Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-12-09December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) M.B. 43, Pg. 47 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 9, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. and Mr. Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; 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. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve items 5.10 through 5.12, and to accept items 5.1 through 5.8 on the consent agenda as information. Item 5.9 is to be discussed later during the meeting. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November 17 and November 24, 1992, were received for information. Item 5.2. Copy of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority Board of Directors minutes for October 26, 1992, was received for information. Item 5.3. Monthly Bond and Program Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for October, 1992, was received for information. Item 5.4. Copy of letter dated November 23, 1992, from the Honorable George Allen, Member of Congress, to Mr. James Ridenour, Director, National Park Service, expressing opposition to closing of portions of Shenandoah National Park beginning December 1, 1992, was received as information. Item 5.5. Memorandum dated November 25, 1992, from the Department of Taxation, Railroad & Pipeline Appraisal Section, Office of Taxpayer Services, re: CSX Transportation, Inc., and Richmond Fredericksburg & Potomac Railway Co., v. William H. Forst, Tax Commissioner, Virginia Department of Taxation, His Successors in Office, contesting the "1992 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies", was received as information. Item 5.6. Background Information on Route 678 Improvements, received December 3, 1992, from the County Executive's office, was received for information as follows: "VDoT recently held a public hearing on proposed improvements to Route 678 and its intersections with Route 250 West in Ivy. The attached information (on file) provides some history on this project and is provided for your information in anticipation of questions/comments from residents prior to VDoT's recommendations coming to the Board." Item 5.7. October, 1992, Financial Management Report, was received as information. Item 5.8. Letter dated December 4, 1992, from Mr. Leo J. Bevon, Director, Department of Rail and Public Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, re: Public Transportation Funding for Fiscal Year 1994, was received as information. December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) M.B. 43, Pg. 48 Item 5.9. Letter dated November 25, 1992, from Mr. Ray D. Pethtel, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Transportation, re: replacement of substandard bridge at Millington on Route 671. Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be discussed later during the agenda. Item 5.10. Resolution requesting acceptance of roads in the Highlands at Mechums River iA into the State Secondary System of Highways. This resolution was occasioned by a letter dated October 22, 1992, from Mr. Hunter Craig, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc., requesting Highlands Drive be accepted into the Virginia Department of Transportation's road system. The following resolution was adopted, by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Highlands at Mechums River iA: Hiqhlands Drive: Beginning at Station 10+06.90, a point common with the edge of pavement of U. S. Route 240 and the centerline of Highlands Drive, thence extending 2140.10 feet to Station 31+47, the end of the Highlands Drive cul-de-sac included in this dedication. Stations are as shown on the as-built road plans for section iA dated November 3, 1989, and last revised July 28, 1992. Grassy Knoll Road Beginning at Station 10+10 of Grassy Knoll Road, a point common with the edge of pavement of Highlands Drive at Station 26+78.89, thence extending 285 feet to Station 12+95, the end of the Grassy Knoll Road cul-de-sac included in this dedication. Stations cited are as represented on the as-built road plans for section IA dated November 3, 1989, and last revised July 28, 1992. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 75 foot unobstructed right-of-way for Highlands Drive from station 10+06.90 to station 13+85.39, and 50 feet for all other road sections, and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1176, pages 0344 to 0357. Item 5.11. Request for amended resolution requesting acceptance of roads in Willoughby Section IV into the State Secondary System of Highways. The revision inserts language already agreed to by the Board concerning sidewalks in Willoughby. The following resolution was adopted, by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-229, the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Willoughby Section IV: Beginning at Station 0+20, a point common with the centerline of Harris Road and the end of previous dedication, thence in a southerly direction 222.09 feet to station 2+42.09, the end of this dedication. Beginning at Station 0+17, a point common with the centerline of Fielding Drive and the edge of pavement of Harris Road, thence in an easterly direction 676.64 feet to station 6+93.64, the end of the cul-de-sac. Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the centerline of Chandler Court and the edge of pavement of Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 380.02 feet to station 3+93.02, the end of the cul-de-sac. Beginning at Station 0+13, a point common with the centerline of Towler Court and the edge of pavement of Fielding Drive, thence in a northerly direction 192 feet to station 2+05, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 49 (Page 3) right-of-way for Harris Road; Fielding Drive, Chandler Court and Towler Court have variable rights-of-way of 50 feet and 45 feet, and drainage easements along these requested additions are recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 858, pages 704 to 707 and Deed Book 1145, page 499. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle hereby guarantees to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) that the sidewalks within the right-of-way of the above named streets will be maintained to the satisfaction of VDoT at no cost to VDoT. Item 5.12. Statements of Expenses to the State Compensation Board from the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Regional Jail, for the month of November, 1992, were approved, as presented, by the vote set out above. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-92-63. 1781 Productions, Ltd (applicant) Dr. William Orr (owner). Public Hearing on request for an outdoor theater of approx 2000 seats on 63.045 acs zoned RA. Property on W side of Milton Rd (Rt 729) approx 0.4 mi S of N Milton Rd & Milton Rd (Rt 729/Rt 732). Scottsville Dist. (Applicant requested indefinite deferral.) Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to defer SP-92-63, for 1781 Productions, Ltd., to February 17, 1993. Mr. Marshall said he met with Mr. McRaven and, even though the applicant is requesting an indefinite proposal, he informed him that there would be no circumstances under which he could support this request. He thinks Mr. McRaven is planning to withdraw this application and is presently looking for another location. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-92-61. Charlottesville Cellular Part (applicant) Henry Chiles & Virginia Chiles Kaith (owner). Public Hearing on a request to replace existing communication tower on 209.90 acs zoned P~A. Property located on Castle Rock Mountain. TM97,P16. Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24, 1992 and December 1, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 150 foot private communication tower with a new 150 foot tower for transmission and reception of cellular and microwave radio signals. There will be a minor realignment of an existing right-of-way, construction of a concrete foundation and a 12 x 20 foot transmitter building. After initial construction, access to the tower will average one trip per month. The tower will be designed to accommodate a total of at least four users one of which is the present user. No "strobe" type lighting of the tower is proposed and F. C. C. authorization has been obtained. Staff recommends approval of SP-92-61, subject to the following conditions: 4 o Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet; The existing tower shall be removed; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network of system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency; Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord with plan dated August 20, 1992, by Balzer and Associates in this report (on file). Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 17, 1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-61 subject to the conditions recommended by staff and an amended condition number six as follows: Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and Associates in this report (on file) and administrative approval of erosion control plan, if applicable. December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) M.B. 43, Pg. 50 Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission also noted that although the sketch plan indicates only 7500 square feet of area would be disturbed, the County Engineer believes the project may actually result in over 10,000 square feet of disturbed area. Should the applicant violate the 10,000 square foot limit, this amended condition lets him know that he must comply with erosion and sedimentation regulations. Mr. Bain asked how long the existing tower had been on the property. Mr. Perkins said 25 years. Mr. Bain asked why staff did not recommend no lighting as a condition. The applicant can always come back to the Board with a request if lighting is necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said condition number five could be amended to state no lighting. Mr. Cilimberg said lighting is not required at this point and would only be allowed if a federal agency were to require it. Mr. Bowerman then opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Carter, representing the applicant, said the F. C. C. and F. A. A. does not require the tower to be lighted. The structure closes to the tower is approximately 14,000 feet. The tower is to be located on the top of a mountain. The applicant is in agreement with the staff report and does not feel the tower will impact the area. This request, if approved, will improve cellular telephone service. The tower is designed to accommodate additional users. An engineer from Cellular One, is present and would be happy to answer any questions Board members may have. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bain said he has no problems with supporting the request, but would like to delete the words "unless required by a federal agency" from condition five. There was no opposition from Board members. Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-92-61 subject to the following conditions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin· The conditions of approval for SP-92-61 are as follows: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet; 2. The existing tower shall be removed; Staff approval of additional antennae installations. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower antenna, etc., even if they may be part of the same network of system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; 4. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5. There shall be no lighting of the tower; and Administrative approval of sketch plan in general accord with plan dated August 20, 1992 by Balzer and Associates (on file) and administrative approval of erosion control plan, if applicable. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-91-57. First Gold Leaf Land Trust. Public Hearing on request to establish outdoor display & storage of autos on 7.08 ac zoned HC & EC. Property on E side of Seminole Traile (Rt 29) approx 0.2 mi S of inters of Rt 29 & Carrsbrook Dr. TM45,P'slll,lllA&lllB. Charlottesville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 24, 1992 and December 1, 1992.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent records of the Board. The applicant is proposing to develop an auto dealership on the site. A site plan for development accompanies the special use permit and has been submitted and reviewed by the Site Review Committee. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) has not reviewed the latest revised plan but has reviewed the use. Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial of SP-91-57. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 17, 1992, unanimously recommended denial of SP-91-57. Mr. Bowerman asked if there is fill activity going off of this site. Mr. Cilimberg responded "yes." Mr. Bowerman asked how much outdoor parking was shown on the first plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the total customer parking was 25 and display lots were approximately 125. December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) M.B. 43, Pg. 5! (Page 5) Mr. Marshall asked why this request was before the Board since the property is zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and has certain by-right uses on this property. Mr. Bowerman said the only reason this request is before the Board is because it is a request for an outdoor display in an entrance corridor and requires a special use permit. Mr. Marshall asked what uses could be put on this property. Mr. Cilimberg said there are a number of uses such as hotels. None of the uses allow outdoor storage or display. All uses are subject to ARB review. Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. David Walsh, representing the applicant, said the applicant has tried to work with County staff and the residents to come up with a good plan. The applicant feels he has gone the extra mile to compromise on this proposal. On December 8, 1991, before this request went to the Commission, the applicant sent the plan to the adjacent property owners and asked for comments. He has met with some of the adjacent owners and walked over the site with them. The applicant has been able to reach a compromise with the Albemarle County Service Authority. This request has come before the Board five times. The first time, the applicant thought there would be a recommendation from the Board so he prepared a simple plan. The ARB, at that time, did not even want to review the plan because it felt it was incomplete and needed more site information. The next time the ARB saw the plan, it decided not to make a recommendation and forwarded the plan to this Board. The Board returned the plan t the ARB and asked for a recommendation. On March 31, 1992, the applicant again submitted a plan to the ARB. A lot of site issues were discussed. The applicant made the changes the ARB requested and resubmitted a new site plan. At the ARB's meeting on March 4, 1992, the ARB requested several other major alterations to the site plan. Again, the applicant made the alterations and resubmitted another site plan on September 15, 1992. The ARB then raised more concerns. It seemed the applicant kept changing the site plan, but was not getting anywhere. The ARB then asked for more detailed information; information prior to the special use permit that the applicant felt was premature. There would have been a lot of engineering involved. A plan was then resubmitted to the ARB and the site was not considered. The ARB looked at the proposal from a general standpoint and made a recommendation. Mr. Walsh feels that the ARB has not been acting in good faith. He feels that the applicant was led around for no reason and this determination could have been made with the information that was first presented. Everyone else has agreed to compromise except the ARB. The adjacent property owners have been offered a compromise, but have not notified the applicant as to whether they will accept the offer. The applicant has tried to compromise in every possible instance. Mr. Bowerman said this plan before the Board shows a major increase in the number of outdoor spaces as compared to the first plan. Mr. Walsh said the adjacent property owners have never told the applicant what changes they would agree to. He feels the property owners would like to see the project done away with altogether. Mr. Bowerman asked if tripling the outdoor display is consistent with trying to meet the needs and concerns of the property owners. Mr. Walsh said the buffering around the property has been increased. Mr. Frank Rice, a resident of Carrsbrook and President of Carrsbrook Neighborhood Association, said he submitted a letter to the Board regarding this request (on file). The initial difference between the plan the Board is considering and the one considered last year is the vast increased size of the project. The slope is greater than it was last year and can only intensify the problems and concerns which were considered by the Board. The primary reason that SP-91-57 is before this Board is because the plan entails significant outdoor display. The plan last year provided for a total of 159 parking places, whereas the revised plan calls for 473 parking places. He feels the total area to be developed is insane; it went from 2.4 acres of impervious coverage to over 3.5 acres of impervious coverage. This is almost exactly a 50 percent increase of impervious coverage and nearly a 200 percent increase in the outdoor display area. As outdoor display was a matter of concern last year, in the light of the significant increase, certainly, it is of greater concern now. Mr. Tice said the enormous scope of the plan and what it entails will require massive cut and fill. The entire site will be reconstructed with the obvious aesthetical results and destruction of everything in the area and complete change. The request will have a negative impact on wetlands, sewage disposal, drainage, disposal of chemical wastes, light, noise and intrusion into the neighborhoods. All of these things will exist and will be exaggerated because of the increased size of the fill operation. All of this has been discussed in letters submitted to this Board, the Planning Commission and the ARB last year. Any construction done on this particular site will adversely impact the wetlands, streams and ponds that are downstream from the site where the development would occur. Construction in an area, this close to a residential area will inevitably destroy the ponds. VDoT has an easement on this property and if it takes a portion of this site, that would diminish the amount of land that could be used as a buffer to screen the highway from the outdoor car display. Mr. rice said the lot immediately to the north of the proposed site, and adjacent to Route 29 North, is zoned by the commercial office (CO), but is December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) M.B. 43, Pg. 52 protected by Carrsbrook deed restrictions which has it deeded as residential. The property will remain residential. There will be a massive excavation process carved out which will completely destroy the existing terrain, topography, trees, brush, shrubs, etc. This is aesthetically disastrous. It would be a detriment to Carrsbrook residents to approve this request. The proposed development would also involve radical, aesthetical damage that would change the character of the district. The proposed development would not be in harmony with the Zoning Ordinance which calls for design to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community. The proposed development would require 3.5 acres of asphalt covered with 473 used cars, in full view of Route 29 North, it would not be in harmony with the uses permitted by-right in the EC district and would be inconsistent with the rational behind provisions of the EC district. This proposal is not in the general welfare of the public. Mr. Rice asked all persons present who were in agreement with his statement to stand. Everyone present stood. Mr. Marshall asked if the residents would be opposed to some other business put on this property such as McDonalds. Mr. Rice said the residents would have no right to be opposed to that because it would be by-right. The residents want to make sure their concerns and interests are considered. Mr. Bowerman asked if the residents object to the scale of this proposed development rather than the specific use of outdoor display. Mr. Rice said the residents object to the outdoor display and the problems associated with the presence of 473 cars. This project would require massive earth moving. This project would virtually destroy the ponds that exist in the eastern portion of Carrsbrook. Mr. Bowerman commented that it is quite possible that a by-right use would entail as much earth moving as the proposal before the Board tonight. In that regard, the affect on the Carrsbrook and Woodbrook communities could also be quite massive. Mr. Rice said the residents know what damage this plan would do. The residents would, in principle, object to any project that would adversely affect the communities in which they live. This proposal does give them the legal forum and they have the opportunity to ask this Board to deny the request because of its adverse impact to the residents of Carrsbrook and Woodbrook, as well as the negative aesthetic impact it would have on the County at-large. This is the sole remaining wooded area south of the Rivanna River on Route 29 North that breaks up all of the commercial development. Mr. Don Swofford, a resident of 321 Dover Road, said he has lived in Carrsbrook for six years and has been an architect for 20 years. He thinks the proposal before the Board tonight is a good example of how the ARB is working for the County. All of the comments that Mr. Rice has made, the comments from the ARB and from citizens of the County indicate that there is something special here in the County that should be protected. By-right there are alternatives and there is a way to develop the site. Mr. Jim Mooney, a resident of Woodbrook Subdivision, said it has been approximately a year since this request last came before this Board, at which time, residents of Woodbrook and Carrsbrook raised a lot of issues. The residents do not want to see this project developed on this site. This is not to say that the residents would be opposed to something being put here, but they are against the scale of this development. Looking through the Planning files he found that the first submission for this request asked for 66 parking spaces and the request is now seven times that size. Secondly, the residents are against the damage this project will cause. Over the years there have been continuous problems with the lakes in Carrsbrook. The residents are also against this proposal because of the scope of this development and the tremendous paving. Mr. Mooney then discussed sewage system problems that are on-going in Woodbrook. This proposal will only add to those problems. He urged the Board to deny the request. There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was closed at 8:13 p.m. Mr. Bowerman said he was at the ARB meeting when this issue was discussed. He explained to the Board how he felt the ARB arrived at its decision. He agrees with the ARB's recommendation and will not support the request. Mr. Bain said he thinks the magnitude of the proposal is the real issue. This is a commercial use and he feels it can be done to accommodate the property owner and give him a return on his investment while also accommodating the residents and the entrance corridor. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the adjacent property owners. This Board must protect the adjacent property owners. That is what the ARB is doing and he agrees with Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Humphris made motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to deny SP-91-57. Mr. Bain said he will support the motion, but his vote is specifically limited to the aesthetic considerations set out in the ordinance. There bein9 no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) M.B. 43, Pg. 53 AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 9. Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Children and Families. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: "BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families, passed by the 1992 General Assembly, will restructure the way certain public social services are funded and delivered, starting July 1, 1993. It is intended to simplify funding and increase interagency collaboration in providing services. DISCUSSION: Nine separate funding sources, presently allocated to four different public agencies (Social Services, Mental Health, Juvenile Court Services Units, and public schools), will be combined into a single State pool and allocated to local governments under a new formula. Local matching funds will be based on the JLARC 'ability to pay' formula in use for the Health Department. A State Trust Fund has also been created to provide 'seed money' for new services in some local communities to be awarded starting January 1, 1993, on a competitive proposal basis. Albemarle and Charlottesville have submitted a grant proposal for $300,000. Spending these funds will become the responsibility of a Community Policy and Management Team, an interagency group to be appointed by the local governing body. Each local governing body is required to certify to the state that it is in compliance with the requirements of the Act. The certification is in two parts, the first of which must be provided by January 1, 1993, in order for a locality to accept a Trust Fund Grant, if it is offered one. Part 2 is due by May 1 and is required to receive the initial State pool allocation on July 1st. The Act encourages inter-jurisdictional collaboration and allows localities to decide whether to implement the Act individually or together or with other jurisdictions. The County and the City of Charlottesville already have a cooperative interagency service system for youth and families called the Charlottesville-Albemarle Interagency Network (CHAIN), established in 1989, which is nearly identical to what is required by the Act. Therefore, staff is recommending that the County and City certify as a multi- jurisdictional district to continue this collaborative relationship. City Council is expected to vote on this on Monday, December 7, 1992. RECOMMENDATION: Part 1 certification for the Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth and Families has four components requiring action by local governing bodies. Establish Jurisdictional boundaries. The locality must specify whether it will be a single or multi-jurisdictional district for implementing the Act. Certifying as a multi- jurisdictional district means that one Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) will be appointed to represent multiple localities in the planning and delivery of services. Staff recommendation: Certify that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville will cooperate as a multi- jurisdictional district. Desiqnate fiscal aqent. Multi-jurisdictional districts must designate a single fiscal agent to receive and audit state funds under the Act. Each locality's state pool allocation would still be accounted for separately. Staff recommendation: Certify the City of Charlottesville's Director of Finance as fiscal agent. Desiqnate leqal counsel. The Act requires that local governments designate legal counsel to support the work of the CPMT. Staff recommendation: Certify Charlottesville's City Attorney as legal counsel. ApDoint the Community Policy and Manaqement Team (CPMT}. The Act requires that the directors (or their designees) of five public agencies be appointed. These persons are December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) M.B. 43, Pg. 54 already serving as the Administrative Team of CHAIN, and staff recommends they be appointed to the CPMT. Department of Social Services: Karen L. Morris, Director (the City of Charlottesville will appoint its Social Services Director) Community Services Board: James R. Peterson, Executive Director Juvenile Court Services Unit: Martha D. Carroll, Director Local school division: Thomas F. Nash, Director of Instructional Services (the City of Charlottesville will appoint its school representative) Department of Health: Susan L. McLeod, Director The Act also requires that a parent and a representative of private agency service providers be appointed. Staff recommends the following appointments: Janet Royal, Albemarle County parent (a City of Charlottesville parent will also be appointed) Catherine J. Bodkin, Executive Director, Family Service, Inc. Co-Chair, Interagency Council, Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission The Act allows for appointment of other discretionary representatives to the Team. Staff may recommend additional appointments at a later time." Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Martin discussed this issue with him and expressed support of all the recommendations. Mr. Perkins made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve staff's recommendations, which are set out in full below. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, None. Mr. Martin. Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. Certified that Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville will cooperate as a multi-jurisdictional district. Certified the City of Charlottesville's Director of Finance as fiscal agent. Certified Charlottesville's City Attorney as legal counsel. Appointed Karen Morris, Director, Department of Social Services; James R. Peterson, Executive Director, Community Services Board; Martha D. Carroll, Director, Juvenile Court Services Unit; Thomas F. Nash, Director of Instructional Services, Local School Division; and Susan L. McLeod, Director, Department of Health as the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT). Appointed Jane Royal, Albemarle County parent and Catherine J. Bodkin, Executive Director, Family Services, Inc., Co- Chair, Interagency Council, Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission as required by the Act that a parent and representative of private agency service providers be appointed. Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution Supporting Increase in Stipend for School Board Chairperson. Mr. Tucker gave the following staff report: "BACKGROUND: In response to the Board's request at the December 2 meeting, compensation for School Board members, including a stipend for the Chairperson, is set solely by State Code, Section 22.1-32. The statute enables any school board 'after passage of an appropriate resolution by the governing body' to pay the chairperson an additional salary not to exceed $1100. Prior to a 1989 amendment, the limit on the stipend was $500. If approved, the resolution below will give the School Board the authority to raise the level of the stipend. It does not require any action at the County ordinance level. The additional stipend December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) M.B. 43, Pg. 55 for the Planning Commission Chairperson is set by County Ordinance and is currently set at $1200. RECO~2~ENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution." Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the School Board of Albemarle County to grant unto its Chairman an additional salary up to the maximum of $1100.00 per year as allowed by Virginia Code Section 22.1-32(C), effective as of January 1, 1993. Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: January 22, 1992. Mr. Marshall read the minutes of January 22, 1992, pages 11 to end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes of January 22, 1992, pages 11 to end. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker announced that Mr. Bob McKinley had been hired as Recycling Coordinator. This is a temporary position for approximately one year. Mr. Tucker said he received a phone call from Mr. Jim Campbell, Executive Director of VACo. Mr. Campbell indicated that there was an opening on the Public Safety Steering Committee for Region IV and asked if anyone on the Board would be interested in filling that vacancy. There was a CONSENSUS of the Board that Mr. Tucker serve on VACo's Public Safety Steering Committee for Region IV. Mr. Tucker announced that Skyline Drive will remain open. Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to reappoint Mr. W. Ivar Mawyer to the Equalization Board for calendar year 1993. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Mr. Bain asked Board members to participate in a tour of Waynesboro's bailing and solid waste operation to be set for January, 1993. Mr. Perkins announced that Westvaco is building a $75.0 million facility in Covington to handle recycled fiber that will go into the paper making process. There was a consensus of the Board to wait and see what happens with the Millington Bridge project (Item 5.9 on the Consent Agenda). Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session: Personnel, Legal Matters and Sale/Acquisition of Property. At 9:50 p.m., Mr. Bain made motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to into executive session under Sections 2.1-3~4.A.1, 2.1-344.A.3 and 2.1- 344.A.7. Mr. Bowerman said he will vote on the executive session, but because of a conflict of interest he will not participate in the discussion of the McIntire Land Trust since he is an interested party. December 9, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting) 54.B, 56 (Page 10) There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. At 10:50 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and adopted the following Certification of Executive Meeting. MOTION: Mr. Bain SECOND: Mrs. Humphris MEETING DATE: December 9, 1992 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. NAYS: None. [For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the requirements of the Act should be described.] ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Martin. ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to December 11, 1992, 12:00 Noon, McIntire Room at the Library, for a joint meeting with City Council. At 10:52 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adjourn to December 11, 1992, 12:00 Noon, McIntire Room at the Library for a joint meeting with City Council.