Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-13September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 1) 0002 4 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 13, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Horneff came forward to speak about the request from the Batesville Ruritan Club. He mentioned the many problems that have occurred at the site of the Stony Point Ruritan Club (which is adjacent to his property). He asked that the Board ask many questions about this organization before giving approval to the request. Mr. Perkins noted that he is a member of the Ruritan Club which he said is chartered in the State of Virginia, in fact, their national headquarters are in Virginia. Sometimes they rent their property to other people and the behavior of those people cannot be controlled. Mr. Horneff said the issue he is addressing is whether or not the Board of Supervisors should be writing a letter of endorsement for the Batesville Ruritan Club without knowing more about it. He understands the Batesville Club will purchase some land from the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Perkins said the land belongs to the Virginia Department of Forestry. Mr. Horneff said he believes that before that occurs there should be questions addressed and answered because of his personal experiences. Mr. Martin said he and Mr. Horneff have had extensive conversations concerning the Ruritan Club in Stony Point and there have been attempts to negotiate some reasonable understandings between Mr. Horneff and the Club and there has been some little success. Mr. Bob Watson from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association came forward to note that the Planning Commission has almost completed its work on the land use part of the growth area expansion part of the Comprehensive Plan. He handed to the Board a statement from the BRHBA giving their opinion of the plan prior to its coming to the Board. Mr. Buzz Smith, owner of Mill Mountain Farm in Sugar Hollow, came forward to speak about Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) and to request that the road be paved while the Highway Department is working in the area. He said residents in that area are here tonight-because they understand a resident of Sugar Hollow appeared last week indicating that she represented the majority and that is not true. He asked those in favor of having the road paved to raise their hands. Between 25 and 30 people so indicated. He said that not all of those in favor are present tonight. He indicated that he had a petition signed by 34 people who reside in Sugar Hollow who are in favor of paving~ and another petition with 132 names of those who live in the White Hall area who are in favor of having the road paved. (Note: The Clerk did not receive the petitions for the record.) Mr. Smith said a lot has been said about the river and the road in the last two weeks, but they are two distinct issues. He said those present tonight are in favor of paving the road. It is an issue of safety and the quality of life for those living in SUgar Hollow. He believes this is one of the busiest unpaved roads in the County. There is an attractive recreational feature at the dam that creates dramatic increases in traffic on the weekends. Many of these are urban drivers who are not used to unpaved roads, and the residents believe there is a dramatic safety problem in the area; dust in the summer and ice in the winter. He urged the Board not to do anything to interfere with VDOT's willingness to pave the road. Mr. Forrest Marshall asked if the petition was signed by the majority of landowners on the road. Some member of the audience indicated "yes". Mr. Richard Cabell said he and his wife Peyton are residents and landowners in Sugar Hollow. They are in favor of the work done by VDOT. If one had seen the area they would know the valley was ravished by the flood. River gravel was washed out by the tons and thousands of tree were dislodged. He said it will be difficult to ever return the river valley to its former September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 2) condition. They feel VDOT acted quickly and responsibly in repairing the road and making it passable. They feel that continuing the work is the right thing to do. Not only do they want the road paved, but they are also in favor of restoring the environment to what it was before the flood. He said that although some who live there do not want anything done that would impair or effect the river, the majority feel that one or two steps from perfection is probably acceptable. They appreciate this Board listening to all sides of this complex issue. They feel everybody must move forward and do the best that can be done, and they would appreciate the Board's support. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, member of the Moormans River Scenic Advisory Board, said they are concerned with the river as a special place, dedicated and recognized as such. They hope that the convenience and safety of the resi- dents in the Sugar Hollow area and the protection of the river's ecology and its recreational and scenic quality may be addressed as parallel and compati- ble values. They feel the road can be paved without altering the River's ecology and in a manner which maintains the character of the area and the environmental function of the tree canopy° They welcome a meeting of profes- sionals qualified to give advise as to how to complete the project without doing environmental damage and how to repair any damage to the stream bed which may have already occurred. Since Albemarle County is named in the Scenic Rivers Act as the administering agency for the Moormans River, it is appropriate that the Board of Supervisors, which has repeatedly acted to protect the Moormans and the County's watershed in the past take a role in crafting a resolution of this matter. Ms. Buttrick suggested that the County, because it has statutory authority as administering agency explore the possibility of being included in the State's environmental review process for road projects affecting the State Scenic River. Mr.<Jack Marshall said he lives on the Moormans River in White Hall District. He said when the VDOT representative said at last week's meeting that work would stop and not further compromise the stream bed, he thought a new level of cooperation and respect had been achieved. Last Friday morning when he went to Sugar Hollow with a reporter and camera, they found a huge backhoe in the middle of the river at the foot of the dam scooping out huge rocks and dumping them on the bank of the newly constructed road. He has been thinking about VDOT's obligations as a public agency. Obviously VDOT cannot do whatever it wants. Is it not accountable to the Board of Supervisors, the elected public representatives? Can it widen and pave whenever and wherever it wishes? Sugar Hollow Road is a public road. The Moormans River is public, legally protected for the public by this Board's designation of it as a scenic river, and independently by the State's designation of it as a scenic river. Major alternations in the face of Sugar Hollow should be reviewed by the public. There must be a normal procedure to inform the public, and an opportunity for public input. Mr. Jack Marshall said it was not announced that the Sugar Hollow Road would be widened and paved. His request is what he asked for last week. He requested that the Board ask VDOT to pause in its attack on the stream bed and the adjacent trees. He would then like to give local people who have an interest in the area and a knowledge of the environment a chance to voice their concerns and preferences about width, need for paving, trees to be cut or protected, raising or lowering the grade, type of guardrail, etc. Mr. Marshall said he is not against paving the road. It will be trade-offs and there is a need to balance safety and low maintenance against the need for guarding the natural and scenic beauty of that° Then, he would like to see the Board of Supervisors and not all of the other groups that have been mentioned, decide how to deal with the aftermath of the flood's damage for the long-range good of the County. Dr. John Briggs said he and his wife own one-third of a mile of property along Sugar Hollow Road and the Moormans River. They are in favor of paving the road. The damage done to the river was done by the flood and not by the people who are trying to fix up afterward. Although his name does not appear on the petition mentioned earlier in the meeting, he would have signed if he had known about it. He thinks the road should be paved while VDOT has the funds from FEMA. He thinks it could be years before it gets done if it is postponed now. An unidentified gentleman said he is a resident of Sugar Hollow. He said there was a pause in the work. Everybody who does not live in the area would like to have input. He said those interested in Sugar Hollow do not come in and pick up the trash that people who do not live in Sugar Hollow throw out. It is the residents who take care of the area. He feels they deserve what everybody else has. Ms. Justine Taylor said she lives east of White Hall, but not in the Sugar Hollow area. She said if there is a worse flood to come, there will not be just gravel, rocks and organic matter coming down the river, there will be a cadmium surfaced road coming down the river. She asked that the environment and the ecology be considered. Mrs° Taylor said she has lived on dirt roads the whole time she has lived in Virginia and she knows that they are dusty when there is drought, and they are muddy when it is wet, but they don't pollute. The cars that go over them pollute with oil and gasoline. That will go into the river the next time there is a flood and the cadmium will be sloughed off with it. She asked that the Board consider that what is done today will still be here one hundred years from now° September 13, 1995 (Night Meetihg) (Page 3) With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Perkins asked if the Board wanted to make a decision on this matter at this time. Mrs. Thomas said she felt that the Board should discuss the issue while these people are present. Mr. Perkins then asked Ms. Angela Tucker, VDOT, if she wished to comment. Ms. Angela Tucker said she came prepared to answer questions. She acknowledged that she had said, last week, that VDOT would respect the Board's request to pause in its work. She said it was their thought that the pause would occur in the surface-treating of the road, and that their continued restoration work would move along while their contractor was on the site° Upon receiving a call from Mr. Jack Marshall she reiterated that interpreta- tion, and basically asked that the contractor take a vacation this week. There should have been no work after early Tuesday morning. She will only call the contractor back on site for any work, restoration, plant-mixing, otherwise, after receiving some directions from this Board. Ms. Tucker said there was a question about the environmental impact of plant mix on a road that parallels a river. She has been told that generally there is little or no impact because of the high heat used to encapsulate the material in the asphalt which is basically an inert material. VDOT has asked for a full hydraulics review on Route 614 to be sure that all pipe sizes and ditching will accommodate runoff properly without excessive wash, etc. Ms. Tucker said she met with the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee and homeowners both for and against putting asphalt on the road, as well as several members of this Board. While VDOT is not required to hold a public hearing for the paving project (these are not FEMA funds which are being used as was mentioned earlier, but maintenance funds from the Richmond Office), VDOT has decided that, in the interest of working with the community, VDOT allow this Board to assist in resolving this matter on behalf of the general public. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he finds it hard to believe that the oil in the asphalt will not pollute the river. Ms. Tucker said she has been assured that the materials are placed at a very high heat, and when they are rolled and cooled to the environmental temperature, they are encapsulated. The trade-off is that the chemicals put down to allay the dust itself covers the canopy. The pollution from the vehicles is basically the same thing. The real challenge is to make the improved road fit well within the scenery and along the current path without destroying any trees unnecessarily, and without impacting the canopy to the river. Mr. Perkins said that he, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman met on site last Wednesday with VDOT representatives and looked at the work which is still to be done. There is only one place where there are additional trees to be cut and that is on the side of the road away from the stream. He asked Ms. Tucker how much more work is needed on the base of the road. Ms. Tucker said there is a section of the road that the Advisory Committee discussed regarding cutting into the canopy. That is the section of road near Puppy Run Farm. There is a sheer cliff on one side where the river sits about 20 feet below the road. To the other side would require the cutting of several substantial trees in order to get the 18 foot width. They can work with any experts who have an opinion as to what effect that would have on the canopy of the river. There is concern that at a certain time of the day, the angle of the sun through this piece of woods does provide shade. It is felt that a six-foot cut into the bank may be okay in order to get enough width through that section of road. Mrs. Thomas said she did some research and found that this (September 13) is a significant date in the history of the Moormans River. In 1979, on this date, the Board of Supervisors designated this as a scenic river saying it was pristine, and one of the County's most valuable natural assets. Then the Moormans was designated as a State Scenic River and the Governor appointed a Scenic River Advisory Committee to review federal, state or local projects affecting the river, or altering its natural or scenic character in any way. In 1992, the Moormans was nominated by this Board to be an exceptional water with the concurrence of all 30 of the riparian owners. Only five such rivers were nominated throughout the entire state, and the Moormans was the only one that had the concurrence of all the riparian owners. This does not give anyone more power over what happens on the river, but it indicates the value of the resource. Also, the Shenandoah National Park's Related Lands Study in 1993 designated the Moormans River corridor as an important riparian habitat worthy of protection. Mrs. Thomas said the State Code sets out that the management activities are the responsibility of local government, an advisory board of local citizens, and some other departments. In this case, which is unique in the state, the County of Albemarle was designated to administer the Moormans Scenic River. State law also allows the locality to initiate further pro- grams, and that is what Albemarle County did when it designated its one and only scenic stream overlay district for the Moormans River in Sugar Hollow. Any private person proposing to do something major in Sugar Hollow has to abide by this scenic river overlay, and these are extensive regulations. Mrs. Thomas said the river does not belong to VDOT and the emergency is over. There is no lawful reason for VDOT to assume ownership. It would be reprehensible for VDOT to fail to respect a scenic river, and while VDOT can't September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) O002S7 (Page 4) be reformed throughoUt the State, here in Albemarle COunty the BOard has some ability as the designated administrator to say that within this county's scenic river overlay, VDOT can't act alone. She said that Ms. Angela Tucker assured she, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman when they were on site that VDOT had decided it would abide by local government directions. Mrs. Thomas offered a motion that the Board give the following direc- tions: work on Route 614 up to the Sugar Hollow Dam on the Moormans River will proceed only with full respect for the scenic designation of the river; practically this will involve getting prior approval for earth, bank, waterway and water-disturbing activities now and in the future; approval shall be given by Albemarle County's Water Resources Manager after consultation with anyone he deems necessary to consult with (basically, it could be with the Moormans River Scenic Advisory Board or its designee, the Soil and Water Conservation, Game and inland Fisheries, Department of Conservation and Recreation). Mrs. Thomas said this process is not new. It is in essence what any private firm would have to do, and it is a good deal less than what VDOT, if it were not acting under the heading of an emergency, had promised it would do in a 1991 Memorandum of Agreement for the review of highway projects. This motion does not say whether the road will be paved. That should follow the process that VDOT has established which is essentially that the road will be paved, but there are questions about the tree canopy. This would require that there be a plan so that people know what is happening and will not be taken by surprise by, for instance, a backhoe found in the middle of the stream. Also, it establishes for the future that VDOT does not own the river and cannot act unilaterally in that river. There will be other high water events and the channels will lead the river to wipe out parts of the road in all likelihood. VDOT should have a process and know what that process is in order to proceed to make those repairs. This motion sets up a process. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Perkins said he does not want the Board to tie the hands of VDOT for two weeks or two months before the work can be done. He asked what time frame is being discussed here. Mrs. Thomas said it is not her intention to tie hands. She intends that the work proceed respecting the unique scenic river it runs along side of. It is not her intent to be obstructionist. Mr. Martin asked what happens next if this motion passes. Mr. Robert Tucker said there is still base work that needs to be done along the road, and he thinks those types of things could continue. Any activity that deals with the river banks, the canopy, and so forth, are what the motion is intended to address. There is work that could continue in the existing right- of-way and existing pavement width, but putting a backhoe in the stream bed, etc., would probably necessitate review by the County's Water Resources Manager. Mr. Martin said the first part of the motion refers to Route 614 and that implies that the motion is addressing the road, and then the motion goes on to talk about the river. The motion could be confusing. He recalls that the Board said "pause" last week, but continue essential work. That was interpreted as "stop and cease". He does not want a motion to imply to people from different viewpoints, different things. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he was led to believe last week that the majority of people in that area do not want the road paved, and now he finds that that is incorrect. He thinks that is a moot issue at this point. What the Board is talking about now is the river, and he will support what is being said about the river, but he does support the citizens about paving the road. Mr. Perkins asked if there is work still to be done in the stream bed. Ms. Tucker said there will is no more work necessary in the stream bed unless discussing some restoration of the steam bed; that may still be an issue. Mr. Perkins asked if VDOT could work with the Water Resources Manager, Mr. David Hirschman, so that work would not be done in the stream bed unless it were something he (Mr. Hirschman) wanted done that could be one in conjunc- tion with the road project. Ms. Tucker said "yes". Mr. Martin asked about the cut. Ms. Tucker said the cut is away from the stream, it is not adjacent to the stream bed. She said VDOT has also worked with the Soil Conservation recreation agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other environmental agencies throughout the process, and she can ask VDOT's environmental manager from Culpeper to coordinate meetings with these agencies on behalf of working in the confines of the scenic river requirements. She does not want to request that the VDOT Environmental Manager make this coordination and proceed solo. She would like to work in conjunction with the County's Water Resources Manager so that VDOT does not continue to make decisions or coordinate efforts that would reflect that VDOT has a private agenda. Mrs. Thomas said that is essentially what she is suggesting. She asked Mr. Hirschman for his comments on the procedure outlined. Mr. Hirschman said he believes his office, the Engineering Department~ the Planning and the Zoning Departmentys would be happy to work with VDOT and other agencies as plans progress to identify any problem areas while respecting the scenic qualities of the river. He does not see any technical problems in proceeding O0,OO i September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 5) on that type of strategy and he hopes it can be done in a timely fashion. It should not slow the process in any substantial way, but it would be a way of working out the elements that are important to preserve in places where the road comes in close contact with and intersects the river. There appears to be willingness to try and pull the players together and work with VDOT in a coordination of effort. Mrs. Humphris thanked Mrs. Thomas for her research. She said that often we forget what has been done and why it was done. In 20 years, the cast of characters changes, the residents change, and we forget the importance of safeguarding the river. It is a state-wide asset, a national asset, it is a treasure and it is the Board's job to try and preserve it for future genera- tions, while at the same time making it safe and available to the residents. Mr. Smith asked from the back of the room if the road will be paved. Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Tucker if this motion gives her enough guidance to proceed with that work. Ms. Tucker said if that is what the motion means, VDOT will pave the road, but she is concerned about the coordination that must occur as VDOT pro- gresses with the improvements. Giving her directions tonight to go ahead and pave from Route 674 to the dam is fine, and she can assure the Board that VDOT will make the necessary coordination of efforts with other agencies, abide by the scenic river mandates, or if the Board feels there is some other necessary step to share with the public, or suggest a way to give back some confidence that VDOT will approach the work that way. Mrs. Thomas said she believes it is a matter of confidence. When a meeting takes place between two people, and there is a nodding of heads and a general agreement, or shrugging of shoulders and a general "well its too late to do anything about it", the end result can all be the same, and it moves forward. To say there is a designated agent for what is the County's respon- sibility under the Code of Virginia to manage the scenic river would help everyone know the point people, and it would help VDOT to know the one person to deal with. The ability to coordinate would be made more clear, as well as give people a knowledge of where their input should go. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he does not think anything should be put in the river, but he does not have any objection to the paving of the road. Ms. Tucker said there is no longer any reason to work in the river. There is some hedgerow to come out and some fence to be reset, but it is on the opposite side of the river, and it does not really provide canopy to the river. She has looked at these locations with the advisory committee. There is concern about the one location at Puppy Run Farm and how to get through that section and provide a safe road width. That will be a challenge to discuss with these agencies and find a way not to harm the canopy but make the road fit. Even before proceeding with the rest of the restoration work that either the advisory committee or the property owners requested, VDOT will get input from these agencies as to whether capping some of the non-indigenous material with debris taken from the upper end of the reservoir is acceptable. This was proposed to assist in cleaning out the reservoir. If that is not acceptable, VDOT will not do that either. Mr. Larry Davis said that under State law regarding scenic rivers, the County is the administering agency and that gives the County a fiduciary role over the river. What the motion would do is to basically identify for VDOT that Mr. David Hirschman and County staff would be the process by which the Board would give recommendations for their work. What the State Code requires is that all state and local agencies doing work that might affect the scenic value of the river must consider the recommendations of the administering agency, which is the County. This resolution would legally mandate VDOT to consider the recommendations of the Board's voice, David Hirschman, before they could do any work of any substantial nature that would affect the scenic value of the river. To the extent that they have to pause to take that consideration before they can do more work, it creates a process that they should, and legally must, take into account before they proceed. If that is what the Board is trying to accomplish, the resolution will do that. Mrs. Thomas said that the resolution essentially just restates what already exists except that it makes it more clear because the State Code says it is the County of Albemarle, but does not say who it is in the County of Albemarle. Mr. Davis said the County was not giving clear recommendations because there was no process in place that was doing that specifically. What the Board is doing creates that process. The Board also needs to know that the process will then require VDOT to simply consider those recommendations. The State Code does not give the County the authority to mandate that VDOT do anything, but it does require VDOT to consider the County's recommendations. Mrs. Thomas said Ms. Tucker had said while they were on the site that VDOT has agreed to follow the direction of the local government. Ms. Tucker said VDOT would like to proceed with surface-treating the section of Route 614 up to Route 674. It was previously hard-surfaced and it washed out in this flood. That is some of the work their contractor has been proceeding with, placing some base stone on that section. She said VDOT would like to move along with that work, however, in order not to provoke any unnecessary feelings at this time, she does not want to start that work until all are well on the way to resolving the issue beyond Route 674 with the other agencies. 000289 September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 6) VDOT considers the issue with Route 614 to be frOm Route 674 to the Sugar Hollow dam. Mr. Perkins said he is worried about what might happen. He would like to see the road paved to the dam. If it were just the people who live in the area involved, they knew when they bought that it was a dirt road, but this road is heavily traveled by hikers and fishermen and sightseers. Ms. Tucker said there are about 200 vpd on the road; that is the count that was taken in 1994. Mr. Perkins said the sooner the work is done, the sooner the river will start healing. He would like to see the Game Commission and Trout Unlimited come in and do some hand work in creating some pools, etc. Now is the time to work in the stream because there is no water flow in it now. If the work is done this winter, there will be disturbance. Now is the time to do the work° He does not want to see something like this motion hang up the project. He thinks it would be best to say there are 45 days left to complete the job, so just do it. Mr. Perkins said he can support this motion, but he would like to see another motion directing that the road be paved to the top of the reser- voir. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he will make that motion if this one is gotten out of the way' first. With no further discussion of the motion, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. None. Mr. Forrest Marshall immediately offered mo%ion that the road be paved to the dam. Mr. Martin said it sounds like County government has a certain amount of control here in a unique situation. He understands that through Mrs. Thomas~ motion the Board has passed that along to an individual in County government to speak for the Board in conjunction and cooperation with a bunch of other agencies and people. He assumes that everything that takes place out there, except for Forrest's motion, if it passes, will have to go through this group of people. Now, instead of just "beating around the bush", and "dancing on the issue", and the Board not giving clear directions, if the Board wants to give clear direction, it should be a part of Mr. Marshall's motion so that the Board has given clear direction about those two things. Given the first motion, if there is anything the Board wants to give clear directions on, then it should be a part of Mr. Marshall's motion. Mr. Forrest Marshall said he is just saying that the road should be paved, and he does not think it will be done if it messes up the river. Is that correct? Mr. Perkins said he believes a paved road will be more environ- mentally friendly to the river than a gravel road. Mr. Martin asked if any of the things mentioned by Mr. Perkins that need to be done in the river should be included in this motion. Mr. Perkins said he believes Ms. Tucker has said that everything that needs to be done in the river has been completed. He does not want to put a backhoe in the river, but he believes that there could be some handwork done to create some pools~ etc. that would be beneficial to the fish. Mr. Bowerman said he is comfortable with Sally's (Mrs. Thomas') motion as it is because he thinks VDOT has the authority to pave the road from Route 674 to the reservoir as fast as they can. If the Board passes Mr. Marshall's motion and there is a conflict with Mrs. Thomas' motion, it will not speed up the process anyway. He does not believe they conflict because they are two different items from this point forward. Mr. Martin said the only reason he thinks they may conflict is that every time someone asked a question, it was answered by a five minute answer which included all kinds of things, and at the end, someone would ask another question which was answered by a five minute answer that would include everything, so he believes the right question is "is the road gonna be paved or not?" He thinks there just needs to be a clear statement. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think you can answer a complicated situation with simple answers. He thinks there were long answers because people have to discuss this as they go through it. From his visit out there on Monday, he does not believe there is anything that exists now that will interfere with VDOT's ability to pave the road at 18 feet. Even in places where they don't have the right-of-way of the full 50 feet or the full 40 feet, they can do it within 30 feet. He does not believe there is anything left in the way of road building that they need to do. Mr. Martin said he is not an expert, but he hears "I don't feel" and "I don't think", but he also heard when Ms. Tucker was asked "are you going to pave the road", it wasn't a "yes". Ms. Tucker stated her understanding of what is to be done: VDOT will proceed with paving the road from Route 674 to the dam and will do so giving every due consideration to the scenic river, and will work with every agency that is willing to offer an opinion as to how best to do that, and it will be 000:290 September 13, 1995 (N£ght Meet£ng) (Page 7) done in coordination with Mr. David Hirschman (Water Resources Manager). Ms. Tucker will contact him tomorrow and meet on site to make plans to do some more road work because there are places where a wider pavement must be fit in. If for whatever reason these agencies advise that it is harmful to the river to get this width of pavement, then that may put a stop to the paving of this section of road. She does not anticipate that happening, but there is some grading that needs to occur, particularly in the area of Puppy Run Farm where there is a need to get 18 feet of pavement in order to provide two lane widths, and there is consideration of the tree canopy there that has to occur, and if the professional opinion is that that does harm to the scenic river, then that can put a stop to paving this piece of roadway. Mrs. Thomas said she has been assuming that the road will be paved. She asked if Ms. Tucker is saying that if there is trouble in one spot, VDOT will stop and not pave the whole thing. She asked if it is not possible to have one section that is not 18 feet when everything else is. Mr. Perkins said there are bridges on the road which are not 18 feet in width. Ms. Tucker said she may get an exception for an 18 foot roadway when it does not approach a structure. They will tie into three one-way structures with less than 18 feet of-pavement and that is okay, but the section she is talking about is not a section that is required to be restricted due to one- lane structures. The restriction would occur because of not grading in that area. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is the full 50 feet granted in that area? Someone from the audience said VDOT does have the full 50 feet. Ms. Tucker said this is strictly consideration of the canopy that this section of the road provides to the river. She does not know if Mr. Hirschman has an opinion about this stretch of road, but the river does set far below the road on that side, and there will still be well-established vegetation left beyond the cut. Mr. Hirschman said he is not familiar with the section being discussed, but he will go out and assess it and if there is anyway to eliminate or reduce impacts, those are the things that will be recommended to VDOT. He does not believe what he has heard tonight is a "road block". Mrs. Thomas said if Ms. Tucker leaves this meeting with the statement that she gave that the road will be paved, and it will be done in coordination with Mr. Hirschman, that meets both the motion passed, as well as the desires of the people in the room. Mrs. Thomas said that is her interpretation. Mr. Perkins said he believes Mrs. Tucker has her "marching orders, so to speak" for work on the road and for work with Mr. Hirschman, He declared Mr. Marshall's motion dead for lack of a second. Mr. Marshall said he accom- plished what he started out to do. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1.1, 5.1.2 and 5.1.a on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Item 5.1.1. Appropriation: Pay and Classification Study (Form #95024) in the amount of $50,000. Staff noted that the subcommittee formed by the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to manage the pay, classification and performance evaluation review has developed a "short list" to begin negotiations to engage a consul- tant to perform the necessary evaluation. The firm of Hendricks and Associ- ates has been ranked as the number one proposer and negotiations for the final price of the work will be done soon. Staff estimates this work to cost $50,000, and an appropriation of that amount is needed. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was approved. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95024 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100012030312700 REVENUE 2100051000510100 FUNDING FOR COMPENSATION STUDY DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL-CONSULTANTS TOTAL DESCRIPTION GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $50,000.00 $50,000.00 AMOUNT $50,000.00 $50,000.00 000291 September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 8) Item 5.1.2. Appropriation: Education Division (Form #95025) in the amount of $26,469.14. Staff noted that the School Board, at its meeting on August 28, 1995, approved a request to fund a one-time payment to teachers who were adversely affected by the salary scale revision. The School Board agreed to pay teachers (steps 3, 9 and 12) a one-time payment of 33 percent of the differ- ence between the FY 1994-95 and the FY 1995-96 scale. The total cost of this payment is $26,469.14 including FICA. The payment will be made to the affected teachers in the December, 1995 payroll. A transfer of this amount needs to be approved from the School Board's Reserve Account. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was approved. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95025 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR TEACHERS AFFECTED BY THE SALARY SCALE REVISION EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1210061101112100 1210061101210000 1210061102112100 1210061102210000 1210061103112100 1210061103210000 1210061104112100 1210061104210000 1210061320112200 1210061320210000 1210061108112100 1210061108210000 1210061211112300 1210061211210000 1243293010939999 1241090610999981 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SALARY-TEACHER $18,479.00 FICA 1,413.64 SALARY-TEACHER 2,996.71 FICA 229.25 SALARY-TEACHER 197.00 FICA 15e07 SALARY-TEACHER 465.50 FICA 35.61 SALARY-TEACHER 78.80 FICA 6.03 SALARY-TEACHER 231.00 FICA 17.67 SALARY-TEACHER 231.00 FICA 17.67 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS 2,055.59 SCHOOL BOARD RESERVE (26,469.54) 1310161101112100 1310161101210000 SALARY-TEACHER 598.00 FICA 45.75 1320161102112100 1320161102210000 SALARY-TEACHER 598.00 FICA 45.75 1320261102112100 1320261102210000 SALARY-TEACHER 598.00 FICA 45.75 1320561108112100 1320561108210000 SALARY-TEACHER 115.50 FICA 8.84 TOTAL $2,055.59 REVENUE 2310151000512001 2320151000512001 2320251000512001 2320551000512001 DESCRIPTION CHAPTER I-TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND CBIP-TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND E.D.-TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND PRESCHOOL-TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $643.75 643.75 643.75 124.34 $2,055.59 Item 5.la. Batesville Ruritan Club, letter of support for. Staff noted that the Board has been approached by Mr. John K. Pollock, President of the Batesville Ruritan Club, asking for the Board's assistance in their planning to bring a public recreation facility to Batesville, specifically requesting the Board's concurrence in the need for such recreational facilities and the Board's endorsement of this project. By the recorded vote set out above, a letter of support, to be signed by the Chairman, was approved. Item 5.2. Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies (on file in the Clerk's Office), was received as information. Item 5.3. July 1995 Operating Results of Acme Design Technology, Co. (on file in the Clerk's Office), was received as information. Item 5.4. Copy of Order Accepting Surrender of Exemption for Project No. 9805-001, Rockfish Corporation, from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dated August 28, 1995, was received as information. 000292 September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 9) It was stated in the order that on July 20, 1995, Rockfish Corporation, exemptee for the proposed Woolen Mills Hydroelectric Project No. 9805, filed an application to surrender its exemption which was issued May 21, 1987, for this project. The project would have been located on the Rivanna River in Albemarle County and would have developed an installed capacity of 240 kilowatts. Item 5.5. Copy of minutes of the Planning Commission for August 8, 1995, received as information° Item 5.6. New High School Design Charrette. Staff noted that there is on-going planning regarding sustainability issues related to the new high school; what a sustainability design and cost- related implications might mean for the new facility. Forwarded was a listing of upcoming meeting dates and basic background information regarding the process. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-95-18. Benny Thacker. 1995.) Dropped from the agenda. (Deferred from August 9, Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-23. Mark & Vickie Gresge. Public Hearing on a request to establish 25 seat restaurant on approx 6 acs zoned RA. Property, Woodstock Hall, located on S sd of Rt 637 approx 400 ft E of Rt 708. TM73, P33A. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 28 and September 4, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 8, 1995, unanimously recommended approval of the petition subject to the six conditions recommended by staff, plus No. 7 reading: "Wedding receptions or similar functions may be allowed subject to approval and conditions estab- lished by the Zoning Administrator. No amplified sound will be allowed." Mrs. Humphris remarked that Condition No. 7 does not specifically refer to outdoor functions. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission raised the issue of how Woodstock Hall would be affected if they wanted to have outdoor functions. If these were held on a continuous basis, the Zoning Administrator might not allow them as a temporary use. This condition was added to say that these functions are allowed. The Zoning Administrator has to review the requests but does not have to bring them to the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if it is understood that No. 7 refers to "outdoor" functions. Mr. Cilimberg said that is what the Planning Commission meant to do, but the condition can be clarified. Mrs. Thomas questioned a statement in the Planning Commission's minutes where it states: "Staff confirmed that extra lighting would require amendment to the site plan" and then the next sentence says "A site plan will not be required." Mr. Cilimberg said a site plan already exists for Woodstock Hall, but this use does not necessitate an amendment to that plan, however, if extra lighting is needed, that would require amendment to that plan. The public hearing was opened. The applicants were present to answer questions. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-95-23, with the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, but adding the word "outdoor" to Condition No. 7. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below°) 1) Use shall not commence until such time as approval has been obtained from the Health Department and the Building Official; 2) Use shall not commence until such time as the parking area has been improved in accord with the provisions of section 4.12.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3) Use shall not commence until such time as the Zoning Administrator has determined that adequate parking exists; 4) Use is limited to a twenty-five (25) seat restaurant and four (4) rooms for overnight travellers; 5) Structure is to be restored and maintained in the architectural character of the period, in accordance with the guidelines estab- lished by the National Register of Historic Places; September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 10) 6)All signage is to be of a design appropriate to the architecture of the building; 7) Outdoor wedding receptions or similar functions may be allowed subject to approval and conditions established by the Zoning Administrator. No amplified sound will be allowed. Agenda Item No. 8. Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Bond Issue. Resolution ratifying the filing of an application to the VPSA. Mr. Tucker said funding for the FY 1995-96 Capital Improvement Budget anticipated the issuance of $7,853,335 in bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects. Participation in the bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of Supervisors to pass a resolution authorizing application to the VPSA. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE FILING OF AN APPLICA- TION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $7,850,000 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"), in collaboration with the County School Board, has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake capital improvements for its public school system; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA: 1. The application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a loan in an approximate amount of $7,850,000 to finance capital improvements for its public school system is hereby ratified. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the other officers of the County and the County School Board in completing and filing such application are hereby approved and ratified. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Agenda Item No. 9. Set public hearing on renewal of lease with the Crossroads-Waldorf School. Mr. Tucker noted that in July of 1991, the County entered into a lease with the Crossroads-Waldorf School to use property known as Old Crozet School located across from the new school on Route 810. This lease expires at midnight on July 14, 1996. The tenant has expressed an interest in renewing the lease under similar terms as the original lease. Staff feels having the building occupied and used on a daily basis is in the best interest of upkeep on the facility. The Board's Building Committee and staff recommend that the Board hold the required public hearing to consider renewing the lease under conditions outlined in the staff's report. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set October 4, 1995, as the date for a public hearing on this request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Batesville Ruritan Club, letter of support for. (Note: This item had been moved to the Consent Agenda.) Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 1993; March 15(N), June 28 and August 9, 1995. Mr. Martin had~read June 28, 1995, and found them to be acceptable. Mr. Marshall had read June 2, 1993, pages 25 (#14b) to page 39 (#20), and found them to be acceptable. Mr. Marshall had read August 9, 1995, and found them to be acceptable. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve those minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:. O007.94 September 13, 1995 (Night Meeting) (Page 11) AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the letter of commendation from Mr. Delmas A. Manley about officer John P. Gephardt to Police Chief Miller. At 8:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-334(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion issues. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. At 9:03 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session, and mo%ion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to September 19, 1995, 7:30 P.M., for a meeting with Charlottesville City Council. With no further business to come before the Board, mo%ion was immedi- ately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seco~de~ by Mrs. HUmphris, to adjourn this meeting until September 19, 1995, at 7:30 P.M., to meet at the Library for a meeting with City Council to discuss reversion issues. Roll was called~ and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.