted without some sort of assistance. She is hoping that the
Board can develop a letter authorizing the Zoning Administrator to make this temporary action
available to Mr. Jarman. She said she talked to Mr. Evans in the hallway before coming to
this meeting, and Mr. Evans indicated that he had talked to DMV and was informed that the
dealer's license will not be issued unless the Zoning Administrator writes a letter stating
that Mr. Jarman would be allowed to stay in that area to operate his business. She said that
nothing was said as to whether the area was zoned for heavy industrial use, and apparently
the only thing that is required, at this time, is for the Zoning Administrator to allow Mr.
Jarman to stay in that area. Ms. Ankrom then said that during the six months appeal, some-
thing will need to be done to allow for a change. Her recommendation is that if the zoning
text is changed, it would be amended to include motor vehicle sales, or if a narrower catego-
ry is desired, it might only allow recreational vehicle sales.
Before the Board decides whether a change to the zoning text has to take place, she
wanted to point out that she feels that these sales are already allowed, and the text does
not have to be amended. She directed the Board's attention to Section 28.1, which is the
same paragraph to which Mr. St. John referred. She said that there is an allowable intent by
the Board of Supervisors in the Zoning Ordinance to allow commercial use that has a public
nuisance potential. She commented that she sits next door to this business, and she knows
that it is a public nuisance. She said, however, she also realizes that this is the area
that she is in and other businesses have to be tolerated. She believes, though, that HI
zoning is where businesses such as Jarman's belongs. She then mentioned the noise during the
sale of motorcycles and commented that the people at the furniture company behind Jarman's
previous location complained often of the noise the business created. Ms. Ankrom added that
this was pointed out at the Board of Zoning Appeals' hearing. She then referred to Section
26.1, which is the general intent for industrial districts. Ms. Ankrom said that, in her
opinion, it does allow limited commercial use for public nuisance, and she thinks that it
should be encouraged. She feels that a Special Use Permit should be issued to allow this
public nuisance business to be located in an HI area.
498
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 17)
Mr. Ankrom said this land has been zoned for HI use for 11 years and has been basically
dead land. She said that no one has done anything to develop the area, and there has been no
request for the land to be used. She remarked that if the list of things approved for HI
zoning is studied, it will be found that a lot of businesses cannot operate there because of
the terrain and the location. Ms. Ankrom pointed out that Mr. Jarman is not purchasing any
heavy industrial land. He only rents 4,000 square feet in a building already zoned and
allowed in HI zoning. He is not purchasing land that will be used up by some other business
coming into the County. She went on to say that her loan agreement is contingent upon having
au tenant. She said that Great Eastern Management tried for one year to find a compatible
occupant so that Hall's Body Shop could get its loan. The Great Eastern Management Company
could not find a renter that qualified under the HI zoning. She commented that Mr. Jarman
seemed to be a public nuisance where he was previously located, he was a compatible business,
so the bank would allow the loan under these circumstances. She pointed out that the loan is
not closed yet, so there is a hardship on two businesses. She also said that there is
nothing approved for HI zoning that would be considered a compatible renter that requires
4,000 square feet of space. She feels that this is a unique situation and that a Special Use
Permit should be issued to allow Jarman's to be located in HI zoning. She mentioned again
that she feels that this business is already allowed under HI zoning, however, she sa:Ld that
if the Board feels that a zoning text amendment is necessary, then she recommends that the
Board move ahead with its action. She remarked that the applicant would like to do whatever
is necessary to pursue this matter as quickly as possible. She realizes that this will take
time, and understands that a citizen's request cannot be heard until late fall, but unless
something can be done to help Mr. Jarman, Ms. Ankrom stated that his business will be com-
pletely gone by fall.
Mr. St. John stated that the only solution is to declare Mr. Jarman's business a public
nuisance and add it as a use under the HI zoning. Mr. Lindstrom commented that he would
support the application, if heavy industrial uses included motorcycles.
Mr. Bowie stated that he rides motorcycles, and motorcycles create a nuisance, particu-
larly when they are being tested and purchased. Not only are motorcycles a public nuisance,
but they can be a public danger. However, he thinks that this is a logical request. If
motorcycles can be assembled and repaired in a small area, it takes a very small area in
which to sell them. He does not want to delay action while someone is being forced out of
business. He thinks it is appropriate for the Board to find a way to allow the business to
operate while some solution is being worked out relating to the zoning, but he is not sure
how it should be handled.
Mr. Fisher commented that he feels the smallest change that could be made to the Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate this request is to incorporate the words, "and sales," for recrea-
tional vehicles allowed under HI zoning. He thinks that this would be a permanent solution
without opening up that zoning district to automobile dealers, mobile home dealers, etc.
Mr. St. John pointed out that Winnebago vehicles are considered recreational vehicles, and he
suggested that the uses could be limited to motorcycles. Mr. Horne stated out that when he
and the Zoning Administrator discussed this situation, they did not feel that motorcycles are
recreational vehicles. He said they consider them to be motor vehicles.
Mr. Fisher asked if this is true even for the bikes that cannot be licensed. Mr. Horne
responded that a particular category of off-road, four-wheel bike that cannot be licensed on
the road might qualify as a recreational vehicle. He does not believe it is Jarman's intent
to sell this type of bike. Mr. Fisher said that if he supports this request, he Would like
for the use to be as limited as possible, and only incorporate the necessary facilities for a
motorcycle operation for both on- and off-road bikes, but limit it so it does not open the
use to all other kinds of motor vehicles.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this request be handled in the usual fashion. He said it
will not help Mr. Jarman if a solution is reached 30 or 60 days from now. He thinks the
Board needs to come to a realization that the Ordinance, as written, allows this kind of a
nuisance use, which could be a better approach than trying to rewrite the Ordinance. He then
suggested rewriting the Ordinance as an emergency measure. Mr. St. John replied that the
Board cannot rewrite the Ordinance as an emergency measure. He said that there are two
alternatives, assuming the Board will eventually approve this use. One is to find that the
Board does not need to amend the Ordinance, specifically on the grounds that the Board
believes that this use is already allowed. If this is done, the BZA will follow the Board's
lead and make that interpretation. He pointed out to the Board members that it is not up to
them to make an interpretation. This is the BZA's responsibility. He said the BZA can act
at its next meeting if the Board resolves today that a hearing will not be set to hear an
amendment request because it is the Board's belief that the use is already allowed under the
existing language.
The other alternative is for the Board to make this amendment. Mr. St. John said that
he can draft the language to allow this particular use, and it will be no problem. The
process for the amendment can be started, and in the meantime, someone can write a letter
this afternoon to DMV and say that as of now Jarman's is in compliance with the County's laws
and Zoning Ordinance. He said that the rationale for that is that when an appeal is made to
the BZA, the decision of the Zoning Administrator is suspended pending the outcome of the
BZA's decision.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he personally feels more comfortable with the first approach
that Mr. St. John suggested. He thinks that there are nuisance characteristics with some of
the vehicles, and he recognizes that there are safety problems. He is not sure, however, how
to draw an ordinance that is not special legislation. He would like to see something specif-
ic in recognizing that Mr. Jarman's business is covered by the nuisance aspect of HI zoning.
Mr. Horne said it would be good to find a solution for this particular situation so that the
staff could make it known that it does not feel that this use should be allowed in a general
sense.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution of intent:
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
49'9
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in Section 28.0 to specifically permit sale of off-road recrea-
tional vehicles and motorcycles in the Heavy Industrial District; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, and does
request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board
at the earliest possible date.
Mr. St. John interrupted Mr. Lindstrom's motion by asking if he is speaking of motorcy-
cles in general or off-the-road motorcycles. Mr. Lindstrom replied that he is speaking of
motorcycles in general. He said this is not the final language, but he is trying to give the
staff guidance so that the amendment addresses what the Supervisors agree is a unique kind of
recreational vehicle and not a big vehicle such as a Winnebago. He said this is his motion.
Mr. Bowie wanted to know how this motion would affect Mr. Jarman's immediate problem.
Mr. Lindstrom answered that Mr. St. John had said that to alleviate the immediate problem,
the staff could prepare a letter to DMV stating that a resolution of intent to amend the
Ordinance had been adopted. Mr. Lindstrom replied that Mr. St. John and the staff could be
responsible for wording the letter, but he does not think the amendment will do much good in
this case, since it will not be effective for approximately 60 days.
At this point, the motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie.
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was then called and the
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to instruct the County Attorney to write a letter to the
Division of Motor Vehicles indicating the intent of the first motion. Mr. St. John added
that the letter should state that Mr. Jarman's business has a current legal status in
Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to instruct the County Attorney to write to the Division of
Motor Vehicles, notifying it of the action just taken by the Board. Mr. Way seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Entry Rates at County Parks.
Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks & Recreation, announced that the Board had received
two pieces of correspondence regarding park entry rates. He said that one is a letter from
Ms. Connie Houchens, Manager at Lake Reynovia, requesting that the County increase its
entrance rates at County parks. The other correspondence is a memorandum from Mr. Mullaney
on the subject. He said that Ms. Houchens stated in her letter that Lake Reynovia has been
losing money on its swimming operation over the past several years, and she would like to
increase rates this year. Ms. Houchens feels, however, that Lake Reynovia rates cannot be
increased unless the County increases its rates. Mr. Mullaney stated that the last time that
the County increased its prices was three years ago. With the current rate structure, the
County receives approximately $100,000 in revenues at Chris Greene and Mint Springs Parks.
The cost of the County's swimming operation is approximately $97,000, and the other costs of
operating the two parks are approximately $114,000. Mr. Mullaney remarked that Ms. Houchens
feels that it is unfair for her to have to compete with a pricing structure than can absorb a
$114,000 deficit, and she is requesting that the parks eventually operate on a self-sustain-
ing basis. She also thinks there should be an immediate increase of the current rates of 50
cents on the daily entry and an increase of $20 on the family passes plus a limit for a
family of four. Each additional person past a family of four would have to pay an additional
$15.
Mr. Mullaney said he has given to the Board an alternate proposal. Mr. Mullaney propos-
es that there be a slight increase to adult residents on the daily entry, but the brunt of
his increases would fall on the non-County residents. Mr. Mullaney pointed out that the
daily entry for an adult non-resident goes up 75 cents and the child non-resident goes up 50
cents. He mentioned that the season passes stay the same except for family passes. Here,
Mr. Mullaney would also recommend a limit on the number of people who could be considered
under a family pass. He has set a figure of five people for a family pass with a $10 fee for
additional people. The non-resident pass would cost $15 for each additional person over the
family limit of five persons.
Mr. Mullaney went on to say that whether parks such as Chris Greene and Mint Springs
should be totally self-supporting is up to the governing body. He commented that some
taxpayers feel that their tax dollars are paying for these services, and they do not use the
parks and feel that the people who do go to the parks should pay the total costs of opera-
tion. Mr. Mullaney remarked that it is not unusual for a Parks and Recreation Department to
operate at a deficit. Of 81 parks in the cities, counties and towns in Virginia, Albemarle
County has the twenty-fifty highest ratio of revenues coming back to expenditures. He told
the Board that Ms. Houchens and Ms. Barbara White are at the meeting today to hear the
Board's discussion.
Mr. Fisher commented that when swimming operations first began in Albemarle County, the
intent of the Board in setting the fees was to try to recover the costs of the swimming
operations. The parks would then be considered free, because everyone had paid for them, and
5.00
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 19)
everyone should be able to use them. He said that if the Board wants to change the fees, it
has that option. He feels that trying to recover all costs by raising the entrance fees
would bring County facilities very close to a commercial operation. He thought the last rate
increase was rather severe and he personally does not want to increase the rates. He gets
enough complaints from County residents who go out to the parks with four or five persons in
the car on a Sunday afternoon and must pay an enormous fee. He believes the people have
already paid for the parks through County taxes, and he does not feel that they should be
charged more.
Mr. Bowie remarked that constituents who mentioned it to him want free entrance to the
park nearest them, but they feel that every other park should pay for itself. He said that
certain costs are definitely governmental costs, such as acquisition of land and capital
improvements. He thinks the people who go to the parks for a specialized use such as to play
tennis, swim or play softball, should pay more for that use.
Mr. Henley commented that he can support what the staff is proposing, and he does not
think that it is a very big increase. He went on to say that the people are given safe
places to swim, and lifeguards are furnished. He mentioned, too, that the upkeep on a park
is great, and he thinks the people who use it should pay a large part of its costs.
Mr. Mullaney mentioned that the major increase is in the non-resident rates. He said
this could help Lake Reynovia and could encourage City residents who live in close proximity
to Lake Reynovia to go there. Mr. Mullaney said he thinks the most appealing thing about the
staff proposal is the limit on the size of the family pass. He stated that each year family
passes are sold to people with eight to twelve children. He said it is awkward for County
employees to question whether all the children really belong to one family.. He thinks it
would be reasonable to put a limit on the family pass. Mr. Fisher questioned how this could
be done. Mr. Mullaney answered that a pass would be issued for each person in the family. A
family of six with a family pass would pay the $50 fee for the five people and $10 for an
additional pass. He said that family passes are periodically checked against driver's
licenses if there is some question that the passes are being traded around. He said this is
awkward.
Mr. Way commented that he will support the staff proposal.
Mr. Bowie stated that he will support the staff's proposal. He said he would suggest
that a cost of living increase in admission fees be adopted for future budgets.
Mr. Mullaney mentioned that a change in the rates now requires action of the Board and a
change in the County Code. He suggested that it might be better to change the rates through
the normal budget process.
Mr. Fisher asked what rate structure was used in calculating the Parks and Recreation
budget for next year. Mr. Mullaney answered that the budget for next year is based upon the
current rate structure.
(Note: Mr. St. John left the meeting at 12:20 P.M.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Bowie to increase park entry fees
as follows:
"Daily Entry
Adult Resident - $2.00
Child Resident - $1.00
Adult Non-Resident - $3.00
Child Non-Resident - $2.00
Season Pass
Adult Resident - $25.00
Child Resident - $15.00
Adult Non-Resident $35.00
Child Non-Resident - $25.00
Family Resident - $50.00 for
five people plus $10.00 for
each additional person
Family Non-Resident - $75.00
for five people plus $15.00
for each additi~onal person"
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion of charging fees for non-residents using County Classes
and Athletic Programs. The following memorandum was received for the record:
"The Board of Supervisors at its meeting of February 12, 1986, requested
that we investigate the pro's and con's of charging an additional fee to
non-residents for participation in Albemarle County classes and athletic
programs.
As you know, several years ago we instituted the non-resident fees at the
County Parks in response to the City's adoption of a differential pricing
structure for their classes and programs. This non-resident fee generated
approximately $8,600 in additional revenue over this past season.
In the past we have not recommended a differential pricing structure for our
other programs for several reasons. Since most of our classes were located
out in the County, we did not have a great deal of participation by
non-residents and in many cases those few non-residents gave us the
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
__/Paqe 20)
50i
registration necessary to hold the program. Now that our programs are
growing in popularity and we have more offerings in the urban area, the
number of non-residents involved has increased. We have hesitated to charge
an additional nonresident rate because we fully expected that the City would
be agreeable in the near future to drop their extra charge to County resi-
dents. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case.
The pro's and con's of such a charge are as follows:
Pro's:
Potential to increase revenue with equal participation.
2. Recognition that County residents already support service with tax
dollars and, therefore, should pay less than non-residents.
3. May decrease number of non-residents in crowded classes and programs so
that more residents can participate.
Con's:
1. Proof of residency is sometimes difficult to establish.
2. May cause a sufficient decrease in participation in some isolated
programs that could result in a cancellation or a reduction in
revenues for those programs.
Currently, about 17.5 percent of our class participants and 41 percent of
our athletic league participants are not County residents. I would recom-
mend that we adopt a fee schedule for non-residents that would be consistent
with the fees charged to non-residents in City programs. The non-resident
rates for fee based classes should be 50 percent higher than resident rates.
This would mean for example that a typical exercise class that meets twice a
week for an hour for 10 weeks would cost $25 to residents and $37.50 to
non-residents. For athletic leagues the regular team entry fee should be
charged plus an additional $5.00 for each non-resident on the roster.
Therefore, an adult basketball team with five non-County residents would pay
the $325 regular team entry fee plus $25 additional. It should be noted
that class and athletic league rates are increased whenever operational
costs increase.
In conclusion, I would recommend that beginning July 1, 1986, we begin
charging the aforementioned non-resident fees for County classes and athlet-
ic programs. I would like to include in this recommendation that the
Director of Parks and Recreation have the authority to waive the
non-resident fee to allow for cooperative efforts between the City and
County Parks and Recreation Departments."
Mr. Mullaney was present. He recommended that the changes be adopted effective July 1,
and he also asked that his office be given the authority to waive the non-resident fees to
allow for cooperative programming between the City and County.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Mullaney if he thinks the City will lower its rates to County
residents. Mr. Mullaney answered that he had mentioned it to City staff, but indications are
that the City does not seem willing to talk about it at this time. Mr. Bowie asked if at
some future date the City decides to change its policy, would it be possible to change the
fee policy. Mr. Mullaney answered, "yes."
Mr. Lindstrom asked how much extra revenue this would generate. Mr. Mullaney answered
that charging fees to non-residents using County classes and athletic programs would generate
approximately $2,700 in additional revenue. He said that the classes and athletic programs
are now bringing in approximately $39,000. Mr. Lindstrom then wanted to know if the City has
a differential rate structure for these same kinds of programs. Mr. Mullaney answered that
the City has the same type of rate structure which is 50 percent higher for non-residents for
classes and an additional charge on the rosters for non-residents for the athletic teams.
Mr. Way asked if these classes and athletic teams are primarily for adults. Mr.
Mullaney replied that the majority of the classes are for adults. He said there are a few
fee-based classes for children, such as ballet and gymnastics classes. He added that the
athletic teams are for adults.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the fee structure is appropriate, and he does not feel
hostile to the City for its differential rates, because the City has invested substantial
amounts and some facilities have been paid for by its citizens and taxpayers. He does think,
however, that it would be nice if both the City and County could eliminate these fees. He
believes that the City is receiving approximately $37,000 in additional revenues from
non-resident fees, which recognizes that a substantial number of out-of-City residents are
using these programs. He believes that it is reasonable for the County to charge for
non-residents when they are using County programs, so he will support Mr. Mullaney's propos-
al.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set fees for
non-residents as:
"For fee-based programs, the fee charged non-residents will be 50 percent
higher;
For team entry events, regular fee plus $5.00 additional for all
non-residents on the roster."
502
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher commented that the difference with this proposal by Mr. Mullaney is that this
situation relates to programs and classes where the primary cost is that of fees charged to
pay the instructors and to pay for some materials. He said that it does not involve large
investments in facilities. He wishes that the County could have been more successful in
negotiating with the City. He said the City talks about the County and City being one
community, and he thinks that this should be true for programs of this type. He said,
however, the City was not interested in negotiating at this time, so he thinks that the
County needs to have the same type of fees.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session. Mr. Fisher suggested that Agenda Items No. 13,
14 and 15 be moved to the afternoon agenda. At 12:30 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to
adjourn into executive session to discuss the sale and/or acquisition of property, and
personnel and legal matters. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:35 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment re:
Funds (advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1, 1986).
Federal Revenue Sharing
The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated March 21,
1986, entitled "FY 85-86 Appropriation Ordinance Amendment" was received as follows:
"Attached is a memorandum from the Director of Finance explaining the needed
adjustment in the Appropriation Ordinance due to the Federal Revenue Sharing
receipts being received for the entire fiscal year rather than for just one
quarter as originally budgeted.
This transaction does these things:
1)
It leaves an additional $457,489 in the General Fund that can be
'transferred to the CIP Fund at a later date.
2)
By using Federal Revenue monies for utility payments, you avoid the
restrictions of the Davis-Bacon Act on wages.
3)
It provides a better basis in the distribution formula for future
Federal Revenue Sharing allocations if the law is extended beyond
October, 1986.
A public hearing is being advertised by the clerk for our April 9 meeting.
This advertisement designates Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Monies for
utility payments in schools, as well as an amendment of the FY 85-86 appro-
priation ordinance. The $102,229 is being budgeted in FY 86-87."
Mr. Jones announced that this is a request to amend the Appropriation Ordinance to
account for the receipt of a full year of Federal Revenue Sharing funds during the current
year while only one quarter was estimated and budgeted. He called attention to the fact that
the amount for the three quarters of Entitlement Period 17 is slightly more than Mr. Breeden
is asking for in the amendment. This will be adjusted, however, so that it will be correct.
He went on to say that the request is for the Board to approve $457,489 additional Federal
Revenue Sharing money to go to the School Fund in lieu of General Fund money. He mentioned
that this makes additional money available to the Capital Improvement Program.
There were no questions for Mr. Jones, so Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing.
was present who desired to speak, so the public hearing was closed.
No one
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the net effect of this amendment is that there will be an addi-
tional $457,489 in the General Fund Carry-Over balance at the end of this year that can be
transferred to the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Jones answered that Mr. Lindstrom is
correct. He said that the proposed budget for next year was also done with this in mind.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $457,489.00 be, and the same is hereby appropriated
from the Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to the General Fund and
coded to 2-1000-51000-512002 entitled Transfer for Federal Revenue
Sharing; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
5'03
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 18. Lease: Southside Health Center.
Mr. Brock Green spoke to the Board and said that he is the attorney for the Southside
Health Center. He mentioned his letter to the Board dated April 2, 1986, and said this
letter summarized the issues relevant to the new lease. It has been a complicated process
since last Fall when the Federal Government told the Health Center that it would not be
funded beginning this coming grant year, unless it joined another health center or in some
way joined up with private practitioners and increased the usage of the facility. He said
the Health Center is not of the size or quality to meet Federal guidelines in terms of uses
or patient encounters.
Mr. Green stated that the Center has been negotiating with the Central Virginia Com-
munity Health Center in Buckingham which is a large health center with approximately a $2.0
million budget, and has been in operation for 16 years. The Federal Government indicated
that if the Southside Health Center could join with the Central Virginia Community Health
Center and come under the umbrella of its grant, then health center services would continue
to be funded to the residents of southern Albemarle in the same fashion as was done before,
but through a different granting mechanism. This would mean, essentially, that Central
Virginia would take over the Southside Health Center. The Health Center has, since that
time, tried to negotiate an agreement with Central Virginia and now has a rough draft which
it is hoped will be signed next week.
Mr. Green mentioned said there is a problem with the building where the Southside Health
Center is located. The County owns the building and, in the past, has rented it to the
Health Center for a nominal fee. One of the points of the negotiation with Central Virginia
was to keep the Center open as much as possible. During the last year, it has been open 40
hours a week. Mr. Green stated that the Central Virginia Health Center, because of Federal
budgetary constraints, could not agree to keep the Center open 40 hours a week for any longer
than six months after the consolidation begins. He said the consolidation will begin as
soon as the agreement is signed, or as of the next grant year, beginning August 1, 1986. He
commented that Southside is trying to find ways of keeping the clinic open, should Central
Virginia say after six months that Federal guidelines are still not being met for usage in
the clinic and the hours of operation will have to be cut.
Southside's Board could ensure operation of the clinic for a longer period of time
if the County would charge rent, probably in the amount of $500, to Central Virginia for use
of the facility. He said Southside would be allowed to keep that rent and use it to buy back
from Central Virginia time in order to keep the clinic open. Since the Southside Board does
not have a lot of negotiating power at this point, Mr. Green believes that a system could be
agreed upon where the money comes through the Center to the County, as long as this money
could be earmarked to be returned back to Southside. He pointed out that the old lease
agreement states that Southside could not sublease without the County's permission. Mr.
Green said it would be good to have in the lease agreement permission from the County to
sublease on the same terms that Southside is leasing from the County, but only to Central
Virginia. Also in the lease agreement there could be a clause between Southside and the
County that the rent would be reduced if Central Virginia was not given $500 a month to lease
the Southside clinic. He does not care how this matter is handled, but he does not think
that a clause relating to reduced rent should be included in any lease agreement that will be
given to the Federal Government.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board needs to be aware that the goal is to provide
medical services, and Southside is worried that funds will be cut. Mr. Green agreed with Mr.
Fisher and said that Southside is also worried that the hours of the clinic may be cut back,
and it is hoped that funds will be available to keep the clinic open. Southside does not
want to make a profit or to do anything except keep the services at the same level that they
are at present. This seems to be an easy way to do it. He mentioned that a subsidiary issue
has come up in the last couple of. days. When Central Virginia representatives were examining
the feasibility of using the existing clinic they weYe troubled by its shape. The clinic was
not designed to be a health care delivery service clinic, and it is crowded. Central Virgin-
ia wanted someone to do a study of what needs to be done to improve the clinic for continued
delivery of medical services or to build a new clinic in southern Albemarle. He went on to
say that Mr. Bryon Sample was hired to do this feasibility study. Mr. Green then distributed
copies of the study to the Board members. He pointed out that Mr. Sample indicated in his
study that hooking the trailer currently located at the clinic to the building itself to give
the clinic one contiguous space will cost approximately $20,000. This will not include other
renovations recommended in the study such as a new septic field, better insulation, etc. The
study further indicates that if the Health Center was shaped up and made prime for delivery
of medical services, it would cost approximately $100,000 for renovations. To build a
totally new structure, the study indicates that the cost would be approximately $200,000,
which does not include acquisition of land. Mr. Green stated that the reason this could be
important now is that Central Virginia is going to put into its grant request a figure for
renovations or new construction for the Southside clinic, and he knows that Central Virginia
is definitely going to ask for $20,000 to upgrade the existing facility.
If Central Virginia uses Federal money to improve a building that it does not own, Mr.
Green said, how does this affect the County? He said he has contacted someone in the Region
Three office of Health and Human Services to see if that benefit would accrue to the owner of
the building or how the Federal Government treats real property that the Government has
essentially improved. Mr. Green was told that the regulations would be mailed to him because
it was too complicated to explain over the phone.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Green what trailer he is referring to. Mr. Green said the trailer
was donated by the County to Southside and sets behind the facility. Mr. Way added that the
trailer was donated by the County school system. Mr. Fisher asked if a permit had been
issued for the trailer. Mr. Way responded that it is a legal trailer. Mr. Fisher asked if
the trailer was just parke~ at the facility or was it in use. Mr. Way responded that the
5O4
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Green commented that he wishes he could give the County more information as to what
is likely to happen if the Federal Government gives Central Virginia money to do these
renovations, but he does not know at this time.
Mr. Fisher said it seems to him that this issue breaks down into a series of decisions
that need to be addressed. The first one involves maintaining medical services at Southside,
and Mr. Fisher believes that the Board members will be interested in trying to do so, even if
it means subleasing or writing a new lease to Central Virginia. Mr. Fisher went on to say
that the second question is whether to charge rent and try to accumulate funds in the event
that there will not be funds in the future. He thinks this is a different issue, and he said
that the staff will probably want to advise the Board as to how to deal with this question.
Mr. Bowie commented that it is amazing how the Southside Health Center was started with
just a doctor and a little funding. He said that now there is discussion of a quarter of a
million dollar building. He believes that someone is needed to monitor this situation and
thinks that this is a lot of information for the Board to absorb in just a few minutes.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that he supports the Center and the purpose that it has, but he
does not understand exactly what Mr. Green is requesting. He believes that the staff needs
to review the requests from Mr. Green.
Mr. Jones mentioned that the Director of Staff Services has visited the clinic property.
The septic problem may not be exactly as Mr. Sample found it. Mr. Jones said that when the
trailer was put in, the bulldozer broke the line. He remarked that the line will be fixed,
but it is questionable whether the whole thing will have to be relocated.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Green would get answers to all of the questions that have been
asked today. Mr. Green responded that on the first issue he is asking that the Board approve
or look into the prospect of a new lease for Southside Health Center beginning August 1,
1986, for a one year period, at the rate of $500 per month, with the explicit permission in
that lease to allow Southside to sublease to Central Virginia for the same amount under the
same terms and conditions. He said the third and fourth issue in his letter relate to
working out an additional agreement between the County and Southside in the event that the
grant for the rent is reduced. He added that this could possibly be through a Letter of
Understanding.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that Southside will be reimbursed the amount of the
rent from another source. He is assuming that the Government is agreeing to fund an amount
of money each year and that part of this funding will be used for ren~. Mr. Lindstrom added,
however, that unless the rent is being paid, the Government will not fund money for rent. He
believes that Mr. Green is saying that he would like to set up a collection system for
Southside which will allow rent to be charged to Southside so that Southside will be eligible
for that subsidy, and then the rent will be recycled to the County. He asked if his under-
standing of the situation is correct. Mr. Green said "yes". He went on to say that this
matter occurred because Southside feared that its Board would be left with no power and no
money coming from the Federal Government or anywhere else. The Southside Board was also
afraid that Central Virginia might inform Southside that the clinic will not be able to stay
open more than 20 hours a week.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to investigate the request with a report back to the Board
as soon as possible. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Green needs an answer before August 1, 1986. Mr. Green
replied that the lease begins August 1, 1986. He said that the new lease actually needs to
be included as part of the Central Virginia grant request as soon as possible. He added that
the deadline for Central Virginia's grant request was March 31, 1986, but an extension was
granted. He believes that the extension was only for one month, but suggested that maybe the
information on the lease could be submitted beyond this time as supporting documentation, but
he is not sure.
Mr. Fisher explained that the charge to the staff under the motion made by Mr. Lindstrom
is to examine the situation relating to Southside Health Center and to bring the Board a
proposal as quickly as possible with the goal of keeping medical services open at Southside
Health Center for as long as possible.
Mr. Jones asked Mr. Green if he wants two leases to be created. Mr. Fisher answered
that it might not be a good idea to have two leases, and Mr. Green said that he did not care
how it was handled. He said if this complicated situation could be made simpler, it wOuld be
helpful. Mr. Fisher then told Mr. Green that Mr. Ray Jones would be the person charged with
the responsibility of trying to find a solution to this matter. He suggested that Mr. Green
keep in touch with Mr. Jones.
Agenda Item No. 13. Virginia Power Rate Contract, authorize execution of.
The following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, dated April 2,
1986, was received as follows:
"The Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) in conjunction with the Virgin-
ia Municipal League (VML) have been negotiating rates with Virginia Power
for approximately one year. The last official contract expired on June 30,
1985. The County will be billed retroactively on the new rates in April,
1986.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
P_~ 24)
50 5
Virginia Power originally sought a one year contract with an average rate
increase of 18 percent on the non-fuel portion of the rate. VACO and VML
had a consultant study. As the result of long negotiations through a
Steering Committee and its counsel, they have agreed on a three year con-
tract with the following average annual increases:
First Year (7-1-85 to 6-30-86)
Second Year (7-1-86 to 6-30-87)
Third Year (7-1-87 to 6-30-88)
Total Three Year Increase
4.8 percent
7.7 percent
4.4 percent
16.9 percent
The County has received three copies of a ten-page agreement and seventeen
pages of rates. The twenty-seven page document covers eleven different
types of service (i.e. street lighting, all-electric, water pumping, sewer
pumping, mercury lights, sodium vapor, miscellaneous light and power, etc.)
with rates broken down in six months intervals for a period of three years.
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors take official action authorizing
the County Executive to execute the three year agreement with Virginia
Power."
Mr. Fisher commented that the negotiations saved a substantial amount of money. Mr.
Jones said he thought deferring the Bath County project for one year made a difference in
these negotiations.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute the contract.
Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointee Trustee of Insurance Plan for part-time employees. The
following memorandum dated April 3, 1986, was received from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County
Executive:
"The above plan has been placed into operation, and it has been discovered
that a County employee needs to be designated Trustee of the Plan whose
responsibility would be to retain each employee's annuity contract in a
safe-keeping file, and deliver the contracts to employees upon termination
of their employment, or upon retirement. This appointment is designed to
prevent an employee from withdrawing the County's contribution from the Plan
while actively employed, and allow such withdrawal to occur only upon
retirement or termination.
The Director of Personnel is assigned the responsibility of administering
employee benefit programs, and would obviously be involved in retirements
and terminations. It is recommended that you appoint the Director of
Personnel to be the Trustee of the Part Time Permanent Employees Retirement
Annuity Plan."
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones if the trustee of the account has fiduciary responsibilities.
Mr. Jones answered "yes".
Mr. Fisher then inquired if the trustee would have the authority to determine how the
funds would be invested. Mr. Jones replied that the insurance company would handle invest-
ments.
Mr. Fisher asked if the trustee is the only person who can request the disbursement of
funds to the employee. Mr. Jones agreed that the trustee would be the only person who could
release the insurance company's payment to the individual. He said again, however, that the
trustee would not handle the investment or the management of the funds. He went on to say
that this is just a safeguard to keep the individual employees from withdrawing funds while
they are still employed by the County.
Mr. Way offered motion to appoint the Director of Personnel as the trustee for the
Part-Time/Permanent Employee Retirement Annuity Plan. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 15. Resolution: Need for Radar at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker presented the following memorandum from the County Executive dated
April 3, 1986:
"The attached resolution is being circulated, with request for adoption, to
the local governments served by our airport and the Shenandoah Valley
Airport in Weyers Cave. It is basically self-explanatory, except to advise
you that the Federal Aviation Administration will select, in the next few
months, airports for installation of radar facilities, and an installation
on the Blue Ridge mountains can serve both our airport and the one at Weyers
Cave. It is primarily a safety improvement, but it can reduce delays in
5O6
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 25)
handling traffic locally. It can also be a factor in Federal decisions to
continue an FAA manned tower at our airport.
The Airport Authority has been advised that we are a strong contender for
such a facility. We have also been advised that congressional support is
important. Your approval of the resolution is requested, and recommended."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the following
resolution:
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport provides an essential
transportation service to the people of Charlottesville, Albemarle County
and many nearby communities; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport lacks a terminal radar
facility; and
WHEREAS, radar services are currently provided by Washington Center,
which serves forty-three sectors; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is within the
Gordonsville/Low Altitude Sector and the Gordonsville/High Altitude Sector,
two of the busiest of the forty-three sec=ors served by Washington Center;
and
WHEREAS, a Charlottesville-Albemarle terminal radar facility could
reduce Washington Center traffic in the Gordonsville/Low Altitude Sector by
as much as fifty percent; and
WHEREAS, such service would greatly improve safety and reduce traffic
delays, especially in times of low visibility;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle supports the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Authority in its request for the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration to establish a terminal radar facility in the vicinity of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors instructs the
Clerk of the Board to forward this resolution to The Honorable John W.
Warner, The Honorable Paul So Trible, Jr., The Honorable D. French Slaughter
and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adoption: Annual Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Jones discussed the Annual Appropriation Ordinance with the Board. He said the only
adjustment in amounts is a result of removing $4,472 from the Personnel Department, which is
the allocation for the Employee Assistance Program, and transferring it to the Contingency
Fund. He remarked that this makes a grand total of $134,819 in the Contingency account. He
said that this year the Cost Center approach for the schools will not be a part of the Appro-
priation Ordinance. He added that Mr. Papenfuse and Mr. Breeden will do the Cost Center as a
subsidiary of the Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said if the Cost Center is done in this fashion, it
will be an internally controlled document. Mr. Jones agreed-and said the Board will not see
as many transfers as it has seen in the past.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had a modest proposal that he would like to present to the
Board. He said there is a housing need in Albemarle County which has not been addressed.
One of the problems he confronted when he was trying to envision the proposal from the
Housing Coalition was that there was never a specific, focused proposal for the position of
housing coordinator with dollar amounts identified. He mentioned that part of his concern is
that Federal, and to some extent State, programs that were available to deal with housing
needs have done almost all that they can do. He thinks it will take increased resourceful-
ness and effort locally to provide the kinds of opportunities for housing that some of the
citizens in this County require. He believes that under current circumstances it is even
more important that this office be created, at least on a temporary basis, to try to develop
the resources that remain, and to take advantage of the few Federal programs that might be
available to provide money locally to coordinate private efforts. He said there are private
foundations which may be able to assist in this effort. He thinks housing is a government
responsibility because this segment of population has no other lobbying group to support its
interest.
Mr. Lindstrom said his proposal is for a temporary office to be created for one year to
determine the extent to which there can be resources located to address this issue. It is a
modest proposal. He said this office would work with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, which he understands was Mr. Horne's suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom's concern is that
the housing issue in Albemarle County needs to be addressed directly, and if the County
relies totally on the Planning District Commission, then the issue may not be addressed
adequately, or there may be a feeling at the end of the year that there is no way of dealing
with the issue. He thinks this proposal gives serious attention and dignity to the housing
problem, the resources that give the program a chance of success. Mr. Lindstrom said the
Board members went on the housing tour sponsored by the Albemarle County Housing Coalition
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
P~qe 26)
507
and he does not believe that any of them came away from the tour without believing that there
is a need for housing in Albemarle County. He mentioned that this type of office has been
discussed by the Board for approximately two years. He said the Board has never really
focused on it, but he thinks that the impression was created that the County would try to do
something such as this proposal. He said it takes such a small amount of money to give the
proposal a try, and he urged the Board to support his request. He made a motion that the
proposal be included as an amendment to the budget and suggested that the office be located
in the Planning and Community Development Department.
Mr. Fisher commented that he read the proposal over briefly while Mr. Lindstrom was
discussing it, and he is nervous about the concept of getting into landlord/tenant relation-
ships. He said there may be a severe need for housing, but he has not focused upon it as a
function of the County at this point. He read from the second page of the proposal where it
states "... to represent the needs of the tenant to the landlord and needs of the landlord to
the tenant." He thinks this could draw down the position of the office. Mr. Lindstrom said
he does not see Mr. Fisher's concerns as a major aspect of the proposal, and he does not
think the proposal would be harmed by deleting that portion. His point is to try to create
the office with a list of things that are important concerns. These are concerns that have
been identified by the people who have been working with the problem for a long time.
Mr. Fisher explained that he is not saying that there is not a need for this office, but
he is concerned that an experimental position will be taking on these kinds of responsibili-
ties. He is concerned that the landlord/tenant relationships aspect may "drown" the remain-
der of the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Way agreed that there is a need and a responsibility on the part of the government
to address this serious housing problem, but he is not sure whether or not it should be done
through the Planning District Commission or through the County's own housing office. He
thought the County could contract services from the Planning District. Mr. Way stated that
he is prepared to support something for housing, and he is open to either Mr. Lindstrom's
proposal, or a contract with the Planning District.
Mr. Lindstrom said that one of the concerns expressed by this Board is that local money
is being spent to handle problems that are other people's problems rather than the residents
of this County. He added this proposal avoids that issue and avoids trying to figure out how
much of the additional funding requested by the Planning District Commission would be spent
in other counties. He would like to see this type of position in one organization or the
other, and the input that he has received is that it would be better to set up the office in
the County.
Mr. Bowie stated that one of the things the Thomas Jefferson Planning District has been
trying to do is to get away from the per capita charge and lean more toward each county
contracting services for a certain number of hours. He said the counties would be avoiding
such things as overhead and fringes, and would contract for the number of hours of whatever
service that particular county needed. He said it seems to him that this approach is logi-
cal, and that if Albemarle County can support this service, other counties could support it
also, even if they have not been able to afford anything else. Mr. Bowie then stated the he
has never seen any job created temporarily get eliminated. He does not believe that there is
any such thing as a temporary government job. He does not intend to support Mr. Lindstrom's
proposal, but he thinks that within the Planning District a solution could be found.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if there is anything that would technically prevent a person
from being hired on a part-time basis to manage these functions. Mr. Tucker replied, "no."
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Lindstrom why he decided upon a three-fifth's position. Mr.
Lindstrom replied that the expectancy was that three-fifths of a position was a beginning
point and was better than half-time, but less than full-time.
Mr. Henley said he has been approached about this matter several times, and he does not
feel that a housing coordinator is needed. He would, however, be willing to give the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) more money to fix up houses. Mr. Lindstrom
pointed out that AHIP's responsibilities are different from this proposal. He thinks that
AHIP already has more than it can do, and AHIP can deal only with the renovation of owner-oc-
cupied properties. He said this limits a lot of people who have problems or don't have
housing at all. Mr. Henley stated that he could not support Mr. Lindstrom's proposal until
he can see what another locality has done with the same situation. He does not believe it
will work.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Tucker if there are any other localities with similar programs. Mr.
Tucker responded that Loudoun County has a housing coordinator, but he is not sure that this
coordinator has the same functions outlined in this proposal.
Mr. Way said he is convinced that there is a tremendous housing need in the County and
there are a lot of agencies within the County that are attempting to deal with this on a
piecemeal basis. This proposal, he said, will make it possible to hire someone to put all of
the pieces of the puzzle together and to generate as much assistance, both public and pri-
vate, as possible to meet this need. He thinks that the $17,000 that this proposal will cost
will generate a tremendous amount of money in addition to that amount. He seconded Mr.
Lindstrom's motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley (who commented that he will have to see some results before he
supports a proposal such as this one next time), Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bowie.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that the activities of the office, the relationships and the
description of the housing corrdinator, are intended to be a guideline and are not intended
to dictate to the staff what this person will do. He agreed with Mr. Way that there is a
508
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
need to coordinate the functions, not only with the public agencies, but also with the
private sector. He is hoping that this person can stimulate some private co~_ntributions from
homebuilders, with the understanding that this is not funded as a housing program, but as an
office designed to stimulate existing programs and to create new interest in the private
sector.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstorm's motion includes the landlord/tenant relationships.
Mr. Lindstrom replied that he would not mind if that part of the proposal were deleted. He
agreed with Mr. Fisher that he does not think that a function should be created that will
start off wrong with some people. At this time, he indicated that all references to the
landlord/tenant relationships would be deleted from the proposal. Mr. Tucker referred to the
comments in the proposal relating to the location of the staff person. He wanted the Board
to understand that it is suggested that this person be located in the Department of Planning
and Community Development under direction of the Chief of Community Development, but the
Director of Planning is the head of this department. Mr. Lindstrom said that the office was
intended to be in the Community Development branch of the Department of Planning and Communi-
ty Development. Mr. Tucker then called attention to the fact that there are already plans to
move the Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Office to the Social Services Department.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom clarified some of the points in the proposal. He said the
job purpose and activities are as they are outlined in the proposal, but the reference would
be deleted to the landlord/tenant rights. He said the regional aspect is just an indication
of how this position will work with other agencies.
Mr. Way indicated that he wanted to make an amendment to the budget dealing with the
Home Safety Repair Program for the Jefferson Area Board for Aging. He mentioned that he had
made a motion at an earlier meeting to increase JABA's appropriation by. $5,000. He under-
stood at the time that the major objection to the request was the fear that the money would
be put into rental units, increasing their value, and the owner would get this benefit. He
said Board members have received a letter concerning that particular subject and stating that
this is not the case. He indicated that the JABA Board would be glad to have a stipulation
that funds provided by the County would not be used for nonrecoverable improvements for
renters. Since that was the major concern of that additional allocation, he wondered if the
Board would reconsider this matter. He then offered motion that an additional $5,000 be put
in the budget for the Home Safety Repair Program, with the stipulation that none of the funds
be used for nonrecoverable improvements for renters. Mr. Lindstrom said that, based on the
letter referred to by Mr. Way, he would second the motion.
Mr. Bowie commented that he thinks the proposal for housing the Board just approved is a
terrible waste of money and will accomplish nothing. He said he will support Mr. Way's
motion, but feels that a lot more could have been done without another staff person.
Mr. Henley asked how much JABA's appropriation was increased the last time it was
presented. Mr. Way replied that JABA's appropriation was not increased at that time. It was
left at $5,000, and Mr. Way's amendment would increase the appropriation to $10,000. Mr.
Henley said he thinks the money should be managed carefully, because a lot of things are
requested that are not needed, although he believes this is a good service for elderly
people. He said he would support Mr. Way's motion, but will not support a 100 percen~
increase next year.
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt the 1986-87
Appropriation Ordinance with the two amendments just made. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paq~ 28).
509
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1987
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expen-
ditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1987; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal
all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances
inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of two million five hundred sixty-four thousand six hundred dollars
and no cents ($2,564,600) is appropriated from the General Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements $ 2,564,600
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of four million nine hundred fifty-six thousand nine hundred
one dollars and no cents ($4,956,901) is appropriated from the General Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors
2. County Executive
3. Data Processing
4. Elections
5. Engineering
6. Finance
7. Inspections
8. Legal Services
9. Personnel
10. Planning
11. Planning District Commission
12. Staff Services
13. Watershed Management
14. Zoning
334,852
289,382
499,114
86,700
262,675
1,219,318
464,637
166,859
237,495
459,854
20,810
682,959
34,745
197,501
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum
of three million nine hundred thirteen thousand nine hundred eighteen dollars
and no cents ($3,918,906) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Adult Day Care
2. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
3. Monticello Area Community ACtion Agency
4. Region Ten Community Services
5. District Home
6. VPI Extension Service
7. Health Department
8. Housing
9. Jefferson Area Board on Aging
10. Jefferson Area United Transportation
11. Legal Aid Society
12. Regional Library
13. Madison House
14. Offender Aid and Restoration
15. Outreach Counseling
16. Parks and Recreations
17. Piedmont Virginia Community College
18. Retired Senior Volunteer Program
19. Shelter for Help in Emergency
20. Soil and Water Conservation
23. Urban Bus Service
24. Virginia Public Assistance
25. Public Assistance Payments
26. Food Stamp Program
27. Employment Service Program
28. Fuel Assistance Program
29. Visitors' Bureau
16,000
179,990
19,135
120,376
18,000
62,407
383 640
67 372
23 565
18 073
8 260
598 150
3 120
20 844
11 232
609 684
5 190
5,000
22,406
10,926
15,935
926,816
456,185
195,611
46,227
38,032
36,730
510
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(PaGe 29)
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of four million four hundred sixty-eight thousand three hundred thirty
five dollars and no cents ($4,468,335) is appropriated from the General Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Ambulance and Rescue Squads $ 44,615
2. Animal Control 50,526
3. Circuit Court 37,788
4. Clerk of Circuit Court 279,691
5. Commonwealth's Attorney 214,919
6. Community Attention Home 24,360
7. Correction and Detention (Jail) 62,411
8. Emergency Medical Communication Equipment 239
9. Emergency Medical Services Council 5,500
10. Fire Department 371,460
11. Forest Fire Extinction Service 13,595
12. General District Court 13,970
13. Joint Dispatch Center 133,140
14. Juvenile Detention Home 11,989
15. Juvenile Court 34,250
16. Magistrate 2,725
17. Police Department 1,858,517
18. Refuse Disposal 723,428
19. Sheriff 312,112
20. SPCA Contract 6,000
21. Volunteer Fire Departments 260,060
22. Grants (Miscellaneous) 7,040
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General
Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund
$ 1,000,000
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of
Charlottesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City
and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1987, in the
amount of one million nine hundred forty-two thousand five hundred nine
dollars and no cents ($1,942,509) is appropriated from the General Fund as
follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 1,942,509
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 18,851,251
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 15,854,822
2,996,429
--0--
$ 18,851,251
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of thirty-three
million eight hundred ninety-two thousand eight hundred thirty-five dollars and
no cents ($33,892,835) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Administration
2. Instruction-Regular Day School
3. Attendance and Health Services
4. Pupil Transportation
5. Operation-School Plant
6. Fixed Charges
7. Adult Education
$ 649,291
21,121,885
236,315
2,547,063
3,454,403
5,881,278
2,600
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 33,892,835
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
To be provided as follows: Prior Year's Fund Balance
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
*Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund)
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 153,681
19,045,933
14,270,343
102,229
320,649
$ 33,892,835
*Federal Revenue Sharing moneys are earmarked for payment of energy
usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 5,
Paragraph One of this Section (Operation-School Plants).
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum
of one million two hundred ninety-one thousand eight hundred sixty-four
dollars and no cents ($1,291,864) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias
$ 1,291,864
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 1,291,864
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
866,364
40,000
385,500
$ lr291r864
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum
of two hundred thirty thousand dollars and no cents ($230,000) is appropriated
from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks $ 230,000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
To be provided as follows: '
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 230,000
213,000
17,000
$ 230,000
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the
sum of seven thousand dollars and no cents ($7,000) is appropriated from the
Mclntire Trust Fund as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 7,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 7,000
7,000
7,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of one
million nine hundred eighty-one thousand one hundred sixteen dollars and no
cents ($1,981,166) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows:
1. Debt Service Payments $ 1,981,166
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 31!
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 1,981,166
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
1,981,166
$ 1,981,166
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of six hundred
seventy-four thousand six hundred thirty-one dollars and no cents ($674,631) is
appropriated from the Grant Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Tips $ 67,367
2. P.R.E.P. Program 607,264
SUMMARY
Total GRANT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 674,631
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Miscellaneous Sources
Total GRANT FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
67,367
607,264
$ 674,361
(Note: Appropriations for Grant Projects are made subject to
approval of the Grant Application and sufficient funding
by the Grantor.)
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of four hundred
ninety-five thousand seven hundred four dollars and no cents ($495,704) is
appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Organizational Research
2. Chapter I
3. Chapter II
4. Migrant Education
29,997
378,522
58,378
28,807
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
495,704
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987 $
495,704
495,704
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of two hundred
three thousand seven hundred seventy-six dollars and no cents ($203,776) is
appropriated from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Community Education
$ 203,776
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
$ 203,776
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Other Sources
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987 $
203,776
203,776
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT the sum of two
hundred twenty-four thousand four hundred ninety-two dollars and no cents
($224,492) is appropriated from the Facilities Refurbishment Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Facilities Refurbishment
$ 224,492
SUMMARY
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987 $
224,492
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND resources
Available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1987 $
224,492
224,492
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
SECTION IV
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the
sum of one million four hundred forty-six thousand eight hundred seventy-five
dollars and no cents ($1,446,875) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund
to be apportioned as follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail
$ 1,446,875
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
1,446,875
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
215,125
1,202,150
14,000
15,600
$ 1,446,875
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of JOINT DISPATCH CENTER OPERATIONS the sum of
four hundred thirteen thousand eight hundred sixty-three dollars and no cents
($413,863) is appropriated from the Joint Dispatch Center Fund and apportioned
as follows:
1. Compensation $ 331,848
2. Operations 82,015
SUMMARY
Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987
413,863
To be provided as follows:
From the County of Albemarle $
From the City of Charlottesville
From the University of Virginia
Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND resources avail-
able for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1987 $
133,140
209,000
71,723
413f863
Total appropriations mentioned in
Sections I through IV in this Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1987:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Fiscal Agent Funds
GRAND TOTAL
$ 18,851,251
33,892,835
5,108,633
1,860~738
$ 59,713,457
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as moneys
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered by this appro-
priation ordinance; and
FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
transfer to other funds from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, from time to
time as moneys become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund for
the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION V
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions,
and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appropri-
ations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund, the
McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the
Debt Service Fund, Grant Projects Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Edu-
cation Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Joint Dispatch Center Fund, are
declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Pa_~e 33)
purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named
herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected
and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are -
sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appro-
priations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of
all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenu~
estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the~ control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers
between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director
of Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June,
1987, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into
the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations
which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year,
beginning July 1, 1987. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be con-
strued to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund,
Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Debt Service
Fund, Grant Projects Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Conmunity Education Fund,
Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Joint Dispatch Center Fund or Federal Revenue
Sharing Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be used in
financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1987.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency,
or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that
no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract
on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be
approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or indi-
vidual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing such
competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contracting
department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate
action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred Contrary to the purchasing procedures pre-
scribedin the Albemarle County PurchasinG Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles
in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as
that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be sub-
ject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and eighty-six.
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
_/_Paqe 34)
515
At this time, Mr. Way thanked the staff for the way the materials were provided to the
Board for the budget hearings. He feels good about the overall budget and thinks that a
number of needed services are being provided to the County's citizens. He went on to say
that he believes the County school system will continue to function in an excellent manner,
and he said that approximately 99 percent of the requests from the school system were
approved. He also pointed out that even in areas of disagreement among Board members, the
money involved probably amounted to less than $100,000.
Mr. Fisher then inquired if the staff has received from the school administration
details of a budget that would carry out the purposes of the Supervisors' motions for
setting the base increases for classified personnel of three and one-half percent and
setting the teachers' salaries increases at an average of ten percent. Mr. Jones answered
that summaries relating to the base increases for school personnel and teachers' salaries
have been received.
Mr. Fisher asked if the figures listed in the Ordinance will coincide with what the
State is requiring. Mr. Jones answered, "yes." He mentioned, too, that the school system's
figures are in the same format as the annual audit.
Agenda Item No. 20. Set Tax Levy for 1986. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and
seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the following resolution setting the tax levy for 1986:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby lay the County Levy for the taxable year 1986 for
General County purposes at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of real estate, at Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on
every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at
Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on
every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; at Four
Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
assessed value of public service on unequalized assessments; and at
Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed
value of public service on equalized assessments, and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle
assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal
property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or
employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital;
including Public Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of
railroads based upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commis-
sion and certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and
valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as set
forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices
as set forth in the Virginia Code, except farm machinery, farm tools, farm
livestock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section
58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Tucker said that he would like to speak to the Board
about a matter relating to child care. He reminded the Board members that a child care
scholarship program for the United Way was not funded with this budget. He went on to say
that the staff had just learned a few days ago that the State has appropriated for each year
of the coming biennium $1.5 million state-wide for child care on the same sort of sliding
scale basis that United Way uses. The State has asked each locality, where there is a Social
Services division, to request any funding that the locality needs. Mr. Tucker explained that
the funding requires a ten percent match of local funds. He said that the County's Social
Services Department will respond to the State, and he explained that the Board will not be
obligated to fund such a program. He gave an example that for $5,000, the County could get
$50,000 for a sliding scale day care situation for working people who cannot afford care for
their children. He pointed out that it will not be the same type of day care that the Social
Services Department now provides for ADC recipients. This new State appropriation is for
those families who have eligible income standards and who are not ADC recipients, but could
be helped using a sliding scale as their salaries increase. He stated that he wanted to make
Board members aware of this situation, because the matter may come back to them at a later
time.
Agenda Item No. 2la. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher
suggested that Mrs. Elizabeth Tewksbury be reappointed to a term which will expire on
April 16, 1990. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Mr. Robert R. Humphris be reappointed to a term
which will expire on April 16, 1990.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way to make the appoint-
ments as noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
5 .6
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Paqe 35)
Agenda Item No. 2lb. Appointment: Community Services Board. No name was offered.
Agenda Item No. 21c.
offered.
Appointment:
Emergency Medical Services Council.
No name was
Agenda Item No. 21d. Appointment: Jefferson Area United Transportation Board. Motion
was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Ms. Jannene L. Shannon to a
term which will expire on September 30, 1987, and to appoint Mr. Franz G. Stillfried to a
term which will expire on September 30, 1986. Both appointments are to replace people who
have resigned. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 21e. Appointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. No name was offered.
Agenda Item No. 21f. Appointment: Planning District Commission. No name was offered.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Agnor has asked that the Board confirm the appointment of Mr.
Jesse Hurt as Director of Inspections. A motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom
and seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher said the Board also needs to appoint Mr. Charles Burgess as Zoning Adminis-
trator. A motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Way. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee has been involved in the selection of auditors under
the guidance of the new State P.procurement Act. He and Mr. Fisher are satisfied that
everything has been complied with. He then offered motion to appoint the firm of McGladrey,
Henrickson & Pullen to be the auditors for Albemarle County for the next three
years. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Fisher said that since the Board took action earlier today, he has been reminded by
staff that the Parks fees are set by ordinance. The Board will need to adopt a resolution of
intent to amend the fee schedule and then schedule a public hearing to amend the ordinance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, and seconded by Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing for
May 7, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Henley offered motion to authorize the County Attorney to settle with the insurance
company on the fire at the Old Scottsville Library. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Tucker noted that the "800" telephone number for those residents who live outside of
the 804 area code, has been installed and is working. A total of 1,154 people are affected.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John has had a chance to look at the standards of the
Board of Zoning Appeals. He is concerned that the BZA appears, from time to time, to dis-
agree with legislation and grant variances, etc., that change the substance of the legisla-
tion when the necessary criteria does not appear to be there. Mr. St. John asked if Mr.
Lindstrom is speaking about the statutory standards or the criteria that the BZA uses to
determine when those standards are met. Mr. Lindstrom replied that if the BZA has some
definitive criteria, he would like to see it. He said he knows there has been concern
relating to this matter before, and he is not sure how the BZA arrived at its recommendation
April 9, 1986 (Regular Day Meeting)
51 7
for this last zoning amendment. He would like to have more information, but he knows that
nothing can be done now to correct what has already happened.
Mr. Fisher told the Board members that copies of the statement that was made to the
Commission on Transportation in the Twenty-First Century is in their packets information.
Agenda Item No. 23.
adjourned at 4:00 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was